swansont

! Moderator Note 1. Advertising/discussing speculations outside of their own thread is against the rules. 2. You were asked what the contradiction is. This is a recurring theme: you act as though we can read your mind. Posting pictures and gifs with no explanation is woefully insufficient.

! Moderator Note Do you have a model? Can you make specific predictions, which would represent falsifiability? Something more than “stuff happens”

! Moderator Note Your ASD had no model and no evidence. This appears to be no different in that regard, and is a requirement for discussion.

! Moderator Note Simply repeating your assertions is not a valid substitute for the model and evidence that we require for discussion. As you have not provided the necessary level of rigor as required by the speculations rules, this is closed. Do not re-introduce this discussion.

! Moderator Note Multiple topics do not belong in a single thread. Speculations requires more than assertion. You need a model and a way to test it - some kind of evidence or a way to falsify the idea.

The GOP has outsourced it.

You need an input in one part of the cycle to let gravity do the work in the other part (same as the light I linked to); in hydro power that’s done by the sun.

And it gives 110% effort ! Moderator Note No, by the staff’s interpretation of our rules, it is an assessment of your argument, which is permitted. “you are a silly person” is an insult, but that’s not the comment. You need to distinguish between the two situations, and stop distracting from the discussion. Critique of your argument should be expected.

Yes. One effort is hydroelectricity. Gravitational PE of water is converted to rotational KE of a turbine, which makes electricity. also: https://deciwatt.global/gravitylight bypasses the need for water

No, there is no shortage. But in science we are constrained by what nature allows to work, and people untrained in science often ignore or are unaware of these constraints.

! Moderator “We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it.” - from rule 2.7

The details of verification depends on the claim. Sometimes you can re-create the experiment, or do a similar experiment with a different target. (e.g it worked with one atom or isotope, does it work with another?) Sometimes it relies on obtaining data independently (astronomy, for instance). Sometimes you can build on the discovery, and the new experiment will not work if the underlying science is wrong. (see the above GPS example)

! Moderator Note We require that discussion take place here; a link to a paper is insufficient. Seeing as this is apparently proposing perpetual motion, I’m just going to close it.

I have the advantage of being able to tell if someone is abusing the PM system. 10 PMs, no posts, within an hour or so of joining = spammer, in my estimation.

“In metric, one milliliter of water occupies one cubic centimeter, weighs one gram, and requires one calorie of energy to heat up by one degree centigrade—which is 1 percent of the difference between its freezing point and its boiling point. An amount of hydrogen weighing the same amount has exactly one mole of atoms in it. Whereas in the American system, the answer to ‘How much energy does it take to boil a room-temperature gallon of water?’ is ‘Go @%$& yourself,’ because you can’t directly relate any of those quantities.” Wild Thing by Josh Bazell.

A uniform mass distribution would not have a change in gravitational potential as your position changed.

I think you are over-complicating this with your non-convergent series. It’s a 3D problem. The potential due to mass M at r is -GM/r. It’s zero at infinity.

There’s plenty of science done by amateurs - astronomy comes to mind - but it’s typically observation and data collection rather than theory development. Since models have to fit with other parts of science, it requires a broad spectrum of knowledge that is much more typical for someone who has been formally schooled in the topic and pursuing it as a professional. This has not always been the case, but the sphere of scientific knowledge was smaller back when amateurs had a better chance of contributing. There was more low-hanging fruit.

! Moderator Note I got the same PM and determined they had sent PMs to 10 people, whereupon they were banned as a spammer. This is the sort of thing the “report” option is for

Not at all. What scientists are interested in is evidence, and that rarely makes an appearance. Here is no exception. Plus, if there was legitimately some new science phenomenon, we would be ecstatic to investigate.

Demanding direct evidence is an unreasonable burden. It excludes evidence that would show it to be correct. It’s like demanding evidence of dinosaurs existing 100 MYA and it must be video. Or DIRECT evidence of electrons. Markus covered this above.

! Moderator Note It is not possible to experiment over the course of millions of year, yet you say you can prove something that requires you to experiment over millions of years. This is beyond ridiculous You were asked for evidence to support your idea. Assertion is not evidence. We're done here. Don't bring this topic up again.

There are two tropes in play here. One is "I can find a paper that proposes an alternative explanation for the phenomenon!" Well, good for you, but that's meaningless. If it's a sufficiently well-known problem, I'd be surprised if you can't. People rushed forward with "new physics" solutions to the Gran Sasso superluminal neutrino issue some years back. It ended up being a loose fiber optic connector, not new physics. The other is "somebody is not convinced!" Again, it's not hard to find one or two people - with some credentials, even - that are not convinced of an explanation to a complex problem. It's one reason that science runs on consensus, rather than unanimous agreement. (again, with the superluminal neutrino problem, multiple people proposed the researchers weren't doing their timing correctly, which was bunk) Neither is evidence of anything at all. Both of these objections pass over looking at the science itself. They are a dodge, a distraction. (and the result of that neutrino issue was: people got the physics right, no new physics needed, but they overlooked a simple problem. The people involved with the problem never advertised that new physics was going to be the answer. The process worked.)

It's one thing to write a paper proposing new physics. It's quite another to find evidence that this new physics is correct. IOW, finding a paper that proposes a novel solution to the anomaly means very little. Also, two of the papers you cite predate 2012, when the thermal radiation solution was published. They are now moot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly

The original machine had a base plate of prefabulated amulite, surmounted by a malleable logarithmic casing in such a way that the two main spurving bearings were in a direct line with the panametric fan. The latter consisted simply of six hydrocoptic marzlevanes, so fitted to the ambifacient lunar waneshaft that side fumbling was effectively prevented. The main winding was of the normal lotus-o-deltoid type placed in panendermic semi-boloid slots in the stator, every seventh conductor being connected by a nonreversible tremmie pipe to the differential girdlespring on the "up" end of the grammeters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turboencabulator