Mordred

I'll stick to real science. I know it works you can study your fairy land science.

The 4 forces interact via mediator bosons. Electromagnetic is mediated via photons. Gluons for the strong force W Z bosons for the weak force. Graviton is possibly gravity but thus far hasn't been found so theoretical. The Higgs field only provides mass to certain elementary particles. Quarks neutrinos, electrons w z bosons. It's importance is primarily in the initial mass gain during the electroweak symmetry breaking. Beyond that the majority of the mass is due to the binding energy of primarily the strong force, gravity and electromagnetic force. Depending on what is being examined. Individual particles (composite) ie proton neutron is 99% due to strong force. The atom is each particle mass added up that makes up the atom.(atomic mass)gravity involves a large collection of particles (it's the weakest of the four forces.) One of the best two textbooks I've read is Quarks and Leptons and Introductory to particle physics by Griffith. Unfortunately good low level math articles on particle physics is difficult to find. One of the better series that teaches the needed math however is http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3328 A Simple Introduction to Particle Physics http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1395 part 2 Keep in mind 99 % of the last two articles Involves differential geometry and lie algebra. (Though done in an instructural manner). If you work through the last two articles thoroughly you will excel at physics particle, cosmology and GR. Far more so than the average poster lol Forgot to add these helpful books. http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf"Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:"Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis Though the latter two deal more in the cosmology aspects.

http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/the-higgs-particle/the-higgs-faq-2-0/ http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/ http://profmattstrassler.com/ He has a series of easy to understand articles. For some reason the previous links didn't copy correct when I posted em on a previous thread. These should work the last link is main page. Particles have both particle and wave properties. Google particle wave duality.

Here is a good non math site to understand particle and wave properties. http://www.mitp.uni-...yerSymmetry.pdf

Gloat all ya want the rest of us will continue to laugh at your foolishness. We've provided examples where science evolves. You've provided zero zip evidence. Want to buy a bridge in Brooklyn? It's obvious you have no interest in learning. So why are you even here posting on a physics forum?

The hands are probably better conversionalists. Obviously he's never studied models that have evolved in the last 100 years. Prime example big bang to LCDM. Where the cosmological constant and dark matter were later added to fit observational evidence. Second example quantum foam to LQC spin space. Nor the improvements in particle physics. Where back in the 20's the atom didn't include the neutron. Also all the later added standard model particles and the Higgs field itself. Science evolves as evidence is presented. He chooses to ignore this fact

Do you even know what the term isomorphic means? The above word salad makes no sense. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism You obviously are ignoring any other posters explaining how the scientific method really works. Models can and do change as new evidence presents itself. Some models can change quickly others takes years of research to change. no model changes without rigorously being examined. When you post a idea or model on a physics forum. You should expect it to be examined and have holes punched into that idea or model. If you can fill those holes the models gains strength. If not then it needs work.

You had a latex error. I tried finding the error but not sure where it is Edit I see ya found it

This isn't true by any means. Anyone can publish ideas. Whether or not those ideas get accepted depends on its evidence and testable predictions. Just because an idea doesn't gain weight in mainstay thinking has absolutely nothing to do with suppression. It's due to lack of evidence and/or predictive ability. As pointed out there is zero conclusive evidence for UFOs. The majority has been found to be hoaxes. The term you should learn is irrefutable proof. Culture once believed in witchcraft, no irrefutable evidence of witchcraft exists therefore it isn't accepted by the scientific community. UFOs falls into a similar category. If you can't accept that then science isn't your field.

As mentioned if you can provide supporting evidence this wouldn't be the case. No one is foolish enough to consider ideas that fly in the face of established science simply on someone's say so. Unless that person can supply supporting evidence or at the very least a well thought out mathematic argument/model. It's not that we have a problem with ideas against the mainstream. The problem is posters can rarely support their ideas. They don't answer questions about their ideas. They ignore evidence against their ideas. In many cases they resort to name calling. Most times though they demonstrate a complete lack in understanding science. They make ridiculous errors and claims. Then refuse to acknowledge they are doing so. By the way I can think of a few still active threads with ideas that are not mainstay. They don't appear to be active. This is due to the poster listening, taking advise and studying. Those threads have not been locked and are still open for further discussion.

As Studiot mentioned this is extremely dangerous. Only a certified professional should be repairing this unit.How much experience do you have? What troubleshooting equipment do you have available ? As Studiot asked have you tried it under load?. Further questions will depend on the answer to question 1 and 2. I never feel comfortable telling someone how to troubleshoot electrical equipment without knowing they can safely do so Are you familiar with PWM? Pulse width modulation type circuits? 1) are any fuses popped? 2) are any component heating up ? 3) under load is it generating power? 4) are there any fault indicator lights or sounds? 5) does it have online connection for diagnostic software? 6) is there a burnt smell, sweet or otherwise? 7)what is it doing as opposed to not doing? 8) do you see any visual indications of component damage? 9)Do you have the users and manufacturers manual? 10) have you contacted the manufacturer for advise? Those questions are safe to check. (Oh on the visual checks, do any capacitors appear deformed? If you don't know how to recognize a capacitor. STOP NOW. Let a professional repair. Before you kill yourself.

While most of this post is accurate, the speculation forum doesn't suppress new ideas as per se. The problem is most people that post a speculation have taken very little time understanding the current models. They also cannot answer questions posed to them to demonstrate how their model improves upon current understanding. Nor do they include mathematics for the most part. Here is a good example of a correct approach. In this thread the poster is attempting to refine a more exact mass of the observable universe. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86694-observable-universe-mass/page-2#entry871244 His methods are a good example, he listens to suggestions and provides supporting papers and research. you can easily find examples where this isn't the case. New ideas are great, but one needs to demonstrate a solid working knowledge of the mainstream ideas for comparison. Posting ideas and getting the science wrong never works. This site is rare in that it even allows a speculation section. Most physics forums don't allow anything but main stay concordance discussion.

Agree Fuzzwood lol

Actually that's also false. There is A cost effective solution to reduce CO2 levels. Place in the ocean long flexible tubes with a series of pump style flaps. Long enough to reach the Ocean floor, mounted to a buoyancy tube. What we are doing in this is bringing nutrients to the ocean surface. Those nutrients encourage algae growth. That algae feeds on CO2 a replacing it with oxygen. (Also feeds fish). Lol secondary side note we can use algae to produce oil. That's a natural form of photosynthesis Tada . We have also developed artificial photosynthesis. https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/04/16/major-advance-in-artificial-photosynthesis/ so we do in fact understand how CO2 works.... With your belligerent behavior I don't think that will matter though. I always find it incredible how many people can honestly believe that several hundreds of years of dedicated research with several hundreds of thousands of dedicated minds working in scientific fields are always wrong. That there personal ideas defeats the body of evidence? If you honestly want to convince us provide some thing other than your insults to the table. Trust me your not the first belligerent individual we have encountered. If and if you can bring some research to the table, or properly describe your idea. Mathematically is the ideal preference. However peer reviewed articles and discussing your understanding will also work. Will you ever gain listeners. If anything there is also something to be learned from a well rounded, and accurate discussion. Insults are a poor substitute to demonstrating a firm but accurate grasp on a subject.

A single molecule isn't going to have any measurable effect on space time. Gravity is immeasurable at the particle level. Go ahead run the calculations yourself.

Nothing Its still an important point to mention as this is also commonly misunderstood. It's more an FYI, as the universe can be infinite its singularity cannot be accurately thought of as a BH style point like singularity if you include the universe beyond our observable universe. We still don't know if the universe is finite or infinite. Though our observable universe is finite You'd be amazed how often this is misunderstood.

You might want to study which type of singularity. 1.the state of being singular, distinct, peculiar, uncommon or unusual 2.a point where all parallel lines meet 3 a point where a measured variable reaches unmeasurable or infinite value 4. the value or range of values of a function for which a derivative does not exist 5 a point or region in spacetime in which gravitational forces cause matter to have an infinite density; associated with Black Holes. The universe singularity case is number 3 as opposed to 5. As mentioned though this depends on the metrics used. Some examples that avoid or solve number 3 have been mentioned. A notable one being the bounce of LQC.

The Higgs field changes potential at higher temperatures. It has a Mexican hat potential (metastability). These articles show the metastability Higg's inflation possible dark energy http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3738 http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3755 http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2801 The low end of the Mexican hat is the vacuum expectation value at 246 GeV. The top of the hat is when the Higgs field no longer gives mass to elementary particles. This is roughly just above [latex]10^{16}[/latex] GeV. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_expectation_value This lecture shows the related formulas and has a decent image of the Mexican hat potential. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CB4QFjABahUKEwiI3YKOq4rGAhXJlYAKHV07AIs&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.ph.ed.ac.uk%2F~playfer%2FPPlect17.pdf&rct=j&q=vacuum%20expectation%20value&ei=vOh6VYiPCMmrggTd9oDYCA&usg=AFQjCNHgQwFmLTdYGa3h5OM_fL4mdAexgA&sig2=__TDScPUTdBe7hyvBnKLGQ

I agree it's a bit over the top, I've seen similar ideas presented on radiogeeks.com. Most people aren't aware of the legal issues, it's not commonly known. That forum typically points it out. Got to be habit forming lol

Change the resistance, voltage means nothing in terms of power. Your missing a key detail voltage is nothing but potential difference. The amount of current dictates the capable watts. Not voltage. Regardless the methodology is restricted, via the FCC regulations in Canada. In the US If memory serves correct its NECS. Regulations. Being in Canada. That's arbitrary. However every country has its own particulars on stealing radiation power via transmissions. This is exactly what is being shown on this video. Nothing more. It is by no means zero power. The laws of conservation of energy still apply. No free lunch. (This forum considers laws and infractions, theft and unsafe acts are inherently against forum rules) not implying that you yourself are attempting so. However there is still the risk on this thread, this forum does consider unsafe and regulation infraction acts. The circuit shown on the video is stealing power from what I see. Again I stress this isn't your intention. However it is a factor

As I explained its still not free energy. Your drawing from other transmission frequencies. In point of detail yes you can do so but doing so is illegal. There are regulations against this. This is a form of stealing power from transmitted signals http://www.academia.edu/6612738/Wireless_Power_Theft_Detection

just to add to studiots reply The formula is v=I*R voltage =current (in amps)*resistance(ohms). The amount of current is what is important in generating power. Voltage is the potential difference. If you have zero resistance, then no matter how much current you produce the voltage will be zero. If you have a set current ie 1 amp and increase the resistance you increase the voltage. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_current Power however is measured in watts http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt

At what current? You can have 0.25 volts at any current level

Magnets induce conduction voltage. Also they can receive other radiant stray electromagnetic signals. Note he wired up essentially a coil. Our air is full of various frequencies. The coil is probably picking up other frequencies. Your car antennae is tuned to receive a set range of frequencies without inducing impedance. (Impedance mismatch generates reflective waves that reduce overall efficiency) coil isn't tuned, nor is it shielded from stray signals.

You have presented a very specific QM model. I have been searching for the specific change between [latex]\phi^3[/latex] and [latex]\phi^4[/latex] (the latter being far more common). QM isn't my strongest point lol. Language of QM irritates me, yet I have a stronger understanding of QFT fields. As you have posed a very interesting topic (at least to me).As I have time, I will do my best to assist. (PS keep in mind RL. I just got home from 50 Km north pole). Must give quality time with wife lol.. (( repeat it like a Katra, Quality time, Quality time, Quality time......) [ let her set the schedule, you know nothing, Danielson)