ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Bose-Einstein condensates , cold fusion , Coulomb barrier , Eugene Podkletnov , Frank Znidarsic , planck's constant , quantum mechanics , quantum theory , Quantum Transition

Reply
Old 5th February 2011, 08:15 PM   #321
Chronopolitan
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 48
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
Wrong, this is a common misconception. You neglect to take into account the expansion of spacetime since the big bang, so the distance this light has traveled is actually closer to 46 billion LY
That's why I said "minus the horizon"... anyway, this applies to every POV in the universe, and there is no "center", I think?
Beyond spacetime (where no universe has gone before )) there is ....nothing? The future? We can think about it, but it doesn't exist.

Anyway, if we argue from a "conciousness of now" POV, there is no space as it is already in the past, even when you watch your hand you are experiencing the past because the signals have to travel to your brain first.
The future also does not exist (yet).
The moment you are experiencing as NOW is already gone.
So there is no past (it's in its nature... it's already gone), no future (not yet) and no NOW.

But conciousness is not a physics realm. (Although people like Brian Josephson and Roger Penrose seem to work on it ;-))

As for FZ: it seems there's a lot to do for him...

Still, I think I know what he wants.

It's like stimulating a glass with the right frequency to make it break.
My question: do you need more or less energy to break a glass using sound than using your hand?
Or maybe let's switch to a bridge collapsing due to unfortunate stimulation.
If we could do that to an atom, it might help fusion to occur...
Chronopolitan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2011, 11:54 PM   #322
khan2012
New Blood
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 21
Chronopolitan, phonons do not appear to be required for the phenomena of high-temp superconductivity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-te...y_and_progress

Quote:

In a conventional superconductor, Cooper pairs are created as follows. When an electron moves through the system, it creates a depression in the atomic lattice through lattice vibrations known as phonons. If the depression of the lattice is strong enough, another electron can fall into the depression created by the first electron—the so-called water-bed effect—and a Cooper pair is formed. When this effect becomes strong enough, Cooper pairs win over the creation of holes behind the electrons, and the normal conductor turns into a superconductor through an unlimited supply of electrons by the creation of Cooper pairs.

In a high-Tc superconductor, the mechanism is extremely similar to a conventional superconductor.Except, in this case, phonons virtually play no role and their role is replaced by spin-density waves. As all conventional superconductors are strong phonon systems, all high-Tc superconductors are strong spin-density wave systems, within close vicinity of a magnetic transition to, for example, an antiferromagnet. When an electron moves in a high-Tc superconductor, its spin creates a spin-density wave around it. This spin-density wave in turn causes a nearby electron to fall into the spin depression created by the first electron (water-bed effect again). Hence, again, a Cooper pair is formed. Eventually, when the system temperature is lowered, more spin density waves and Cooper pairs are created and superconductivity begins when an unlimited supply of Cooper pairs, denoted as a phase transition, happens. Note that in high-Tc systems, as these systems are magnetic systems due to the Coulomb interaction, there is a strong Coulomb repulsion between electrons. This Coulomb repulsion prevents pairing of the Cooper pairs on the same lattice site. The pairing of the electrons occur at near-neighbor lattice sites as a result. This is the so-called d-wave pairing, where the pairing state has a node (zero) at the origin.
khan2012 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2011, 05:14 AM   #323
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
Well, how about this one:

We are able to see about 13.700.000.000 lightyears into space.
That accounts for every direction.
We are at the center of a sphere with that radius.
This distance equals the distance light has traveled after the "Big Bang" (minus the horizon we cannot look behind)
That's what people say.

So, NOW is on earth, the rest is the past.

From "outside" (which doesn't exist), the universe started as a singularity (where laws are not applicable) then created spacetime and expanded rapidly since. From "outside", NOW is at the edge of the expanding universe.

It is not possible to take on both views at the same time unless you consider both the edge of the universe and its center the same.... point.

A point without a reference frame does not exist unless it's a singularity.

Therefore, there is only singularity. (Which can be interpreted as... let's say, G*D).
Excuse me, this is another derial of this thread, please stop this. If you wish to bring this up, start a new thread.

I would address your strawmen and errors but I will not contribute to your derail.

Start new threads rather than throwing in irrelevant topics please.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2011, 06:24 PM   #324
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
That's why I said "minus the horizon"... anyway, this applies to every POV in the universe, and there is no "center", I think?
Beyond spacetime (where no universe has gone before )) there is ....nothing? The future? We can think about it, but it doesn't exist.

Anyway, if we argue from a "conciousness of now" POV, there is no space as it is already in the past, even when you watch your hand you are experiencing the past because the signals have to travel to your brain first.
The future also does not exist (yet).
The moment you are experiencing as NOW is already gone.
So there is no past (it's in its nature... it's already gone), no future (not yet) and no NOW.

But conciousness is not a physics realm. (Although people like Brian Josephson and Roger Penrose seem to work on it ;-))

As for FZ: it seems there's a lot to do for him...

Still, I think I know what he wants.

It's like stimulating a glass with the right frequency to make it break.
My question: do you need more or less energy to break a glass using sound than using your hand?
Or maybe let's switch to a bridge collapsing due to unfortunate stimulation.
If we could do that to an atom, it might help fusion to occur...
*Sigh*

What Dancing David said.
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2011, 02:51 PM   #325
JCM
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 651
Quote:
The variable 1/r remains the same. The strength of the electric field varies with distance r away from the electron
Wrong, the electric field varies as 1/r2 around an electron (or any other point-like source charge).
I thought Lane's youtube video explained why 1/r2 was instead 1/r but I am not sure maybe it is a mistake
__________________
" You are uneasy; you never sailed with me before, I see. " Andrew Jackson

Last edited by JCM; 23rd February 2011 at 02:52 PM.
JCM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2011, 06:35 PM   #326
Simon Bridge
Critical Thinker
 
Simon Bridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 331
Puzzled: I cannot be the first to spot this...

 h=\dfrac {Q^{2}} {4e_{0}v_{t}}

[edit - OK: how do I get fractions to come out?! - hah: needed \dfrac]

Surely everything in this relation is a constant except Q ... doesn't that show right away that the relation is junk? The only way this can be made to work is if the transmission speed is a function of the accumulated charge ...

But even before that point, the equation for the "transmission speed"

v_{t}=f\lambda

... while it is, indeed an equation for a speed (the propagation speed for wave motion), the dimensions for the transmission speed turn out to be frequency-length ... which does not match the RHS which is length-over-time as befits a physical speed. This error junks every equation that follows.

Demand the author balances his equations and sit back - what further discussion is there to be had?

Last edited by Simon Bridge; 23rd February 2011 at 06:46 PM.
Simon Bridge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 08:53 AM   #327
Cuddles
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,560
Originally Posted by Simon Bridge View Post
But even before that point, the equation for the "transmission speed"

v_{t}=f\lambda

... while it is, indeed an equation for a speed (the propagation speed for wave motion), the dimensions for the transmission speed turn out to be frequency-length ... which does not match the RHS which is length-over-time as befits a physical speed. This error junks every equation that follows.
I don't get it. The units of frequency are 1/time, so frequency*length is length/time.
Cuddles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 08:38 AM   #328
fznidarsic
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 6
its 1/rr fpr force


its 1/r for energy Frank Z
fznidarsic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 09:13 AM   #329
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Frank, that is cryptic, how about expanding?
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 09:57 AM   #330
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
I think Frank is just saying that forces drop off from a point source as 1/r^2, and potentials drop off as 1/r.

That said, if someone said "strength of the electric field" I would assume they meant the magnitude of the force per unit charge. I'd consider it wrong to talk of the potential as the strength.
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz
edd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2011, 03:11 AM   #331
eh?
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 37
i tried....I really did, but so many repeated questions, so much 'word salad'.

What about that sound wave inside the nucleus? was that ever pointed out? if sound is a kinetic vibration of gas molecules, how could any sound exist within the nucleus of an atom? There's nothing small enough to vibrate within it. Unless there's some kind of quantum sound I've never heard of.

I'm probably out of my depth.
eh? is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2011, 07:00 PM   #332
Simon Bridge
Critical Thinker
 
Simon Bridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 331
Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
I don't get it. The units of frequency are 1/time, so frequency*length is length/time.
Which is a speed so ... Ah amnday! You are right ... I added that last bit in a bit of a hurry.

And this, kind folks, demonstrates the importance of peer review <ahem>.

Anybody check the first one?
Simon Bridge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2011, 07:11 PM   #333
Simon Bridge
Critical Thinker
 
Simon Bridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 331
Originally Posted by edd View Post
I think Frank is just saying that forces drop off from a point source as 1/r^2, and potentials drop off as 1/r.

That said, if someone said "strength of the electric field" I would assume they meant the magnitude of the force per unit charge. I'd consider it wrong to talk of the potential as the strength.
The "electric field" would be the energy field so that F=qE

It is not unusual to work with the "electric potential" instead, and refer to it, sloppily, as an electric field.

Note that the "strength of the electric field" is often used imprecisely and may refer to the potential (the speaker may give field strength in volts) or the intensity (the square of the field strength.)

In these forums (fora?) we should be aiming for more precision. Deliberate and constant use of ambiguous terms is a good sign of trolls.
Simon Bridge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2011, 07:42 PM   #334
Simon Bridge
Critical Thinker
 
Simon Bridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 331
Originally Posted by eh? View Post
i tried....I really did, but so many repeated questions, so much 'word salad'.

What about that sound wave inside the nucleus? was that ever pointed out? if sound is a kinetic vibration of gas molecules, how could any sound exist within the nucleus of an atom? There's nothing small enough to vibrate within it. Unless there's some kind of quantum sound I've never heard of.

I'm probably out of my depth.
Well, you also get sound in liquids and solids too - no gas involved there. So your idea of what sound is, is not quite complete enough. Also, protons and neutrons are small enough to vibrate inside a nucleus.

There is a liquid-drop model for the nucleus which works quite well.

We would not normally think of these as sound like you can get from sterio speakers ... more as vibrational modes in the LDM. I'd look sideways at suggestions of playing sounds at a bunch of atoms to induce a nuclear reaction through some sort of resonance.
Simon Bridge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2011, 02:14 AM   #335
JCM
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 651
Frank how did your presentation go?
Quote:
3:30 – 5:30PM
OTHER FUTURE ENERGY SOURCES
Chair: Thomas Valone Integrity Research Institute, Beltsville MD 20705, 301-220-0440;
IRI@starpower.net
Co-Chair: Len Danczyk, Energetics Technology, LLC, Santa Barbara, CA 93109-1506, 805-
966-1234; Len@energeticstech.com
4:00-The Flow of Energy (Abstract)
Frank Znidarsic and Glen A Robertson
4:30-Department of Energy (DOE) R&D Programs
Dave Goodwin
Was anyone able to record it or the one after? What did the person speaking after you have to say about your ideas/theory/presentation? Did anyone from JREF view the talk?
__________________
" You are uneasy; you never sailed with me before, I see. " Andrew Jackson

Last edited by JCM; 24th March 2011 at 02:20 AM.
JCM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2011, 07:19 AM   #336
fznidarsic
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 6
The conference went very well a friend made a home quality video of my lecture. Chief Scientists for NASA and the DOE were there.

.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/movies/cofe_3_2011.wmv

add www to the beginning of the link as this site will not allow me to post URL's.

I would like to appear on SCI-FI, however, this is not going to happen. I invite questions and comments.

Frank Znidarsic
fznidarsic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2011, 09:18 AM   #337
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
here you go!
http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/...ofe_3_2011.wmv
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2011, 06:33 PM   #338
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,453
Originally Posted by fznidarsic View Post
The conference went very well a friend made a home quality video of my lecture. Chief Scientists for NASA and the DOE were there.

.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/movies/cofe_3_2011.wmv

add www to the beginning of the link as this site will not allow me to post URL's.

I would like to appear on SCI-FI, however, this is not going to happen. I invite questions and comments.

Frank Znidarsic
The quality of that video is rather low. I assume you had an assistant with a small camcorder shooting it for you. Could you not get a copy of what UMD was recording with its equipment in the back of the room? I got to believe it would be easier to hear whats been said and see the slides.
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2011, 07:12 PM   #339
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by JCM View Post
what I meant was

and that

to get the

equating to the
Equating to gibberish.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2011, 07:15 PM   #340
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Mister Earl View Post
Can you answer my questions without resorting to childish tantrums and personal attacks?
Always the mark of the crank.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2011, 07:19 PM   #341
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
I knew it. Should have placed a bet on that one...
Every truther argument has been totally debunked here.It gets boring. Nothing to do with the topic of the thread.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2011, 07:21 PM   #342
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post


Take it to the 9/11 sub-forum, where a whole bunch of us will be more than happy to explain to you how idiotic the above rant is.

Dave
Again.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2011, 07:22 PM   #343
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
Please explain why there can be gravity from neutrinos.
Lol,you come here pontificating about science and you know nothing about neutrinos.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2011, 12:49 PM   #344
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 21,611
Who were the 'Chief Scientists for NASA and the DOE'?
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2011, 03:51 PM   #345
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Who were the 'Chief Scientists for NASA and the DOE'?
I would make a comment. This "conference" is organized by Glen Robertson, who also coauthored FAZ's talk and two other talks. So this isn't "acceptance into a conference shows that this isn't a crackpot", nor is it even "a crackpot snuck past the conference committee". It's "the conference organizer is a crackpot and invites whoever he wants."

Robertson's fancy-sounding organization, IAS-SPES, appears to be run out of a suburban Alabama home---which, not surprisingly, is also the headquarters of "Gravi Atomic Research". Imagine that! Two independent physics research centers in the same house! IAS-SPES publishes its finances, which consist of nothing but the $44K income from running this conference, minus the $20K expense of running ... this conference. Geez, I wonder what the registration fee was?

It's funny, too, that FAZ's session is chaired by another person affiliated only with an obscure foundation---Valone's "Integrity Research Institute" is, like IAS-SPES, basically a web page's worth of crackpottery ranging from cold-fusion to Tesla to "electrogravitics" (which is what they seem to be calling "lifters".) And the cochair is, amazingly, ANOTHER obscure-foundation affiliate, this time with "Energetics Technology, LLC" whose mission is to apply for grants to study Podkletnov's gravity-shielding.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2011, 08:09 AM   #346
fznidarsic
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 6
Yes the conference had faults

The proceedings of the conference were rejected by the AIP. The conference lost many speakers due to this. Notably Martin Tjimar of the ESU was not there this year. I enjoyed meeting him last year. The natural healing group was invited to make up for the lost presenters. It detracted from the conference.

Never the less it was a place to start looking at ways forward in addressing some of the most difficult problems the confront our society and the planet.

Dave Goodwin Chief Scientist from the DOE was at my lecture. I believe that Chief Scientst Langley of NASA was also there. Dr. George Miley and I met for supper. They all have my papers. Obama wants answers. I gave them one. I hope things start to progress more rapidly.

Tune into my radio show on April 12 for a review of what is going on.


.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chaptere.html

as before add the www

I am trying to make a difference. For those of you who stomp me, Do you have any better ideas?

Frank Znidarsic
fznidarsic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2011, 11:51 AM   #347
Chronopolitan
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 48
New look at THIS!!!

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...our-force.html

"The physics world is buzzing with news of an unexpected sighting at Fermilab's Tevatron collider in Illinois – a glimpse of an unidentified particle that, should it prove to be real, will radically alter physicists' prevailing ideas about how nature works and how particles get their mass."

Maybe we already used this force in "Cold Fusion" or "Anti Gravity"!

Let's hope there's some new inspiration for real physics.
Chronopolitan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2011, 12:01 PM   #348
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
And maybe it will fall out as a new type of a known force, or it won't be replicated. Have you read : Strange Beauty: Murray Gell-Mann and the Revolution in Twentieth-Century Physics ?

It is somewhat sensationalized but it discusses how the process could just involve a new layer to particles.

ETA: the collsion energies at Fermilab are way beyond the energy of possible cold fusion claims.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

Last edited by Dancing David; 7th April 2011 at 12:03 PM.
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2011, 01:29 AM   #349
JCM
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 651
Originally Posted by fznidarsic View Post
The proceedings of the conference were rejected by the AIP. The conference lost many speakers due to this. Notably Martin Tjimar of the ESU was not there this year. I enjoyed meeting him last year. The natural healing group was invited to make up for the lost presenters. It detracted from the conference.

Never the less it was a place to start looking at ways forward in addressing some of the most difficult problems the confront our society and the planet.

Dave Goodwin Chief Scientist from the DOE was at my lecture. I believe that Chief Scientst Langley of NASA was also there. Dr. George Miley and I met for supper. They all have my papers. Obama wants answers. I gave them one. I hope things start to progress more rapidly.

Tune into my radio show on April 12 for a review of what is going on.


.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chaptere.html

as before add the www

I am trying to make a difference. For those of you who stomp me, Do you have any better ideas?

Frank Znidarsic
Thanks for the show link and the video Frank. I hope the skeptics here can be a resource to refine your theories. They are intriguing and I am sorry for having butchered them here. Like someone said earlier with friends like these....
Quote:
I would make a comment. This "conference" is organized by Glen Robertson, who also coauthored FAZ's talk and two other talks. So this isn't "acceptance into a conference shows that this isn't a crackpot", nor is it even "a crackpot snuck past the conference committee". It's "the conference organizer is a crackpot and invites whoever he wants."

Robertson's fancy-sounding organization, IAS-SPES, appears to be run out of a suburban Alabama home---which, not surprisingly, is also the headquarters of "Gravi Atomic Research". Imagine that! Two independent physics research centers in the same house! IAS-SPES publishes its finances, which consist of nothing but the $44K income from running this conference, minus the $20K expense of running ... this conference. Geez, I wonder what the registration fee was?

It's funny, too, that FAZ's session is chaired by another person affiliated only with an obscure foundation---Valone's "Integrity Research Institute" is, like IAS-SPES, basically a web page's worth of crackpottery ranging from cold-fusion to Tesla to "electrogravitics" (which is what they seem to be calling "lifters".) And the cochair is, amazingly, ANOTHER obscure-foundation affiliate, this time with "Energetics Technology, LLC" whose mission is to apply for grants to study Podkletnov's gravity-shielding.
Being serious scientists, I doubt Dave Goodwin and Dr. George Miley would involve themselves with nonsense at least not in their own fields. I don't known about his acquaintances, but I don't see Frank as doing this for money
__________________
" You are uneasy; you never sailed with me before, I see. " Andrew Jackson

Last edited by JCM; 18th April 2011 at 01:31 AM.
JCM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2011, 04:06 AM   #350
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...our-force.html

"The physics world is buzzing with news of an unexpected sighting at Fermilab's Tevatron collider in Illinois – a glimpse of an unidentified particle that, should it prove to be real, will radically alter physicists' prevailing ideas about how nature works and how particles get their mass."

Maybe we already used this force in "Cold Fusion" or "Anti Gravity"!

Let's hope there's some new inspiration for real physics.
What would you know about real physics?
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2011, 05:49 AM   #351
fznidarsic
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 6
I thought my radio show went well.

add the www
angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chaptere.html

A caller from Buffalo mentioned my work on Coast to Coast. I thank him.

groups.yahoo.com/group/NewWorldOrderWhistleBlowers2/message/48636

I make no money on any of this stuff. Glen Robertson just broke even on this years conference.

Frank Z
fznidarsic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2011, 08:42 PM   #352
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
Originally Posted by JCM View Post
I thought Lane's youtube video explained why 1/r2 was instead 1/r but I am not sure maybe it is a mistake
Around a point charge, the electric field strength varies as 1/r2 and the electrical potential & electrical potential energy vary as 1/r. Not only is the mathematics different, one is a vector quantity while the other two are scalars - that is a fundamental & important difference.

Any competent physicist worth their salt will not mix these things up
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2011, 05:02 PM   #353
JCM
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 651
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Who were the 'Chief Scientists for NASA and the DOE'?
Mr. Robertson and Mr. Goodwin.
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
I would make a comment. This "conference" is organized by Glen Robertson,
Here is his bio listing credentials.
Quote:
NASA - Aerospace Engineer:
From Jan 1987 - Present, Mr. Robertson has been performing research and development tasks for NASA - Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama as an Aerospace engineer,

Inventions:
Piezoelectrostatic Generator, US Patent # 4,952,836
Electromagnetic Meissner Effect Launcher, US Patent # 5,017,549
Bladder Operated Robotic Joint, US Patent # 5,245,885
Spiral Fluid Separator, US Patent # 5,248,421
Pressure-Driven Magnetically Coupled Conveyance, US Patent # 6,170,404 B1 (Magnetic Launcher Concept)

NASA Tech Brief Articles:
Piezoelectric Power Generator - March 1989
Electromagnetic Meissner Effect Launcher - March 1989
Meissner Stepping Motor - February 1990
Meissner Bearing - October 1992
Spiral Fluid Separator - November 1992
Robotic Bladder Joint - Apr 1993
Permanent Magnet Launcher - Apr 1994
Five Channel Polychromator Head - Apr 1994
Collapsible Geostrut Structure - November 1994
Fabrication of Bulk High Temperature Superconductors using Ba(NO3)2 in the Precursor Mixture - May 2000
Pressure-Driven Magnetically-Coupled Conveyance - September 2000
__________________
" You are uneasy; you never sailed with me before, I see. " Andrew Jackson

Last edited by JCM; 26th April 2011 at 05:06 PM.
JCM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2011, 05:09 PM   #354
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by JCM View Post
Mr. Robertson and Mr. Goodwin.

Here is his bio listing credentials.
Those are engineering credentials. There is nothing whatsoever surprising about someone being a physics crackpot *and* a qualified engineer.

Actually, I dare say MOST physics crackpots I've come across have some sort of engineering background. Similarly, there are plenty of medical doctors who are also creationists.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2011, 07:15 PM   #355
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,888
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
Those are engineering credentials. There is nothing whatsoever surprising about someone being a physics crackpot *and* a qualified engineer.

Actually, I dare say MOST physics crackpots I've come across have some sort of engineering background. Similarly, there are plenty of medical doctors who are also creationists.
Salem hypothesis, as it would happen.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2011, 02:28 AM   #356
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 31,215
Originally Posted by Chronopolitan View Post
Ok, so QM describes the world as we can see it, and predict probabilities. But it doesn't explain why. That is the criticism.

10 points.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2019, 10:25 PM   #357
trevorjjj
New Blood
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 11
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Considering that none of the cold fusion claims have been well replicated this is a bad place to start.

Wrong - at one point NASA issued/leaked its' response to these claims, the impression I got was that they ACCEPTED the reality - if not the processes involved.

They were EXCITED!

NASA needs to know everything about the physical mechanisms as a FIRST STEP.

Last edited by trevorjjj; 10th August 2019 at 10:27 PM.
trevorjjj is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2019, 03:35 AM   #358
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 24,925
Well, that's a hell of a bit of thread necromancy. I'd love to see a NASA statement that they accept the reality of cold fusion.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2019, 04:49 AM   #359
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 20,688
Originally Posted by trevorjjj View Post
Wrong - at one point NASA issued/leaked its' response to these claims, the impression I got was that they ACCEPTED the reality - if not the processes involved.

They were EXCITED!

NASA needs to know everything about the physical mechanisms as a FIRST STEP.
Citations Required
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2019, 05:49 PM   #360
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,880
Originally Posted by trevorjjj View Post
Wrong - at one point NASA...
We can almost stop this thread necromancy there because this is NASA and NASA itself really only does space-related research.

Some NASA scientists did test Fleischmann & Pons cold fusion experiment and produced a NASA technical memo in December 1989 (PDF). The result was no neutrons over the background count = no fusion. As the memo says, the scientists were excited at the prospect of cold fusion if it existed so they looked to see if it existed and found no sign of fusion.

Last edited by Reality Check; 11th August 2019 at 05:55 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:22 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.