Slashdot Mirror

Another very interesting read is the complete clusterfuck of the universal constant G -- except it isn't constant -- it oscillates!

Final Demystification of the gravitational constant variation

Considering that Newton's Universal Gravitational Force equation is ...

F = G * m1 * m2 / r^2

... which says nothing about a "speed limit" of gravity I think you might be right.

Have you read The Electro-Magnetic Radiation Pressure (EMRP) Gravity Theory, specifically Speed of Gravity?

--
I give it another quarter of a century before these priests ^H^H^H^H scientists ^H^H^H^H clowns discover the 2 missing forces: #5 strong intergalactic force, and #6 the weak intergalactic force, and the white hole at the center of the galaxy.

Considering that Newton's Universal Gravitational Force equation is ...

F = G * m1 * m2 / r^2

... which says nothing about a "speed limit" of gravity I think you might be right.

Have you read The Electro-Magnetic Radiation Pressure (EMRP) Gravity Theory, specifically Speed of Gravity?

--
I give it another quarter of a century before these priests ^H^H^H^H scientists ^H^H^H^H clowns discover the 2 missing forces: #5 strong intergalactic force, and #6 the weak intergalactic force, and the white hole at the center of the galaxy.

> Why the planck constant then? Why not e, or (pi), or any other constant, for that matter?

Because:

a) the universe is quantized / discrete / digital,
b) Plank Length and Planck Time are thought to be the smallest possible divisions of space and time respectively, (if there are any smaller divisions we're unable to measure them)
c)

The Planck length can be defined from three fundamental physical constants: the speed of light in a vacuum, the Planck constant, and the gravitational constant.

Planck units also has this interesting tidbit:

Natural units began in 1881, when George Johnstone Stoney derived units of length, time, and mass, now named Stoney units in his honor, by normalizing G, c, and the electron charge e to 1. (Stoney was also the first to hypothesize that electric charge is quantized and hence to see the fundamental character of e.) Max Planck first set out the base units (qP excepted) later named in his honor, in a paper presented to the Prussian Academy of Sciences in May 1899.[9][10] That paper also includes the first appearance of a constant named b, and later called h and named after him. The paper gave numerical values for the base units, in terms of the metric system of his day, that were remarkably close to those in Table 2. We are not sure just how Planck came to discover these units because his paper gave no algebraic details.

Cleaning up the "sloppy" definition of kg for something extremely precise is LONG overdue.

However, the bigger problem with the SI system is that the 7 fundamental (sic.) units are NOT independent from one another; that is, the definitions for Candela, Mole, Amp and Kelvin, are *dependent* upon the definition of the kg !? Worse, the mole and candela are completely _redundant_. So much for being "fundamental units."

See this pic:

http://www.blazelabs.com/pics/...

--
When are Scientists going to discover the 6 fundamental forces?

I'll probably get down modded but it is not just the technologies but the basic definitions of the SI system are pretty fucked up.

There are numerous problems, the primary being:

* the seven SI base units are not independent
e.g. the Amp depends on the definition of the kilogram ?!?!

http://www1.bipm.org/en/si/si_constants.html#figure

Quoting Dr. Xavier with my emphasis added:

"If for instance, one had to change the definition of the Kg unit, we see that the fundamental units candela, mole, Amp and Kelvin would change as well. .. So one cannot say there are seven fundamental SI units if these units are not independent of each other. The other big fault is the obvious redundancy of units. Although not very well known to all of us, at least two of the seven base units of the SI system are officially known to be redundant, namely the mole and the candela. These two units have been dragging along, ending up in the SI system for no reason other than historic ones. "

* http://www.blazelabs.com/f-u-suconv.asp

I would love for the Biefeld-Brown effect to be real and not based on ion wind. But, it turns out that experiments indicate that it is based on ion wind and does not work in a vacuum. It turns out that the ions interact with and pass their momentum to neutral particles in the air (see this experiment. Calculations based on only the ions themselves are way off because they do not include the interaction with neutral air particles.

If the BB effect is real, and possible to do in a vacuum, it would be relatively simple to produce a repeatable, measurable demonstration. However, despite repeated trials by all sorts of people playing with 'lifters', it just doesn't work.

Upon more research into time dilation, I happened upon this page:

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-u-lorentz.asp/ [blazelabs.com]

An interesting idea, if I interpret the idea correctly, he claims that atoms are actually made up of a pair of their known particles, and they are superluminal (which explains certain quantum effects). This would explain why you can't seem to track an electron's orbit: because you're actually trying to track 2 orbits... (maybe I've misinterpreted; I can't view the pictures.)

Anyway, correct or not -- my point is to show that there are other folks who have ideas for alternative models for physics that show special relativity to be slightly wrong, and the math seems reasonable.

Upon more research into time dilation, I happened upon this page:

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-u-lorentz.asp/

An interesting idea, if I interpret the idea correctly, he claims that atoms are actually made up of a pair of their known particles, and they are superluminal (which explains certain quantum effects). This would explain why you can't seem to track an electron's orbit: because you're actually trying to track 2 orbits... (maybe I've misinterpreted; I can't view the pictures.)

Anyway, correct or not -- my point is to show that there are other folks who have ideas for alternative models for physics that show special relativity to be slightly wrong, and the math seems reasonable.

If you live in an arid environment, you already know all about static electricity. When I pull a polypropylene-fleece blanket off a bed that has a wool blanket, at night, the sparks will literally light up the room for the duration of the pull. I work in an electronics place, a design center so we don't have full bunnysuits, and everyone is familiar with the necessity of touching something metal as or soon after you stand up from sitting in a chair. I regularly work with hardware interfaces to my computer, and am pretty used to leaning forwards in a chair, and the separation from the chair back charging up enough that when I touch the circuit board, the computer reboots.

At the bottom of this page is a graph of air dielectric strength vs. air pressure. If you can get a 2 cm spark, that's about 60,000 volts. That's plenty to pass through the plastic case of a computer to something inside, or through the insulation on test leads, as I can tell you from personal experience.

People interested in fabricators, might want to read this and this.

It's an alternative to the quantum/string/etc. theory, much more easy to grasp and seems a lot more likely to be true.

If so, we might eventually be able to shape any sub-atomic structure from radiation and vice-versa.

If conventional science will finally accept that matter is made purely out of waves, not little marbles or strings, we could produce a machine which could transfer (or copy) anything with the speed of light, or maybe even faster if we could produce a wormhole.

Now that's a feature I would actually like on my mobile phone!

P.S. Some guy has already made an anti-gravity device using this theory. It works and it has proven Newton wrong (check his movies).

Conventional scientist cannot explain where this energy comes from; it emits a lot more radiation than just from the 'splitting' atoms. Some theorists believe it comes from vacuum and any point in vacuum would contain an unexhaustive amount of energy that could feed the world.

Quite interesting stuff.

It's a shame conventional scientists do not even look at these theories only because they are not based on the (ugly) quantum or string theorie.