Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 01/09/19 in all areas

  1. 4 points
    Thanks for that. Just received a reply via E-Mail on the Svidzinsky paper thus..... From: Brian Koberlein <brian.koberlein@gmail.com> Date: 1/9/2019 1:09:45 PM Subject: Re: General Relativity and Vector gravity Barry, If your forum member thinks this paper means GR is dead, they are either lying or don’t understand the paper. The paper presents an alternative gravity model known as a “background independent” model. These kinds of models have been studied for decades, usually in the hopes that they might provide some way to quantum theory. Nothing particularly new here. The author of the paper states explicitly that the gravity wave results are consistent with the predictions of GR, and points out that his model is also consistent with the data. He does this because background independent models have been known to disagree with GR in ways we can now prove experimentally. So basically, this is a “this alternative model isn’t dead yet!” He goes on to talk about dark energy as a way to argue that maybe we should look at the model further. Again, this is pretty standard for a speculative theoretical physics paper. It’s what we do. Come up with ideas to see if they work, because someday hopefully one of them will. There are literally thousands of papers like this out there, and none of them have disproved GR so far. In short, the paper doesn’t say GR is wrong. It actually says its right, and this model could also be right. It also doesn’t say black holes don’t exist, but instead claims that black holes wouldn’t have an event horizon. They would have an apparent horizon, which is basically an event horizon (except for really technical differences I won’t go into). The paper in no way makes GR dead, nor does it make the gravitational wave results invalid. Brian :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: On the reply, the claim re BH's that Brian detailed are exactly what I had in mind. I remember the sensationalist headlines a few years ago, re Hawking supposedly claiming BH's did not exist, based on similar quantum detail re the EH. from the previous reply E-Mail....."The paper presents an alternative gravity model known as a “background independent” model. These kinds of models have been studied for decades, usually in the hopes that they might provide some way to quantum theory. Nothing particularly new here". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_independence
  2. 1 point
    I take your point. In grade school I had a science teacher who wouldn't let us say something was discovered, but that it's existence was discovered, because, of course, it had been there all along.
  3. 1 point
    ! Moderator Note It's pseudoscience so, by definition, there is no "factual evidence". Thread closed.
  4. 1 point
    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion Nothing about creativity or imagination, so he must not have agreed with what you're trying to do. Childish, primitive weakness doesn't sound at all like creativity, imagination. Some forms of spirituality might fit.
  5. 1 point
    You would need to find some way of moving the conductor through the magnetic field. Silvestri shows one example. Not exactly an economical way of generating power. But if a satellite is already using a tether for some other purpose, you could get a bit of extra power from it. Otherwise you could use some source of energy (hydroelectric, steam turbine) to rotate a wire or coil. But the Earth's magnetic field is very weak, so a generator like that would be much more efficient if you put a large magnet in it! But, no, you can't "suck in the magnetic field".
  6. 1 point
    This is what I meant to share. Time for more coffee. Thank you for the assist
  7. 1 point
    That one seems to be wrong too. https://www.vox.com/2018/6/13/17449118/stanford-prison-experiment-fraud-psychology-replication
  8. 1 point
    ! Moderator Note This is a science discussion site. The no-science-under-any-circumstances discussions are taking place elsewhere. Please note this for future reference. Thread closed.
  9. 1 point
    Ten Oz recently pointed out to Raider that he is being dismissive of other peoples reactions (even if unintentionally and without awareness)... that he really has no right to decide from on-high what others should or should not be offended by. He reinforced that it's fine for Raider not to be offended in these scenarios, that it's fine for Raider to feel others ought not be offended, but that mutual respect suggests we don't substitute our own preferences and responses for the preferences and responses of others. Said another way, we must accept the responses of others as authentic and valid and try not to summarily dismiss them merely for differing from our own. If they're offended, that may be different from my own likely reaction, but still okay and valid. This was in response to the implicit invalidation of their response that was occurring in the posts here (butthurt oversensitive less intelligent etc.). I found that to be a valid point. "Just as I have no business telling you what you should be offended by you have no business telling others what they shouldn't be offended by. That is how mutual respect works." I think you probably agreed. However, you're now sort of following that same structure with the sentence above. You seem to be suggesting that people focusing on Issue A are misguided because YOU happen to think Issue B is more important. You're dismissing those who focus on Issue A in a similar holier-than-thou way that we just collectively admonished. You're doing the same thing Raider did earlier. It's okay to think Issue B is more important. It's not okay to dismiss people who right now in the present moment happen to be focused on Issue A. They're also not mutually exclusive... walking and bubble gum chewing and whatnot.
  10. 1 point
    https://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html
  11. 1 point
    ! Moderator Note You still have provided no math to support your idea, and your last thread was closed after 8 pages, so you have had plenty of opportunity to present some science, rather than hand-waving. You were also told not to bring the topic up again.
  12. 1 point
    Probably some form of Obsidian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsidian
  13. 1 point
    I knew your understanding back there was quite wrong, but had to search around to find simple formulae clearly proving it. Check out the expression for energy transport rate (i.e. power density) for a plane monochromatic GW under 'Energy transport' here: http://www.tapir.caltech.edu/%7Eteviet/Waves/gwave_details.html Clearly no dependency on frequency, just ~ h^2. In complete analogy to the dependence on square of E field for power density of a plane monochromatic EM wave owing to an electric quadrupole oscillator. For instance compare eqn (76) to (77) p22 here: www.phys.lsu.edu/~jarrell/COURSES/ELECTRODYNAMICS/Chap9/chap9.pdf No unphysical f^2 factor tacked on there either. (That power always goes as E^2 or H^2 for an EM wave is independent of source multipole moment) So what GW 'power density' is it that varies as f^2h^2? I don't particularly care since it has zilch to do with what actually matters re detection - strain amplitude. However because it is for whatever arcane reason actually sometimes used as a 3rd 'measure of detector sensitivity', one can guess it refers to a hypothetical 'accessible power density'. Based on some peculiar criteria evidently of some academic interest. Here is a nice site with a calculator to compare the two actually useful, non-misleading sensitivity criteria: http://gwplotter.com/ Last part is wrong - see above. And what is the point in trying to compare sensitivity of one detector way outside its design bandwidth with another one in the middle of its bandwidth? What does the Planck relation between energy and frequency for a single photon have to do with power density in classical unquantized GW's? Nothing. They are unrelated quantities. Random stabs are not making you look good. See above. Irrelevant comparisons are just that - irrelevant. Don't distort my position! Which has consistently been here and elsewhere that Svidzinsky's VTG lists a range of potential advantages compared to GR or similar alternatives, but that the crucial decider will be nature. The still unresolved issue of actual GW mode type. I jumped in here to a thread now vacated by the OP, to provide useful links to articles not previously covered. A waste of time in hindsight given the continued almost universal negativity in response. So I learn about how it is to be even slightly non-mainstream at ScienceForums.net the hard way. I'm not comfortable with everything Svidzinsky advocates - his rather peculiar NS EOS that supposedly allows much larger than usual masses being one. Anyway, try searching for 'evidence of ring down echoes in black hole merger events' or similar. There are papers out there claiming GR is already in trouble because the detailed merger waveforms hint against pure BH-BH mergers. Given your own slew of mistaken and/or misdirected notions here, I have little faith in your lack of faith.
  14. 1 point
    There's a series of interactive videos that allow you to view the math, and play with the visuals. It's a pretty good way to get a handle on the math that is involved. https://eater.net/quaternions
  15. 1 point
    This is right up there with "Did Adam have a belly button?" this is the problem with made up concepts. You just make it up along the way I guess. I think no one can reliably answer your questions as there is no scientific method to test made up stuff . But if we are talking from a religious perspective I think the "soul" is formed at conception. The last part of your post is pretty inappropriate so I wont address it.
  16. 0 points
    Well, if you're going by strict definitions, Ten oz... T May did make comments that J Corbyn thought were stupid, and, she is a woman. So what is the problem ? Seems to me, after lecturing us all on what we are allowed to be offended by, you and Dimreepr have no problem bringing Raider's age up in your rebuttals. ( even the "bananas in Pyjamas ' children's show comment ) You can't have it both ways. You can't argue that everyone has the right to be offended by what THEY perceive to be an offence. And then proceed to 'knowingly' try and offend them. Luckily, Raider is probably used to this, and is not so thin-skinned.
  17. 0 points
    You're right. Context is important. So why don't you provide some for your posts, instead of stopping at 10 words or less? If you want to discuss this, great. Otherwise, your posts really don't make a lot of sense to me, and I'd wager to say they're confusing to a lot of others in this thread.
  18. -1 points
    You can remove the reppoint, It was a google-quote. Pffff...Of course it doesn't explain reality. People use it to explain reality and give meaning to reality. And "to feel the connection with what one supposes to be real." is one of many possible 'definitions'. Spirituality can be the same as 'creativity' and creativity is very important in all science, including in mathematics….especi
  19. -1 points
    grow up. did that offend you?