# Thread: Photon in an acceleration field

1. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
For someone claiming to get his information from aliens and god you sure do have terrible reading and understanding abilities.
AlphaNumeric, I am going to have to defend Mazulu on this point. It must be very difficult to concentrate on anything when space aliens are beaming non-verbal aether wave mechanics and gravity beam plans into your brain. I would be surprised if he could even walk or (*shudder*) drive with that racket going on in his head.

2. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
Jesus H Christ, how many times do you need to be told, the photon behaviour in the picture doesn't behave like a chirplet. Frequency changing doesn't mean it changes like a chirplet. Chirplets have a specific form for their frequency and it is NOT the same as the photon's frequency change in that picture you posted. That is what I previously told you. That is why I asked you to provide the details, so you'd realise it for yourself.
I just graphed it on my calculator. You're right, it doesn't graph like the picture I showed you. You probably tried to tell me that. If I missed it, it was because I skim over the useless worthless criticism. So the question becomes: what function will graph like the picture?

Let's see. A couple of months ago, I said that we had to generate a frequency shift of the form $f(t) = \frac{\Delta f}{\Delta t}t + f_0$. I said that $\frac{\Delta f}{\Delta t}$ had to be as large as possible in order to generate a strong enough acceleration field. Now if I look at linear frequency chirps, they are of the form $f(t) = f_0 + kt$. According to the article, it should graph as this. So what's the problem?

3. Originally Posted by Cheezle
That generator is not going to do what you want it to do. You have not studied the spec sheet for that product. You have not looked into how you would use such a device. You do not just press the "sweep 1GHz to 2GHz" button. The signal that generator would create would look really crappy. And IF you ever figured that out, then you would just blame it for your gravity beam not working.

Not only are you not a physicist, your electronics skills are at the hobbyist level, and that is probably extremely generous. I do have a few very meager skills in this area. I just hopped on ebay and found exactly what you need instead of the generator. It will do what you want IF you are willing to build a small <$20 circuit (a few op-amps and transistors) to control it and a power supply. That is probably way beyond your skills. The device on ebay costs less than$100 dollars used from a reputable dealer. But guess what? I am not going to tell you what it is. LOL. I am not here to help you with your stupid experiment. I am only here to rub your nose in your lack of skills.
I'm not seeing anything helpful or useful here. I do see evidence of poor character.

4. Originally Posted by Mazulu
I'm not seeing anything helpful or useful here. I do see evidence of poor character.
You do bring out the worst in people. Normally I am a very helpful person. In fact I (and others) have tried to help you here many times, and you have ignored it. So in retrospect I will give you the information. I would advise you to not buy it. You do not have the ability to successfully use it, though it is just about as simple as it gets.

http://compare.ebay.com/like/3904361..._lwgsi=y&cbt=y

If you look around you can find them with much higher frequency ranges. But you should probably stick to as low a frequency as you can since it gets harder and harder to work with as you go up in frequency. That is true of your generator too. I picked this one because those are the frequencies you asked for.

Your would need to build a circuit to drive it. Basically a YIG takes an input current and delivers a frequency output. current vs frequency is very linear. So a ramp in should sweep the range. You would have to read the specs on it to find out how fast you can sweep it. Chances are you want to sweep the range faster than is possible. I have seen similar YIGs drive at 0.1s/sweep. Perhaps faster is possible. I never looked into it. But I doubt you could build a circuit to drive it. The the next step is to get an amplifier. You would not know how to choose one or use it. Same with the antenna. If you buy it, you will just be wasting your money. So take this as a warning. A person with some knowledge could make it work. If you decide to try and borrow that expensive generator, you won't know how to use that either. Have fun.

5. Originally Posted by Cheezle
You do bring out the worst in people. Normally I am a very helpful person. In fact I (and others) have tried to help you here many times, and you have ignored it. So in retrospect I will give you the information. I would advise you to not buy it. You do not have the ability to successfully use it, though it is just about as simple as it gets.
I try very hard to uphold the golden rule. Unfortunately, I am not very good at the silver rule.

http://compare.ebay.com/like/3904361..._lwgsi=y&cbt=y

If you look around you can find them with much higher frequency ranges. But you should probably stick to as low a frequency as you can since it gets harder and harder to work with as you go up in frequency. That is true of your generator too. I picked this one because those are the frequencies you asked for.

Your would need to build a circuit to drive it. Basically a YIG takes an input current and delivers a frequency output. current vs frequency is very linear. So a ramp in should sweep the range. You would have to read the specs on it to find out how fast you can sweep it. Chances are you want to sweep the range faster than is possible. I have seen similar YIGs drive at 0.1s/sweep. Perhaps faster is possible. I never looked into it. But I doubt you could build a circuit to drive it. The the next step is to get an amplifier. You would not know how to choose one or use it. Same with the antenna. If you buy it, you will just be wasting your money. So take this as a warning. A person with some knowledge could make it work. If you decide to try and borrow that expensive generator, you won't know how to use that either. Have fun.
Sweep rate is actually something I hadn't thought of. I was still thinking about how I have to use an omni-directional antenna because the bandwidth of a directional antenna is too small (e.g. 1.0 to 1.1GHz). I'm concerned that whatever acceleration field I hope to generate with frequency shift, that it will get watered down if it has to be omnidirectional. The goal is to get a frequency sweep with a $\frac{\Delta f}{\Delta t}$ as large as possible; although I am concerned that $\Delta f$ has to be large enough. You are right that I have to read the specs to make sure the parts will do what I want. It wouldn't be wise to spend money on something I can't use.

6. I am curious, what does the antenna do? Why spread the power out like that? It seems counterproductive. There are ways to keep the power confined to a very small region without antennas.

Also, a gravitational field that could "shift the wavelength" from 1 GHZ to 2 GHZ is freaking immense. Why is this not a concern? I can assure you that someone has done this very experiment before and so the effect must not be noticeable or it would have been reported. Why is that?

It all seems very mysterious and illogical.

Also, a photon is moving at c, but your expected effect seems to be stationary. Why is that?

Notice I did not mention the space aliens even once.

7. Originally Posted by Cheezle
I am curious, what does the antenna do? Why spread the power out like that? It seems counterproductive. There are ways to keep the power confined to a very small region without antennas.
I would prefer to keep the power confined. I would prefer to emit the power as a plane wave. I am open to suggestions.

Also, a gravitational field that could "shift the wavelength" from 1 GHZ to 2 GHZ is freaking immense.
Yes it is. I estimate about 2 trillion g's.
Why is this not a concern? I can assure you that someone has done this very experiment before and so the effect must not be noticeable or it would have been reported. Why is that?
Acceleration caused by gravity, caused by something as massive as a black hole, causes the whole EM spectrum to frequency shift. In contrast, emitting a repeating frequency shift is going to give you an acceleration field that is, perhaps, -50dB (significantly weaker). I don't know how to calculate it's strength. Boosting power will help (I'm sure). A 1 to 2GHz sweep every millisecond might, optimistically speaking, produce a measurable change in a 100.000 gram weight of +/- 0.01 grams; my scale reads in grams, not newtons or pounds. It would be an acceleration field strength of 10^-4 g's. That would be a $\frac{\Delta f}{\Delta t}=10^{12}$.

Ideally, I would prefer to perform a frequency shift from 400 to 800THz every microsecond; that would give you $\frac{\Delta f}{\Delta t}=4x10^{18}$, 6 orders of magnitude higher. Perhaps that would boost the acceleration field by 6 orders of magnitude to a 100g's.

It all seems very mysterious and illogical. Also, a photon is moving at c, but your expected effect seems to be stationary. Why is that? Notice I did not mention the space aliens even once.
I didn't want to think about the hazards of stray acceleration fields. Maybe, someday, engineers and physicists will design emitters that will keep the acceleration field very strong locally. Maybe it will fall off by -20dB per meter. If we could ever create acceleration fields as strong as 10^15 g's, which could break the speed of light barrier (with the right geometry and masterful engineering techniques), the field would drop to 0.001g's after $20log(\frac{10^{15}}{10^{-3}g})=360dBm$, -20db/meter, about 18 meters. So don't stand too close.

8. Originally Posted by Mazulu
I would prefer to keep the power confined. I would prefer to emit the power as a plane wave. I am open to suggestions.

Yes it is. I estimate about 2 trillion g's.

Acceleration caused by gravity, caused by something as massive as a black hole, causes the whole EM spectrum to frequency shift. In contrast, emitting a repeating frequency shift is going to give you an acceleration field that is, perhaps, -50dB (significantly weaker). I don't know how to calculate it's strength. Boosting power will help (I'm sure). A 1 to 2GHz sweep every millisecond might, optimistically speaking, produce a measurable change in a 100.000 gram weight of +/- 0.01 grams; my scale reads in grams, not newtons or pounds. It would be an acceleration field strength of 10^-4 g's. That would be a $\frac{\Delta f}{\Delta t}=10^{12}$.

Ideally, I would prefer to perform a frequency shift from 400 to 800THz every microsecond; that would give you $\frac{\Delta f}{\Delta t}=4x10^{18}$, 6 orders of magnitude higher. Perhaps that would boost the acceleration field by 6 orders of magnitude to a 100g's.

I didn't want to think about the hazards of stray acceleration fields. Maybe, someday, engineers and physicists will design emitters that will keep the acceleration field very strong locally. Maybe it will fall off by -20dB per meter. If we could ever create acceleration fields as strong as 10^15 g's, which could break the speed of light barrier (with the right geometry and masterful engineering techniques), the field would drop to 0.001g's after $20log(\frac{10^{15}}{10^{-3}g})=360dBm$, -20db/meter, about 18 meters. So don't stand too close.
Wow! The crank meter just went off the scale. Science could learn a lot by dissecting your brain. I am truly amazed. Just wow!

9. Originally Posted by Cheezle
Wow! The crank meter just went off the scale. Science could learn a lot by dissecting your brain. I am truly amazed. Just wow!
Here is your problem. I just showed you what quantum gravity looks like, but you didn't recognize it..

You physicists have been lost in a maze of superstring mathematics for so long that you cannot recognize the right answer. You don't know what the right answer looks like. You are lost in a forest of pretty mathematics that mean exactly nothing. You have bedazzled yourselves and everyone around you with symbols and relationships that give you zero benefit. You are all like court wizards and astrologers who who mutter strange incantations, throw down a smoke bomb, but who have no real magic.

You abandoned the luminiferous aether in exchange for SR and QM, but you failed to solve the puzzle. What is the aether? The aether is quite simple. The aether is just the set of waves that satisfy $c=\lambda f$. But you overlooked the obvious answer because you are blind. The universe is made of waves. When the waves are illuminated, you find photons and electromagnetic radiation. Gravity mirrors light; light mirrors gravity as gravitational redshift. Gravity is only an image. It is the waves that are real. When you manipulate light as redshift, as a linear chirp, you recreate the image of gravity.

So your crank meter is really a "free me from string theory delusion" meter. If you seek the truth, then perform the experiment.

10. Everytime the Aliens give Maz a new buzzword, he simply must use it.

11. Originally Posted by AlexG
Everytime the Aliens give Maz a new buzzword, he simply must use it.
Say the following mantra 42 times: Free me from delusion; direct me to truth.

12. Originally Posted by Mazulu
Here is your problem. I just showed you what quantum gravity looks like, but you didn't recognize it..

You physicists have been lost in a maze of superstring mathematics for so long that you cannot recognize the right answer. You don't know what the right answer looks like. You are lost in a forest of pretty mathematics that mean exactly nothing. You have bedazzled yourselves and everyone around you with symbols and relationships that give you zero benefit. You are all like court wizards and astrologers who who mutter strange incantations, throw down a smoke bomb, but who have no real magic.

You abandoned the luminiferous aether in exchange for SR and QM, but you failed to solve the puzzle. What is the aether? The aether is quite simple. The aether is just the set of waves that satisfy $c=\lambda f$. But you overlooked the obvious answer because you are blind. The universe is made of waves. When the waves are illuminated, you find photons and electromagnetic radiation. Gravity mirrors light; light mirrors gravity as gravitational redshift. Gravity is only an image. It is the waves that are real. When you manipulate light as redshift, as a linear chirp, you recreate the image of gravity.

So your crank meter is really a "free me from string theory delusion" meter. If you seek the truth, then perform the experiment.
I am not sure who you are addressing here. I am not a physicist. I am not even very technical. I am a layperson who just happens to like to read all those science books that real physicists roll their eyes at (as they should). I normally just lurk in these forums but your story about getting this theory of yours from the space aliens just set me off. I hate that kind of crap. Because it is either dishonest or delusional. In your case I think it is delusion. But sometimes it seems to be more in the dishonest range.

I am not interested in doing your experiment. I have my own personal projects that stand a much better change of success (as in non-zero chance success). Much more practical projects. I am sure it is the same for others here. If they were to invest time in some experiment, they would never choose yours. It has zero chance of success. It is a complete waste of time. You have not even really defined what the experiment is. Something about chirping and an acceleration field and gravity beams etc. First it was colored lights, then you added this idea of a luminiferous aether (which you have not properly defined either). You seem to admit that you do not have the technical chops to do the experiment, and have even admitted you can't write down your theory in any kind of scientific / mathematical format.

My crank meter is has no relation to string theory. It has to do with how stupid your ideas are. It is easy to see that you claim to be able to create forces that far (perhaps infinitely) exceed the input energy. It is a free energy device. It is a perpetual motion machine. It is a faster than light drive. It is a disintegration beam. And who knows what else. All those things are pseudoscience (actually anti-science). You actually are claiming to be able to do literally anything with your device. And most amazing is that it is very simple. Simple enough to build in your garage out of LEDs or a signal generator, amplifier and antenna. Wow. Wow again. Mind-boggling stupid. You put all other cranks to shame with their piddly crank ideas.

It is your crazy theory, and your crazy experiment. You do it. Quit begging others to do it for you.

13. Originally Posted by Cheezle
I am not sure who you are addressing here. I am not a physicist. I am not even very technical. I am a layperson who just happens to like to read all those science books that real physicists roll their eyes at (as they should). I normally just lurk in these forums but your story about getting this theory of yours from the space aliens just set me off. I hate that kind of crap. Because it is either dishonest or delusional. In your case I think it is delusion.

I am not interested in doing your experiment. I have my own personal projects that stand a much better change of success (as in non-zero chance success). Much more practical projects.
I am sure it is a worthless project that won't help anyone.
I am sure it is the same for others here. If they were to invest time in some experiment, they would never choose yours. It has zero chance of success.
Evidence of poor character.

You have not even really defined what the experiment is.
You said it was boring. I could give a crap what interests you. I'm trying to show the physics community the truth of where they they went wrong and what they should be looking for. I couldn't give a flaming fart what you think.

Something about chirping and an acceleration field and gravity beams etc. First it was colored lights, then you added this idea of a luminiferous aether (which you have not properly defined either). You seem to admit that you do not have the technical chops to do the experiment, and have even admitted you can't write down your theory in any kind of scientific / mathematical format.

My crank meter is has no relation to string theory. It has to do with how stupid your ideas are. It is easy to see that you claim to be able to create forces that far (perhaps infinitely) exceed the input energy. It is a free energy device. It is a perpetual motion machine. It is a faster than light drive. It is a disintegration beam. And who knows what else. All those things are pseudoscience (actually anti-science). You actually are claiming to be able to do literally anything with your device. And most amazing is that it is very simple. Wow. Wow again. Mind-boggling stupid. You put all other cranks to shame with their pidddly crank ideas.

It is your crazy theory, and your crazy experiment. You do it. Quit begging others to do it for you.
What you fail to understand is: I'm right, and the physics community is lost.

14. Originally Posted by Mazulu
What you fail to understand is: I'm right, and the physics community is lost.
It is Mazulu and his merry band of space aliens against the world. I wonder how it will turn out.

15. Originally Posted by Cheezle
It is Mazulu and his merry bad of space aliens against the world. I wonder how it will turn out.
The acceleration field generator will be discovered, eventually. That's how it will turn out. A sensitive scale will get near linear chirp emissions, and someone notices. Or maybe a UFO flies over a university, and a physicist with flaming brass balls declares that gravity drives exist.

16. Originally Posted by Mazulu
The acceleration field generator will be discovered, eventually. That's how it will turn out. A sensitive scale will get near linear chirp emissions, and someone notices. Or maybe a UFO flies over a university, and a physicist with flaming brass balls declares that gravity drives exist.
Oh that reminds me, I was going to show you how to build a more sensitive scale than the postage meter you plan to use.

I had some other things that could help you waste your time and money, but you don't give a flying fart what I think. I guess it is a sign of my bad character. LOL

17. Doesn't this all belong in pseudoscience?

Or perhaps in UFOs

18. Originally Posted by Cheezle
Oh that reminds me, I was going to show you how to build a more sensitive scale than the postage meter you plan to use.

I had some other things that could help you waste your time and money, but you don't give a flying fart what I think. I guess it is a sign of my bad character. LOL
Interesting video. I just realized that I don't really need an antenna. All I need is a large square metal plate with the amplifier attached to the bottom. I can sit the scale on top of the metal plate. I think that will give me plane waves in the "up" direction. What could be easier than that?

19. Originally Posted by Mazulu
I just realized that I don't really need an antenna. All I need is a large square metal plate with the amplifier attached to the bottom. I can sit the scale on top of the metal plate. I think that will give me plane waves in the "up" direction. What could be easier than that?
-> ->

20. Originally Posted by Cheezle
-> ->
Amp plugs into metal square. I thought that was obvious.

#### Posting Permissions

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