swansont

How would you test your hypothesis? You need to do it in a way that will falsify it if it's wrong, and exclude other explanations if you observe what you expect. Can you change the outcome of a double-slit experiment by thinking about it? That would count.

The best ones never leave a trace.

I don't care what you believe. I care about what evidence you have. A problem that has been pointed out by others is that you are using "energy" and "force" (e.g. glue, in this instance) interchangeably; these have specific definitions in physics.

They aren't moving in a trajectory that intersects (both spatially and temporally).

There are plenty of examples here on SFN of people who claim they understand physics, and post conjectures that prove that they do not. It much more likely that the explanation is with Kooiman overstating his understanding than with Forward explaining some aspect of relativity that has escaped everyone else's notice.

I call it centrifugal. But I don't mean that the term doesn't exist, I mean that there is no such centrifugal force acting on object — there is no "balancing" of forces. The force equal and opposite to the centripetal force does not act on the object in question; the centrifugal force is exerted by the object but does not act on it. And acceleration is due to the forces acting on the object.

Would a Foucault pendulum work at the equator? Why or why not?

Such an experiment would seem easy to replicate and confirm. There should be journal articles describing the experiments and the theory behind it. The reason video is often not considered good evidence is that it's easy to fake things.

The centrifugal force is not real; an object moving in a circle is accelerating and thus experiences a force.

If she weighs the same, she's made of wood.

The notion that a reduced mass would reduce your g-force is misguided. The force is reduced, but its the acceleration that matters, and that would be unchanged — you still pull as many g's of acceleration.

Hueist bigotry! I think controlling rain is green magic.

Indeed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_optics

You quoted it in a context where it is not relevant. It was a non-sequitur. And you did not state in that post that you were just cribbing from Wikipedia.

A spin-2 particle has an intrinsic spin angular momentum of 2*hbar, where hbar is planck's constant divided by 2pi. In QM, spin is quantized, and can only vary in increments of hbar. Electrons, for example, have a spin of 1/2, so they will have either +1/2 or -1/2 units; the vector is often describes as pointing up or down. No other value can be measured. One should note that spin is not due to a physical spinning of some particle; this is quantum mechanics, and such classical notions simply do not apply. Fermions have half-integral spin. Bosons have integral spin. Photons, the exchange particle for the electromagnetic force, are spin-1, and this has some implications on how interactions occur. Because of the properties gravity needs to have, stemming from the math that describes it, gravitons have to be spin-2. Gravitons have not yet been detected, though, so any claim about measurement of the spin of a black hole is not related to the quantum-mechanical properties. Your angular momentum is quantized, too, but nobody is going to be able to measure an hbar change in that value as you spin around in your chair. It's absurd; the values differ by around 34 orders of magnitude. Anyone making a claim that such a measurement disproves the QM prediction is demonstrating a lack of grasp of the material in question.

QED has been confirmed to an incredible degree, so there's a very small limit to how wrong our models of atomic behavior could possibly be. "Blasphemy" is the wrong word to use, just as it would be wrong to state that we take the atomic model on faith.

Did you understand what "spin-2" means? Your statement implies that these observations of spin are at the level of 2*hbar, which is, frankly, outlandish.

The plane of oscillation for the pendulum will be constant if the observer is in an inertial frame, at rest with respect to the plane of oscillation. i.e. the plane is constant with respect to the distant stars, which are approximately at rest. The earth is not an inertial frame because of its rotation

Come up with how gravity should behave, without first observing how gravity behaves. At best, basing it on a few axioms and/or other established laws, but not on data.

And that last part is very important, because there are a lot of hypotheses out there that were described with mathematics and were wrong — they didn't describe how nature actually behaves.

The premise that if it can't be debunked it must be legit is flawed. The relevant science would be contained in the statement "The MFD generates a magnetic vortex field, which disrupts or neutralizes the effects of gravity on mass within proximity, by 89 percent..." What is required is a detailed explanation of how this purported effect occurs — this is the linchpin of the whole argument, and there is absolutely no discussion of physics here! Almost all the rest is window dressing. The claim of mass reduction, especially of the large order claimed, is inconsistent with other physics concepts and with known gravitational effects being very weak. This does not pass the sniff test.

You'd have to use pi mesons, which are quark/antiquark systems, and might allow you to form a nucleon/antinucleon pair of some sort But 1. pi mesons are unstable, with half-lives so short it's not even worth having them committed 2. It would take 3, and getting 3 particles to collide at once is a lot tougher than getting 2 to do so 3. It's all moot, because mesons are much lighter, meaning that the reaction doesn't release energy, so what's the point? The bottom line is that protons are the lightest stable baryon.

I used 16 words. Did you mean stubbornness? It means determined not to change one's mind I think it's right. It was as polite as I was able to be under the circumstances.

I suspect that "a more serious science forum" isn't really what you are truly looking for. People on science fora want to discuss science, and this isn't it. Debunking antiscience or pseudoscience can be an interesting exercise, but to garner interest you need to have presented some solid claims, rather than nebulous assertions like "it disrupts gravity by exploiting general relativity." There's no meat to it — there's nothing to dissect.

The problem here is that this is a science site. We require that you try and be scientific in how you express ideas. What people are doing is trying to get you to employ some rigor in how you are presenting your thoughts. Without that, they are subjective and personal, and it's not easy to translate such thoughts from individual to individual.