swansont

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.

If the signature becomes a link, they will end up where all of the other spambots do. In an iron coffin, with spikes on the inside I'm closing this. Anyone interested in discussing the HUP may search for an older thread that's on-topic, or open up a new one. If the OP can pass the Turing test, asks nicely, and can justify the signature, I'll reopen.

This is actually not that easy. You could look at the repulsion of two balloons to get a very rough idea of how much, or even build your own electroscope. mg = kQ1Q2/r^2 Because of the nonlinear nature of the force, any error in estimating distance will give a larger error in the estimation of charge. A balloon sticking to the ceiling is even trickier, since the balloon induces a charge, and the force should then go as r^3

Even though this is an unresolved question in physics, that does not mean this is an invitation to speculation which has no support from accepted physics The neutrino "shortage" has been addressed with the discovery of neutrino oscillations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_oscillation

Quantum physics is pretty advanced stuff. I applaud your interest and effort, but there's a lot of ground to cover and you might be trying to absorb too much at once. Constructive interference is higher intensity, destructive is lower (i.e. zero), and this is a behavior of waves. So even though we have a single quantum of EM energy, i.e. a photon, passing though the slits, it goes through both slits and interferes with itself. If you repeated this many times, you would see the standard interference pattern emerge. It doesn't matter if this is done in a vacuum, because light has no problem traveling through a vacuum. "Being in two places at once" is a notion that arises by trying to think of the photon as a particle, when it's a wave.

That's the value if it's rounded to the nearest half-degree

Excuse me? The terms appear in the original post — that's the only place the equations are present. How does that exclude the poster?

I think you've worn everyone out with your stubbornness in the face of constructive/professional criticism.

It's called Young's double-slit experiment. Classically speaking, when a wave goes through, the two slits act as point sources, and at certain positions you will get constructive interference (the waves add) and at others, destructive interference (the waves cancel) But you still see this effect with photons when only one "particle" is in the apparatus at a time, meaning the photon interferes with itself. In one view, the particle is in two places at one time. However, I am of the opinion that this "view" is just an attempt to explain quantum mechanics with classical notions — in this case holding on to notions like well-defined positions and trajectories — and that presents a problem as you try and make this model cover more physics. Light is a wave, but the energy is quantized. It is localized when it interacts, and that tempts us to think of it as a particle. But thinking of it as a particle at any time other than the interaction can lead you astray. Since light is a wave, you have to think of it as existing over a large area or volume, rather than a single point. This is true of things with mass, as well. Electrons are "smeared out," though when you try and interact with them (in some ways, at least), they are localized to an arbitrarily small volume. When you have interference, the energy will always show up somewhere, i.e. there will always be a region of constructive interference (a signal) if there is a region of destructive interference (no signal). Fixed

I think that in this context, G, M, m, r and c should all be familiar to anyone with a little bit of physics background. Put another way, anyone who doesn't know what the letters stand for is probably not in a position to contribute to the discussion. (You must be this tall to ride the ride)

Wouldn't the homeopathic cure for dehydration be no water at all?

Nobody trying an accessible experiment in relativity is exceedingly unlikely. I know a lot of scientists. That doesn't sound like them at all.

A grounded metal tube would probably work, but would not be (as) flexible, or as light. That's probably a dealbreaker for vacuum cleaners for most consumers.

An atom being in a superposition of states need not be viewed as a multiverse — that's an interpretation of physics. The question of what constitutes a quantum event in your general description is tied in with decoherence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence

As Sisyphus noted, space is added between the objects. This is independent of any local motion.

Fixed the title typo Short answer: yes. A vacuum cleaner can generate static electricity; friction between poor conductors can cause charge to transfer and build up, and dust moving at some speed qualifies, especially through a tube made of insulating material. Compressed gas canisters don't have dust in them, and you avoid this problem.

You have the burden of proof backward. The ones who propose that this is real need to come up with more than a hand-wavy explanation that it follows an obscure part of general relativity. There's a reason why many of the effects of general relativity (such as Lense-Thirring) have only been investigated relatively recently — they are small and hard to measure. So the claim of an effective 89% reduction in mass, if that's even a reasonable way to model any GR effect, is an extraordinary claim. Why hasn't this been seen at the ~1% level (100 times easier to do), which could easily be measured in a lab? P&S isn't exile. Plenty of physics and engineering types look at this forum, in order to debunk things. Things are not presumed valid science until shown otherwise — it's the other way around. Claims without evidence or an established physical mechanism are to be treated skeptically. "Speculations" is exactly where discussion of this sort should go.

But the classification of a drug as having "no acceptable medical use" is a question of science and medicine. The policy of who can legally obtain the drug is the political part.

Very little effort is put forth to justify that GR can explain what's going on. Just saying that there's a part of GR (presumably frame-dragging) that can account for this isn't nearly enough.

http://federalbureauofmiscellaneousinformation.com/node?page=3 You can't just copy/paste the displayed link on SFN. If it has ellipses, it means the displayed link was shortened. Anyway, it's just a site of collected items, that are not sourced. However, there was a study, and it's mentioned here: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1143/do-cats-always-land-unharmed-on-their-feet-no-matter-how-far-they-fall along with an objection to how the statistics were collected.

The mass of the BH is given, with the mass of companion in parentheses. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Except that I suspect that A and B are actually the same, with the radius being calculated rather than empirically determined. The scatter you see is from rounding. Which makes the graph an exercise in plotting (ax) vs (x) and nothing more.