Spyman

When I click on the link it says: There is a problem with this website's security certificate. The security certificate presented by this website was not issued by a trusted certificate authority. Security certificate problems may indicate an attempt to fool you or intercept any data you send to the server. I am NOT going to continue to your article, sorry.

I was once told to never give advice to someone unskilled, because if you do and a fatal mistake is made with damage or injury as result, then at least a part of the responsibility for the accident rests on the "guide".

Since this is in the Physics section, it needs to be pointed out that this is not a law of science and that it don't have any scientific basis whatsoever.

Due to inertia the object with mass will resist any change in speed when the box is accelerated, so the spring will be alternatively stretched and compressed. You don't need an isolated box of negligible mass to try this out, just take an elevator ride and you can feel the difference when the elevator starts and stops.

Your objection is duly noted but not accepted due to missing explanation.

Do you have a link to a news story or article about this "Bionic brain" for us to read?

It means that the thread has been moved to another subforum by the Moderators. If you let your mouse pointer hover over the arrow it says: "This topic has been moved" and if you click on the thread you will automatically get directed to its new location.

Thank you, and BTW, Congratulations to you too! One amazing fact is that half of this page actually consists of your posts. A page where your recurrent argument is a cryptic statement that you refuse to explain... Let me remind you that you are the driver in this discussion, you are attacking my position and I am only defending myself. I have played with open cards, been polite and honest, admitted that I could be wrong and even apologized, lastly I tried to offer you to agree to disagree. But no, you still keep pushing that same strange argument over and over again without ever explaining yourself. If you think this is a waste of space or time, then you are free to stop trying to convince me that NASA must be wrong, anytime you like. But until then don't complain about your own course of action, at least half of the page is your fault and not mine, it takes two to tango. I find it somewhat strange how I am being accused of putting words in your mouth when all I did was asking for a clarification while you are the one that repeatedly keep twisting my words. I did not say that. Nor that. I have not made such an argument either. And I did provide a reference to a model by experts with common knowledge. If you don't think misrepresenting is a proper scientific method, then please stop distorting what I actually have said and done. But that is not what I asked for, is it? Again you are avoiding to tell me what I ask for and answer something else. My question was very simple and only required yes or no answers: Do you consider Turyshev's paper to not be scientific enough? Yes or No? Do you consider telling about it to not be a valid scientific argument? Yes or No? You have also not yet given an answer to this question: Can you consider the possibility of being wrong before any evidence shows up? Yes or No? If you want to uphold your own scientific standard, then I suggest that you stop evading my questions now. Yes, I agree. I think dishonesty and dodging questions are not acceptable in a discussion, science or no science. I hope you are a sincere person and will give straight forward answers in your next reply so that we can put this misunderstanding to end.

What the heck does that mean? I have now read through this thread several times with special notion to your remarks for me "to not be making scientific arguments" and the most reasonable interpretation I can make is that you consider Turyshev's paper to not only be wrong but nonsense. But I could of course be wrong and misunderstand you, maybe you are saying that talking about scientific work done by others don't count. Since I can't really know what you are arguing against when you refuse to tell me, I ask again, can you please clarify your statement. Do you consider Turyshev's paper to not be scientific enough or that telling about it is not a valid scientific argument?

As I said in my post #7, I don't think veproject1 makes any claims of working PPM, however with the increasing number of videos and lack of discussion from his part, I am beginning to think he is using this and his other threads to advertise his models and videos so he can gain more traffic on his site.

I think a quiz about forum rules and etiquette is a great idea, but it should be voluntary and accessible at all times for every member. Such a quiz could encourage people to read and think about accepted behaviour and in the long run raise the standard of our posts. If members completing the test would be rewarded with reputation points equal their top score, then it would be more like a treat for members who think it's fun and not a hurdle for those who don't like it. Newcomers who cares extra about their first apperance could do the quiz and then gain a little positive rep before they start posting, those that don't care don't have to bother with it, old members can still do it for fun and an inexperienced newcomer who made a bad first post can do the quiz to redeem him/herself and turn a few negative points to a few positive ones, instead of feeling defeated and silently leave in disappointment. For a new member a few negative rep points can be devastating and give rise to others to downvote them even more. But a system like this would increase the grey zone of acceptance and give people who really care a second chance before the situation gets out of control. If the quiz have ten questions then the impact on rep balance is small, most older members already have a head start of ten points from the old rep system and since you only gain your top score, the max you could get is ten points so bad members would still accumulate neg rep.

I am no expert on TV screens but from the sounds I would guess there is a failure in the power supply. A technician can probably repair it, but I would not advice you to fool around with it yourself as it has lethal electricity.

Aha, they wont gracefully accept your arguments and immediately correct their previously conclusion. But what I really asked was if you can consider the possibility of being wrong before any evidence shows up? So, not even one single opposing paper and the only criticism is about the sharing of data. Any public references about this? Yes, I am no expert and have never claimed to be any. Yes, like you say, I have only told what I have read and what scientists have written in their papers. Yes, peer review is no guarantee for accuracy, papers could still be wrong. Yes, my arguments and knowledge depends on my non-expert ability and understanding of available peer reviewed papers. Yes, my critical thinking and knowledge can always improve. However, right now, my non-expert opinion based on my limited knowledge, still favors the possibility that the Pioneer anomaly could have been caused by heat radiation from the spacecraft. At least until evidence shows up that convince the experts at NASA otherwise. Like I already have said, anyone interested should read Turyshev's paper and form their own opinion, it is also for free: http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2507 If you don't have anything new to bring to the table, I suggest that we agree to disagree and wait for the future to bring clarity.

The oldest one KNOWN to humankind, not the oldest one in the whole Universe, as swansont points out in post #2. Did you read the first article Michel linked to? Here is an excerpt where they explain how they "got it": "To find the earliest generations of stars, scientists look for vanishingly small abundances of the first heavy elements created, such as iron. Stars with very low chemical abundances, they believe, may have formed in the earliest epoch of the universe, more than 13 billion years ago, when few elements had yet formed. To find such a stellar candidate, Frebel, physics postdoc Heather Jacobson, and their colleagues at Mount Stromlo Observatory in Australia went through the spectral data of millions of stars collected by SkyMapper, an automated telescope that tracks planets, stars, and asteroids in the southern sky. The researchers weeded through the data, discarding any stars with spectra similar to the sun - a modern analogue with relatively large chemical abundances. After whittling down the stellar field, the researchers singled out a handful of stars containing very low chemical signatures. They then got a closer look at these stars using the Magellan Telescopes - a pair of large telescopes in Chile - to obtain high-resolution spectral data. From this data, Frebel and her colleagues analyzed each star’s absorption lines. Every chemical element gives off a characteristic absorption line, or wavelength of light; the fainter this line, the less of the chemical is present. In the case of SMSS J031300.36-670839.3, the researchers calculated that the star’s iron content is at least seven orders of magnitude, or 10 million times, less than the iron found in the sun - which is the lowest iron abundance ever detected in a star. The star, they concluded, must be a true second-generation star." http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2014/researchers-identify-one-of-the-earliest-stars-in-the-universe-0209.html

If you are writing a sciene fiction and the FTL is not part of the plot, but needs to be there for the story to work, then I suggest you borrow from one of the many already established faster than light methods. By using a familiar and well known way, people will recognise it from famous movies or books, which will lend your story and method credibility, even if it is only SF. Here is a link to Wikipedia about Hyperspace and FTL travel in popular science fiction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperspace_(science_fiction)

Is the magnet stuck by its own magnetism or has it been pressed into a too small hole? If stuck by the walls you may need to break it with a small cold chisel and then remove the smaller parts. Otherwise I vote for using a stronger magnet, maybe with a piece of iron inbetween to reach down into the hole if the magnet is to big.

I would like you to stop twisting my words, I did NOT suggest anything like that. I am sorry and apologize if I said something or expressed myself badly, such that I did insult or otherwise hurt your feelings, that was never my intention. I doubt a lot of things, based on many different factors, but it is not a personal thing against you. While I didn't ment it as a demand, I can't really understand what you are arguing against if you don't tell me. Since you keep on posting on the subject and attacking my position, there must either be some kind of misunderstanding or you are actually unable to comply. So, have you notified NASA about how you have verifiable evidence that their computer simulation must be wrong? Or have you published a paper that have passed through peer review, where you with logic and numbers show undeniable facts that the Pioneer anamoly can't be caused by heat radiation from the spacecraft? If you are able to help science to progress and solve this problem, I think you should. Since this seems to be your main issue with what I have said, I am fully willing to admit that Turyshev's model and simulation could very well be wrong. I have no personal investment in it and if you reread my first post in this thread you can see that I, already before this argument started, was expressing myself very carefully about consensus. But are you willing to admit that you also could be wrong? Where are the papers opposing their conclusion and why are there not experts more openly criticizing Turyshev's paper? For the rest of your post, I am not interested in your issues with the peer review process or media hype, that is for another thread.

I am not trying to achieve anything special, I am just participating in the discussion and reporting about current scientific status. Why do you think I am trying to derail the topic? All I have done is answer to your very own posts directed towards me. I would also like to encourage you, (or anyone else), that if you seriously think I am making bad posts that are ruining the discussion, to use the report funktion. It is easy, just click on the report button in the lower right corner of my post and describe the problem. Yes, anyone interested should read the Wikipedia article and the papers mentioned. (Nothing wrong with reading your thread about it either.) I have not claimed to be "doing" science, but I like to "discuss" science and that encompasses what scientists already have done. The "professionals at JPL" are doing science so telling about their paper and conclusion are certainly valid comments. You are entitled to have your own personal opinion and question whether Turyshev and his team are correct or not. But instead of chastise my reasoning, I suggest you tell me what I have said that is false, wrong or otherwise untruthful.

Yes, Turyshev's work is certainly a "scientific answer" and No, I did definitely NOT say that they are correct because they are famous. Turyshev has done a lot of work and taken part in several papers about the Pioneer anamoly, it is not at all surprising if he changes his conclusion when new data and understanding is presented, that is how a scientist is supposed to act. Here is a paper made between those papers where they conclude that: "the data favor a temporally decaying anomalous acceleration", which hints at a decreasing source on the spacecraft. Link to paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.2886.pdf Turyshev's paper it is available on Physical Review Letters, which is a peer-reviewed, scientific journal. Link to paper: http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v108/i24/e241101 "Physical Review Letters (PRL), established in 1958, is a peer-reviewed, scientific journal that is published 52 times per year by the American Physical Society." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Review_Letters "Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers). It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

Turyshev and his team are professionals working at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, they have access to detailed design documentation and extensive mission data from which they constructed a comprehensive thermal model and history of the spacecraft's journey. Their papers have been thoroughly examined with critical eyes by experts in this field, any flaws or "numbers that don't fit" would have been found and pointed out by now. So I don't think you can brush off their papers with a back of the envelope estimation that came up a little short.

As I understand it, the Flyby anomaly and the Pioneer anomaly are two completely different occurrences due to independent separate effects, where the Flyby anomaly is about spacecrafts passing close to Earth and the Pioneer anomaly is in regard to spacecrafts about twenty times the Earth-Sun distance out. The Pioneer anomaly is thought to have been resolved and was deemed to be caused by the heat radiation from the spacecraft's powersource, while the Flyby anomaly is still unresolved and is likely related to Earth's rotation and the spacecraft's trajectories. The Pioneer anomaly or Pioneer effect is the observed deviation from predicted accelerations of the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 spacecraft after they passed about 20 astronomical units (3×109 km; 2×109 mi) on their trajectories out of the Solar System. ... By 2012 several papers by different groups, all reanalyzing the thermal radiation pressure forces inherent in the spacecraft, showed that a careful accounting of this could explain the entire anomaly, and thus the cause was mundane and did not point to any new phenomena or need for a different physical paradigm. The most detailed analysis to date, by some of the original investigators, explicitly looks at two methods of estimating thermal forces, then states "We find no statistically significant difference between the two estimates and conclude that once the thermal recoil force is properly accounted for, no anomalous acceleration remains." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly The flyby anomaly is an unexpected energy increase during Earth-flybys of spacecraft. This anomaly has been observed as shifts in the S-Band and X-Band Doppler and ranging telemetry. Taken together it causes a significant unaccounted velocity increase of over 13 mm/s during flybys. ... An analysis of the MESSENGER spacecraft (studying Mercury) did not reveal any significant unexpected velocity increase. This may be because MESSENGER both approached and departed Earth symmetrically about the equator (see data and proposed equation below). This suggests that the anomaly may be related to Earth's rotation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyby_anomaly

http://www.space.com/24478-grey-is-the-new-black-hole-is-stephen-hawking-right.html

Any mechanical interactions causing this "lensing" would also cause an blurring and other means would invalidate the theory of relativity which is considered as a cornerstone of modern physics with more than hundred years of experimental confirmations.

No, you have not and once again you evaded my question. You're doing the same thing as cranks. Do you or do you not agree that the standard black hole model is a well established part of mainstream physics and that current scientific consensus holds black holes to be consistent with the theory of general relativity and current observations? There is an important difference between acknowledging what the status of scientific consensus says and questioning its correctness, crackpots and science deniers often wants to blur and muddle this distinction because it gains them false credibility and casts doubts on opponents. I am starting to suspect that you on purpose misinterpret my points and avoid to answer my raised arguments of the above. There is nothing wrong with my references in regard to the content of my arguments! Now, I have asked you to clarify your position more than once, why are you so unwilling to comply to this simple request?

Tired light has been ruled out by observations: "Tired light is a class of hypothetical redshift mechanisms that was proposed as an alternative explanation for the redshift-distance relationship. These models have been proposed as alternatives to the metric expansion of space of which the Big Bang and the Steady State cosmologies are the most famous examples. The concept was first proposed in 1929 by Fritz Zwicky, who suggested that if photons lost energy over time through collisions with other particles in a regular way, the more distant objects would appear redder than more nearby ones. Zwicky himself acknowledged that any sort of scattering of light would blur the images of distant objects more than what is seen. Additionally, the surface brightness of galaxies evolving with time, time dilation of cosmological sources, and a thermal spectrum of the cosmic microwave background have been observed - these effects that should not be present if the cosmological redshift was due to any tired light scattering mechanism. Despite periodic re-examination of the concept, tired light has not been supported by observational tests and has lately been consigned to consideration only in the fringes of astrophysics." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light