1. Originally Posted by sigurdV
For the protocol:Are you sure its not philosophy?
Unlike philosophy per se, it has the markings of superstition on it.

2. Originally Posted by Mazulu
But you can't test gravity drive propulsion because you're relying on the stress energy tensor to curve space. Or you're relying on exotic matter or dark energy. You can't come up with a practical and affordable experiment. So in effect, neither ST nor GR predict a practical and testable gravity drive. You are also blind to the fact that a practical gravity drive has to violate conservation of energy
You should find out what relativity says before shouting your mouth off.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
I have lingering doubts. I don't even think you know how to use the math editor. Can you do this? $2 + 2 = 4$
I'm the moderator of the maths and physics forum. I have a degree and masters in mathematics. I have a PhD in string theory. Feel free to browse the threads I've started in the maths and physics forum.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
Why is the speed of light invariant for every reference frame? Why do we observe particle-wave duality? How does nature measure space and time so precisely? Can you answer these questions in a simple way that resembles common sense?
Numerous logical fallacies in your line of questioning. Firstly whether or not someone else can answer those questions has no bearing on the validity of your attempts to answer them. If no one had an answer you making something up doesn't magically become any more valid. Secondly you make the stipulation 'resembles common sense'. Why should the universe behave in a manner we expect? We live on 30% of the surface of one planet of 8, in one solar system in hundreds of billions in a galaxy, in one galaxy of trillions. Why should the very small or the very massive or the very fast follow the same behaviour as things in our experience? It's both naive and profoundly arrogant to think things should fall in line with your common sense. The fact you don't grasp something, that something seems counter intuitive, doesn't make it wrong. Your ability to reason is not the yardstick by which the universe is measured.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
It's all about getting quantifiable results. You don't have any ideas for a gravity drive experiment. I do. Maybe you need common sense after all.
You cannot provide evidence you do, you just assert you do. You've already made demonstrable errors in your representation of nature and science, you obviously don't have exact information.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
For purposes of discovering a practical gravity drive, mathematical physics is useless. Why? If you had common sense, you would realize that a gravity drive has to violate conservation of energy. But your mathematical models have to uphold conservation laws. Therefore, they are worthless.
No, mathematical models don't necessary have to conserve energy. I can easily give you a mathematical model which doesn't represent an energy conserving system. The link between conserved quantities and mathematical structure is pretty simple, when you learn mathematical physics. You are unaware of it because you never learnt it, yet you have the stupidity to tell people who have learnt it how it works.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
When you resort to God bashing and insults, I can't take you seriously. I just don't believe that you are as professionally successful as you claim to be. You!? A head researcher in all these areas of GR, QM? Based upon the knowledge level that you've demonstrated here, I picture you more as a physics undergrad.
The prevelence of religious belief drops as education increases. The fraction of the US population which believes in god is much much higher than in those with PhDs in sciences.

Besides, you present as your argument "God told me". You think that is viable scientific reasoning? It's ridiculous, ie it deserves ridicule.

As for the knowledge I've shown here I haven't done anything which I'd consider even mildly undergrad level. You really have no clue what proper research into relativity or QM involves. Take a look on ArXiv in the theoretical physics section, that's what actual research involves. You'll also note none of the papers say "God told me", instead they show derivations of their results or provide experimental data. They follow the scientific method. You do not.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
Anyway, don't have a cow. Maybe you do have something positive to contribute. I try to keep an open mind.
I contribute sufficiently well to science to be paid to do it. You get stuck being corrected on forums.

Can you provide anything to back up your claims other than "God says".

3. ## Hello # 153

The surface area increase of the boat could work, though very impractical. For gravity propulsion, the analogy would be to increase 'density', m/m'.

4. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
You should find out what relativity says before shouting your mouth off.

I'm the moderator of the maths and physics forum. I have a degree and masters in mathematics. I have a PhD in string theory. Feel free to browse the threads I've started in the maths and physics forum.
So you have a Masters and a PhD in: "Experiment! What's that?"
Numerous logical fallacies in your line of questioning. Firstly whether or not someone else can answer those questions has no bearing on the validity of your attempts to answer them. If no one had an answer you making something up doesn't magically become any more valid.
Ontology. Forget God, I'm talking about the medium that causes light to exist. Harmonic waves. $y = A sin[\frac{2 \pi}{\lambda}(x - vt)]=A sin(kx-\omega t)$, $v = \frac{\omega}{k}$, $v=\lambda f$. Does this remind you of anything? Photons? Here's a picture. Golly gee willikers, I'm just a layperson, but do you think the medium could be made out of waves? They would have to be foundational, first cause and fundamental; they can't be made out of something smaller. Therefore, $v=\sqrt{\frac{F}{\mu}}$ doesn't apply. The invariance of c, for all reference frames (accelerating and inertial) could be explained as regions of space with (1) constant frequency/wavelength, (2) changing frequency/wavelength.
Secondly you make the stipulation 'resembles common sense'. Why should the universe behave in a manner we expect? We live on 30% of the surface of one planet of 8, in one solar system in hundreds of billions in a galaxy, in one galaxy of trillions. Why should the very small or the very massive or the very fast follow the same behaviour as things in our experience? It's both naive and profoundly arrogant to think things should fall in line with your common sense. The fact you don't grasp something, that something seems counter intuitive, doesn't make it wrong. Your ability to reason is not the yardstick by which the universe is measured.
That's good advice. You should follow it. The frequency shift experiment should be performed for exactly that reason. I think I'll quote you for future arguments.
You cannot provide evidence you do, you just assert you do. You've already made demonstrable errors in your representation of nature and science, you obviously don't have exact information.
Do experiment. Get a high $\frac{\Delta f}{\Delta t}$ of good quality. Then we'll have data to talk about.
No, mathematical models don't necessary have to conserve energy. I can easily give you a mathematical model which doesn't represent an energy conserving system. The link between conserved quantities and mathematical structure is pretty simple, when you learn mathematical physics. You are unaware of it because you never learnt it, yet you have the stupidity to tell people who have learnt it how it works.
Then can you come up with a gravity propulsion drive experiment?
The prevelence of religious belief drops as education increases. The fraction of the US population which believes in god is much much higher than in those with PhDs in sciences.

Besides, you present as your argument "God told me". You think that is viable scientific reasoning? It's ridiculous, ie it deserves ridicule.

As for the knowledge I've shown here I haven't done anything which I'd consider even mildly undergrad level. You really have no clue what proper research into relativity or QM involves. Take a look on ArXiv in the theoretical physics section, that's what actual research involves. You'll also note none of the papers say "God told me", instead they show derivations of their results or provide experimental data. They follow the scientific method. You do not.
One of your assumptions is wrong. One of the physics community's assumptions is wrong. Can you guess which one?
I contribute sufficiently well to science to be paid to do it. You get stuck being corrected on forums.
You mean you get paid to suppress zero energy technology. You get paid to suppress free energy technology.
Can you provide anything to back up your claims other than "God says".
Yeah! Perform the experiment.

5. Originally Posted by Mazulu
But you can't test gravity drive propulsion
You mean "there is no such thing as..."

because you're relying on the stress energy tensor to curve space.
Hah! How about we're relying on what nature is observed to be doing which is explained by SR/GR, among other things...

Or you're relying on exotic matter or dark energy.
"Exotic"? Again, science relies on Nature. Some of it may seem exotic to you, but what's unusual about that? At least following science offers the best hope for understanding Nature.

You can't come up with a practical and affordable experiment.
To prove a silly sci-fi machine is not able to cross the line from simulation to reality? No. You mean "won't...."

So in effect, neither ST nor GR predict a practical and testable gravity drive.
I sense another clue falling down from the libraries like manna from heaven.

You are also blind to the fact that a practical gravity drive has to violate conservation of energy
That would be a better description of "sighted" than "blind" .

6. I have a masters in pure and applied mathematics from Cambridge. And my Phd involved studying gravity duals of qcd and nongeometric structure of generalized Calabi yau spaces. Sinusoidal waves are not the general wave function. Further more photon wave functions are more elaborate that the type you quote. Besides, if you disagree with the standard tale on things why are you saying my knowledge counts for nothing? Quantum mechanics talks about wave functions. String theory requires knowledge of relativity and quantum mechanics, so understanding string theory necessarily needs understanding of quantum mechanics. If I wrote down the quantum electrodynamics wave function you'd fail to grasp it.

As for your experiment I explained why it doesn't do as you require, A fact you failed to retort. Your are obviously not involved in any proper science at your place of employment, just mindless drone work.
Your "you get paid to suppress zero point work" is a figment of your paranoia. Lowering yourself to paranoid delusions to excuse your abject failure is itself laughable..

7. Originally Posted by Gerhard Kemmerer
Mazulu, I support your quest on aether as an active medium, and note that the pioneers of modern science, just failed to determine its characteristics.
I am trying to form a workable model for aether based on current scientific experiments etc. I have read other contributions (not on this forum) on TEW's, which has space filled with elementary waves and particles. Thanks to another post I read that Einstein did not dismiss aether, only he did not agree with its supposed properties. Common science got rid of aether and possibly will have to face it again. One reason for its dismissal it that it leads to the concept that matter is no longer self existant, and so the politically motivated philosophies of atheism have taken over.
Gerhard,
You have common sense enough to realize that light needs a support structure a medium of some kind. Once you have a good idea of the characteristics of the medium, you look at a black hole and you can see that its gravity is being transmitted through the medium by a "configuration" of the medium. If the medium is made of waves, then the configuration of the medium near the black hole is going to look like frequency and wavelength shifting waves. Science calls these gravitational redshift and gravitational time dilation.

This is what separates people with common sense like you, me and Albert Einstein from those who are brainwashed by the academic community. Someone with common sense might say, "Hey, If the medium is made of waves, and the gravity of a black hole frequency shifts those waves, maybe I can frequency shift those waves too?" But if you have no common sense, if you've been brainwashed, then you will say things like,
Originally Posted by Aqueous ID
To prove a silly sci-fi machine is not able to cross the line from simulation to reality? No. You mean "won't...."

You mean "there is no such thing as..."
Some education is helpful and useful. It's good to know how to work the physics model so you can build amazing engineering marvels. But other parts of education are total brainwashing. For example,
Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
Funny, I hear a lot of creationists try that argument to argue the teleological 'proof' of god. The standard atheist reply is appropriate here, since it undermines your god believe. Tell me, what causes god to exist? If it was something then he isn't the creator of all things. If he didn't have a cause you've undermined your own argument. If he created himself, you've undermined your own argument. Your believe in a supreme creator contradicts what you just said.

The prevelence of religious belief drops as education increases. The fraction of the US population which believes in god is much much higher than in those with PhDs in sciences.

Besides, you present as your argument "God told me". You think that is viable scientific reasoning? It's ridiculous, ie it deserves ridicule.
Their brainwashing is a two pronged approach. First, they destroy your faith in a Higher power. Next, they make you feel stupid to motivate you to spend a lot of time and money learning "edu-speak". They train you to believe that the physics model is the only correct way to observe nature. Soon, you are expected to believe just the physics model. You don't need to observe nature anymore, just the physics model. The physics model was based on some experiments. But then they stopped coming up with new experiments. They stopped challenging the physics model with fresh new ideas for experiments. Anyone who challenges the physics model is labeled a crackpot, ridiculed, and called stupid and idiotic. Anyone who believes in a Higher Power is shunned and professionally destroyed.

Five hundred years of the hardest work by the smartest minds, and we can't build a gravity drive because of one false assumption.

8. Originally Posted by sigurdV
Everything have a cause? The visible proves the existence of the invisible? Existence proves existence of non existence?
The last sentence re non existance is a leap too far. Step back and stay for a moment. Whatever can be known will and must relate to what we already know, it will take some adjusting. You already believe in the invisible force of gravity don't you? Because of what you see it does, but not because you can see gravity. Matter is what we 'see.' It is a continuous result of things we don't see. Do you have an urge to run or come back with a challenge? I have done it many times in thinking about these subjects.

9. Originally Posted by JJM
The surface area increase of the boat could work, though very impractical. For gravity propulsion, the analogy would be to increase 'density', m/m'.
Yes, increase or simulate an increase in mass. Represented by the sail, or increase in surface area. Now the sail boat does not go directly headwind, but across and in effect leaves the shore. A changed mass will not defy gravity, but will not relate well to surrounding normal matter and will slip and displace its position very easily, with no resistance. Its not what one would rationally expect.

10. Originally Posted by Mazulu
Originally Posted by Aqueous ID
To prove a silly sci-fi machine is not able to cross the line from simulation to reality? No. You mean "won't...."

You mean "there is no such thing as..."
Some education is helpful and useful. It's good to know how to work the physics model so you can build amazing engineering marvels.
How magnanimous of you to tolerate "useful" education.

But other parts of education are total brainwashing.
Only a person with some disastrous experience in school would confuse education and indoctrination.

For example, Their brainwashing is a two pronged approach. First, they destroy your faith in a Higher power.
Quite the opposite. Superstition and indoctrination are generally only promoted in the elementary and high school settings. By the time you get to college, the question is entirely moot and never comes up.

Next, they make you feel stupid to motivate you to spend a lot of time and money learning "edu-speak".
Speak for yourself. This appears to be nothing more than the voice of paranoid narcissism.

They train you to believe that the physics model is the only correct way to observe nature.
And "they" teach you not to generalize, particularly to stereotypes. Too bad you had a bad experience. Sounds like a case of sour grapes.

Soon, you are expected to believe just the physics model.
Says you.

You don't need to observe nature anymore, just the physics model.
Wrong again. Science majors are required to have extensive practical experience.

The physics model was based on some experiments.
No, all experiments. You've resorted to denigrating education because it proves you wrong, nothing more.

But then they stopped coming up with new experiments.
False. The other thing you learn in college is to read journals, which are stuffed with new experiments.

They stopped challenging the physics model with fresh new ideas for experiments.
Not only false, but really a dumb thing to say, arguing from a position of cynical ignorance.

Anyone who challenges the physics model is labeled a crackpot, ridiculed, and called stupid and idiotic.
No, it's the people who think that which are labeled that way.

Anyone who believes in a Higher Power is shunned and professionally destroyed.
Hah hah hah! That's why they teach physics in all the orthodox Catholic and Anglican schools and colleges!

Five hundred years of the hardest work by the smartest minds, and we can't build a gravity drive because of one false assumption.
You mean, that it's built with a cosmic screwdriver? Here you're just confusing the armchair with the lab bench.

11. Originally Posted by Mazulu
we can't build a gravity drive because of one false assumption.
Are you sure it's because of a false assumption? Maybe it's because we don't understand gravity enough? Or maybe it's just physically impossible.
Why ignore other possibilities, when what you're saying seems to imply a conspiracy. Ok, fine, if that's what you want to look like.
The physics model was based on some experiments. But then they stopped coming up with new experiments. They stopped challenging the physics model with fresh new ideas for experiments.
Who are you talking about here?
Science hasn't stopped doing experiments, so you're just wrong about it. Scientists challenge ideas and models all the time. They don't challenge the 2nd law of thermodynamics, because thermodynamics isn't "wrong". That doesn't mean scientists just accept it, it means they want to know why it's always "right".

Science generally is an attempt to fill in the gaps, and there isn't much room it seems for a device that can generate gravitational attraction which isn't a large massive body. Your engine will need to somehow reproduce this attractive force between itself and, what? The vacuum?

12. Originally Posted by Mazulu
If the medium is made of waves, then the configuration of the medium near the black hole is going to look like frequency and wavelength shifting waves. Science calls these gravitational redshift and gravitational time dilation.:
As uneducated, I am dependent on others like yourself.

The posts by Alphanumeric, seem very sound.

Matter has self governing properties that make it a strong economy independent of outside influences. But that outcome is produced by forces that do not fit conventional mechanics. JJM has thrown out a few clues, but he may want to elaborate. When you try to define matter by other forces similar to it, you end up cancelling the functions already there.

13. Originally Posted by Mazulu
This is what separates people with common sense like you, me and Albert Einstein from those who are brainwashed by the academic community.
Einstein had a physics PhD when he published his work in 1905 and it was based on the work of several extremely well known academics. Special relativity includes Lorentz transforms, Poincare invariant, Fitzgerald contractions, Minkowski space-time. All of them have the names of well known physicists attached to them. Einstein then got a job in academia and went on to work with Hilbert, the greatest mathematician of the last century and head of a maths department which was the top of the world.

And you aren't like Einstein, Einstein could produce results.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
Someone with common sense might say, "Hey, If the medium is made of waves, and the gravity of a black hole frequency shifts those waves, maybe I can frequency shift those waves too?" But if you have no common sense, if you've been brainwashed, then you will say things like,
Common sense would disagree with quantum mechanics yet quantum mechanics is accurate. Wave functions, as a concept, are extremely counter intuitive. You're picking and choosing.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
Their brainwashing is a two pronged approach. First, they destroy your faith in a Higher power.
I've never had faith in a higher power, I've always been a non-believer. My parents are academically minded (professor and doctor) but didn't give me any guidance on belief, even asked me if I wanted to go to church when I was a kid. I've always been a non-believer but in the last 5 years or so I've worn it a bit more on my sleave. Here in the UK most people are a-religious, religion is much less of a part of everyday life as it is compared to the US. No one, even those who actually believe, would ask in a normal conversation to someone they just met "What church do you go to" because it would make the likely false assumption they go to church and it would be considered extremely impolite to ask, unless it came up in conversation naturally, whether someone is a believer. Science didn't strip me of my faith, rational civil society meant I never had it.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
Next, they make you feel stupid to motivate you to spend a lot of time and money learning "edu-speak".
I think you're telling us about your experience of education because that isn't my experience of education. I had a wonderful time feeling like I was being told more and more the secrets of the universe. More than once I was taught something which made me think "Wow, that's so elegant and it says something so precise about how the universe works". I am not parroting things I do not understand, I am able to construct detailed explanations and descriptions based on my knowledge and understanding. If you were made to feel stupid in education sucks to be you.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
They train you to believe that the physics model is the only correct way to observe nature.
No, they don't. This might be the impression given in high school but to university students it is not. I was always aware that these are just current understanding, that understanding evolves and changes over time. I've even said as much in this thread.

It's stupid for you to try to tell me how physics education works when I've been in it, on both sides of the desk.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
Soon, you are expected to believe just the physics model. You don't need to observe nature anymore, just the physics model. The physics model was based on some experiments. But then they stopped coming up with new experiments. They stopped challenging the physics model with fresh new ideas for experiments.
Demonstrably false. Relativity is the most core model in all of physics at the moment and just last year there was all that stuff about how CERN might have shown neutrinos violate relativity. 2 new experiments were immediately devised to check the results. It turned out to be an error in the original experiment but the fact remains the experiments were being done, models being tested, contradicting results exposed.

It's a typical crank assertion that physicists want to protect the status quo for selfish reasons like not losing funding. The experiment which proves relativity or quantum field theory wrong will result in a Nobel Prize, huge fame, loads of citations and a ton of funding to explore the anomaly. Physicists make names for themselves by upsetting the status quo. No one makes a name for themselves just rehashing already explored work. If I could write a valid paper tomorrow disproving relativity I'd do it in a shot, so would everyone in the physics community.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
Anyone who challenges the physics model is labeled a crackpot, ridiculed, and called stupid and idiotic.
No, you're labelled a crackpot and ridiculed because you present ridiculous arguments for your claims. You provide no evidence, no models, no derivations, no logic, nothing but assertions. Now you're asserting demonstrably false things about physics as a whole. Like I said, experiments testing relativity are done and anomalous results published for discussion. The CERN experiments provided data, justification for their position, highlighted how to test their conclusions etc. They followed the scientific method.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
Anyone who believes in a Higher Power is shunned and professionally destroyed.
No, that's false also. The reason I've ridiculed your faith is because you try to justify your claims with it. "I asked God". That's laughable as science. If you'd instead said "I believe in God" separately from "Here is a detailed derivation of my conclusions" then I'd have not ridiculed your belief as you weren't using it in a batshit crazy manner.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
Five hundred years of the hardest work by the smartest minds, and we can't build a gravity drive because of one false assumption.
You cannot offer justification for your claims and your assertions about how physics is currently done are false. You're wrong at every turn.

14. Originally Posted by Aqueous Id
Only a person with some disastrous experience in school would confuse education and indoctrination.Quite the opposite. Superstition and indoctrination are generally only promoted in the elementary and high school settings. By the time you get to college, the question is entirely moot and never comes up. Speak for yourself. This appears to be nothing more than the voice of paranoid narcissism. And "they" teach you not to generalize, particularly to stereotypes. Too bad you had a bad experience. Sounds like a case of sour grapes. Says you. Wrong again. Science majors are required to have extensive practical experience. No, all experiments. You've resorted to denigrating education because it proves you wrong, nothing more. False. The other thing you learn in college is to read journals, which are stuffed with new experiments. Not only false, but really a dumb thing to say, arguing from a position of cynical ignorance. No, it's the people who think that which are labeled that way. Hah hah hah! That's why they teach physics in all the orthodox Catholic and Anglican schools and colleges! You mean, that it's built with a cosmic screwdriver? Here you're just confusing the armchair with the lab bench.
If you're done with your ranting, we'll move on to something productive and interesting.

15. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
No, you're labelled a crackpot and ridiculed because you present ridiculous arguments for your claims. You provide no evidence, no models, no derivations, no logic, nothing but assertions. Now you're asserting demonstrably false things about physics as a whole. Like I said, experiments testing relativity are done and anomalous results published for discussion. The CERN experiments provided data, justification for their position, highlighted how to test their conclusions etc. They followed the scientific method. No, that's false also. The reason I've ridiculed your faith is because you try to justify your claims with it. "I asked God". That's laughable as science. If you'd instead said "I believe in God" separately from "Here is a detailed derivation of my conclusions" then I'd have not ridiculed your belief as you weren't using it in a batshit crazy manner.
You cannot offer justification for your claims and your assertions about how physics is currently done are false. You're wrong at every turn.
Wow! Can you dodge the issues any more skillfully? When can we discuss the real issues?

First: The current physics model doesn't address how light is even possible. For all we know, the Tooth fairy flies around and makes light work. Whenever the topic of a medium or an aether comes up, you guys pop M&M, drop some red herrings, attack the strawman, and then complain that God doesn't show up at your dinner parties. And you'll do it again right now.

What kind of medium can implement the properties of light, invariance of c, and give us particle-wave duality? How does the medium implement distance and time?

16. You ignored all of the retorts I gave. I responded to comments you made about science so you can't now turn around and say I'm off topic. You made very dishonest and ignorant false assertions about science and I called you on them. At least have the honesty to face up to your mistakes.

As for your question it is flawed, in that you presuppose a medium of the same type of construct as an nether is necessary. Its a leading question. You talk about not following the scientific community and not being brainwashed but you have closed your mind much more than I. You cannot put down your preconceptions that through universe should behave on all scales as you experience it in your everyday life. That and your belief a god spoke to you are extremely arrogant points of view. Your complaints science just asserts things like absolute truth are the all the more hypocritical.

Even if no one else can provide an attempt at an answer your asserts are judged only on their merit and evidence. Other people not answering doesn't elevate your guess.

Your continued inability to grasp this and repeated complete fabrication about how science works shows you have a chip know your shoulder about education. Clearly you didn't do well in it. Perhaps thinking a god speaks to you is a sign of self worth issues? Suck at physics? No problem, Jesus talks to me!

17. Originally Posted by Mazulu
If you're done with your ranting, we'll move on to something productive and interesting.
There wasn't much productive or interesting in your attacks on education. I suppose I speak for most of the people here who spent the money and effort to develop themselves, in my remarks. A question for you to consider is why you hold such a jaded view of academics, whereas millions of people are out there applying what they've learned and getting paid for it, merely because it works. I also doubt that you understand how university accreditation works: precisely because the people going into industry are not showing up ill-prepared and with heads full of bogus ideas. Those colleges get accredited precisely because the alumni know when to detect bogosity and when to sit up and pay attention. Here's where folks can read you like the back of their hand. My intent is not to rant, but to rattle you into awareness of what it is you're doing wrong.

You're inquiring into physics, but at the same time you're stating facts that anyone who has taken freshman physics knows are false. You're adding to your error by discrediting academia.

The intellectually honest position to take is "here is what I know" (followed by a statement of the principles) or "I don't know" (followed by the questions that seek the best answer). Anything else sets off the bullshit detectors, and people react differently. Several folks have tried to steer you in the right direction. I've tried to use reason. AlphaNumeric has revealed that he's a walking library who has availed himself to you, if only you had the intellectual honesty to state what you don't know. At that point you would have gotten an answer that costs his students real money.

You've further bogged this down with innuendo about aliens, voices, God, etc. Those are great for scary stories around a campfire, but here, and in terms of intellectual honesty, it's counterproductive.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think. I've pointed out a number of errors to you that can be dispelled with just some very basic math and science, but you answered by imposing these nonsensical formulas, as if to somehow make the idea seem plausible. But they don't. They make you look poorly educated. They're not formulated properly and they don't convey meaning in the way a proper treatment of math would speak to the reader.

It's up to you where you want to go, but given the amount of time you've wasted so far, it would seem a lot more useful to turn this into a learning experience. Obviously that's not an option for you if you have no respect for learning. Just remember - it's never too late. That is, as long as you get it done before Alzheimer's sets in.

18. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
Even if no one else can provide an attempt at an answer your asserts are judged only on their merit and evidence. Other people not answering doesn't elevate your guess. Your continued inability to grasp this and repeated complete fabrication about how science works shows you have a chip know your shoulder about education. Clearly you didn't do well in it. Perhaps thinking a god speaks to you is a sign of self worth issues? Suck at physics? No problem, Jesus talks to me!
You did it again. You avoid discussing the medium.

19. Originally Posted by Aqueous Id
There wasn't much productive or interesting in your attacks on education. I suppose I speak for most of the people here who spent the money and effort to develop themselves, in my remarks. A question for you to consider is why you hold such a jaded view of academics, whereas millions of people are out there applying what they've learned and getting paid for it, merely because it works. I also doubt that you understand how university accreditation works: precisely because the people going into industry are not showing up ill-prepared and with heads full of bogus ideas. Those colleges get accredited precisely because the alumni know when to detect bogosity and when to sit up and pay attention. Here's where folks can read you like the back of their hand. My intent is not to rant, but to rattle you into awareness of what it is you're doing wrong.
You're inquiring into physics, but at the same time you're stating facts that anyone who has taken freshman physics knows are false. You're adding to your error by discrediting academia.The intellectually honest position to take is "here is what I know" (followed by a statement of the principles) or "I don't know" (followed by the questions that seek the best answer). Anything else sets off the bullshit detectors, and people react differently. Several folks have tried to steer you in the right direction. I've tried to use reason. AlphaNumeric has revealed that he's a walking library who has availed himself to you, if only you had the intellectual honesty to state what you don't know. At that point you would have gotten an answer that costs his students real money.You've further bogged this down with innuendo about aliens, voices, God, etc. Those are great for scary stories around a campfire, but here, and in terms of intellectual honesty, it's counterproductive.You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think. I've pointed out a number of errors to you that can be dispelled with just some very basic math and science, but you answered by imposing these nonsensical formulas, as if to somehow make the idea seem plausible. But they don't. They make you look poorly educated. They're not formulated properly and they don't convey meaning in the way a proper treatment of math would speak to the reader. It's up to you where you want to go, but given the amount of time you've wasted so far, it would seem a lot more useful to turn this into a learning experience. Obviously that's not an option for you if you have no respect for learning. Just remember - it's never too late. That is, as long as you get it done before Alzheimer's sets in.
You're another one who blithers on about trivial nonsense. You won't discuss: how is light implemented? How are virtual photons implemented by the medium? You can't even conceive that a medium exists.

It is common sense that if you understand how a system works, you can tinker with it. But you don't understand how light is implemented by the medium. Look, I've got useful stuff to do.

20. The aether medium is a support system for light. This aether is made out of a waves that look like photons and electromagnetic waves, most of which are waiting for energy to pass through them. In the presence of a black hole or any gravitational object, the medium will conform to some configuration that will transmit the gravity field. Along the radii of the black hole, these un-energized photons and electromagnetic waves will undergo frequency and wavelength shifting. This gives us our gravitational time dilation and gravitational redshift.

When we duplicate these conditions by emitting a sawtooth wave as a linear change in frequency versus time, of electromagnetic radiation, we cause the medium to reproduce the conditions along the radii of a black hole. We reproduce the conditions of the medium that allow it to transmit gravity. In effect, we cause gravity to be transmitted without the black hole being present.

That is how you build a gravity propulsion drive.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•