|
|
| Author |
Message |
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 3:23 am Post subject:
Re: Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
|
|
|
In article <449e00a1$0$12393$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, Max Keon
<maxkeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
How the hell did you encode this - my Mac won't play it.
--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
Official emperor of sci.physics, head mumbler of the "Cult of INSANE SCIENCE".
Please pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding.
Relf's Law?
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Eric Gisse
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 3:32 am Post subject:
Re: Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
|
|
|
Max Keon wrote:
| Quote: | "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151184813.452447.90170@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jerry wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Jerry wrote:
If you look at his brand new apparatus,
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/smoke1.jpg
you see that he introduces cigarette smoke at the center of the
rotor, and it exits out through a tube in the edge.
The point of the smoke is definitely subtle. I am confused as to how he
thinks a turbulent environment like this would reveal any "anisotropy",
much less how he justifys the existence of the anisotropy. My
understanding of fluid dynamics is minimal, but the term "non-linear"
and "turbulence" have meaning to me.
Without being able to view his mpeg and having only a vague idea of
the dimensions of the apparatus or velocity of flow, I'm not able to
estimate Reynolds number, so I can't say anything about turbulence
one way or another.
I've gone through this with him before. He says his theory predicts it,
but I point out that his entire theory is the assumption of the
anisotropy. I'm curious as to why he thinks a finite propogation speed
for the force of gravity would cause this "anisotropy".
So which one of us gets to break it to him that the electromagnetic
force has a finite propogation speed? I would *love* to see him test
his idea with an electrostatic field. It certaintly wouldn't require
this zany setup, either.
Evidently, Max blows air through the cigarette so that there is a
forced radial flow of smoke from center of the rotor outwards to the
exit tube. I haven't been able to view Max's mpeg, because I can't
locate a codec that will let me play it. So my smoke velocity
estimates are mostly guesswork. It doesn't matter, though, since
whether the smoke velocity is mm/s, cm/s, or m/s, the Coriolis
acceleration will be comparable.
http://www.mplayerhq.hu/design7/dload.html
I'm yet to find a non-propiarity video format that mplayer won't chew
through.
I'm going back on duty in a few hours, so I desperately need to get
some sleep. Tell me what you see when you play it.
You see those pictures of the DOS program with the blocks? Thats what
the video is of.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/smokon.jpg and
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/smokoff.jpg
are both (now better quality) extracts from the video clip.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/~gravair.html
is supposed to be what we are discussing here.
I can understand why you run and hide Eric.
But you really should try addressing the current subject.
|
Which subject would that be?
How you cannot possibly imagine how a rotating object would just happen
to drag air along with it?
Your inability to do data analysis?
Your lack of understanding of error analysis and why it is so crucial?
Like how you postulate an anisotropy and claim some theory predicts it?
Or how the equations you use to "explain" what you observe have no
basis in ANY theory?
Do tell..!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
science forum Guru
Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 2835
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 3:32 am Post subject:
Re: Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
|
|
|
Dear Max Keon:
"Max Keon" <maxkeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:449df343$0$31607$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
....
You start this off with a title that purportedly will talk about
an anisotropy in gravity. Then you run the apparatus only
horizontally, in a small area, so that no possible anisotropy in
gravity will be evident.
| Quote: | Temperature gradients? Where, why and how???
Care to explain?
You make reference to an experiment, you link
to a webpage that shows nothing about it. And
you remove the link in your reply. Care to explain?
The purpose of the link was to explain why, in
this experiment, an anisotropy in the **dynamic**
action of gravity would cause the air mass to
slow relative to the rotating housing.
|
It fails utterly to do this. There is no anisotropy possible in
horizontal operation in a small area.
| Quote: | I removed the link because I was providing a
better explanation in the post.
|
And you wanted *me* to stop hand waving?
....
| Quote: | enclosure as the housing rotates through it? That's
what it would take to make the air move as it does.
*What* "move as it does"? You don't have movies.
You don't have a section view. You spend more
words on code than you do on experimental setup.
You don't describe instrumentation.
You are still apparently referring to the "foam disc"
experiment. The operation of the device is
adequately described.
|
Read again. Nothing there is adequate for others to repeat your
experiment, much less understand what it is you've "measured".
| Quote: | More like a Brownian tornado. Have a good look
at the rate of air movement inside the ENCLOSED
housing.
It is meaningless until you describe the
experiment so that it can be duplicated.
Ever hear of the "butterfly effect"?
Are you still referring to the "foam disc" experiment?
|
I'm referring to your "poor description" on your webpage.
....
| Quote: | That would account for very minor air movement.
But it's not minor by any means, is it!
Who could tell? Not from that web page.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/gravity.html
Even if you can give a reasonable explanation
as to why the foam disc falls behind the rotating
housing as it does, you will still need to address
the latest development. Why does the air mass fall
behind the rotation rate of the housing as it does?
|
I still can't tell what the h*ll you are talking about. Can you
explain why those novelty hubcaps sometimes run backwards?
....
| Quote: | The "ramblings" are the result of how that
experiment evolved.
Sir, if you are trying to be heard/understood,
you can make it simpler.
This latest experiment couldn't possibly be any
simpler.
|
Then you have provided a parts list, with construction details?
| Quote: | I just spin the housing
|
Shape? Size? Filled with? Arranged like?
| Quote: | up to a constant speed, leave it run for a
settling time, turn on the strobe light, light
up the cigarette in its holder which is
directly linked to the housing inner tube
that carries the smoke to the outer rim, fit
the cigarette outer cover which has a preset
input airflow rate that's exhausting through a
hole at the cigarette butt end, then just
place my finger over the hole and observe
the result.
It doesn't get much easier does it!
|
It certainly didn't get *any* clearer.
....
| Quote: | speed. But that remains only a prediction for
now. But the anisotropy is well and truly proven.
It is a "cocaine dream" until you can allow
others to duplicate it.
Did you say you're an engineer?
|
Yes. Mechanical Engineer, minor in Design.
| Quote: | Learn to embrace the truth folk because it is
soon to embrace us all (equally).
Only death will do that. In the mean time,
we can try and communicate.
And in the quest for truth we communicate
via the entirely fluid medium of physics
|
No. We are forced to use "words" and "pictures". You have
plenty of words, and few that describe the experimental setup.
You have a few pictures, and none that allow independent
verification.
| Quote: | which should not ever be dammed or damned.
|
You are pretty far from physics now. You are doing fluid
mechanics. And you aren't understanding what you are seeing, and
no one can help you, because you (apparently) cannot describe
where you are.
Seriously, you don't need to reply to me anymore. Unless you are
going to adequately describe your experiment, such that someone
could construct and repeat it, then I am simply wasting your
time.
Over and out.
David A. Smith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Max Keon
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 05 Jun 2005
Posts: 111
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 5:27 am Post subject:
Re: Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
|
|
|
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:JXfng.497$RD.270@fed1read08...
| Quote: | Dear Eric Gisse:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151143547.386061.241910@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Jerry wrote:
...
Then again, my understanding of his device is rather
fluid - when did he start using smoke? I gave up
figuring out what he was trying to do since he listed
everything he has ever tried without really saying
what he is actually doing now. Metal rotor?
Styrofoam roater? Who the hell knows! Argh.
Styrofoam is never known to accumulate a static charge in motion
either. And moving static charges in non-uniform distribution
never induce dipoles in fluid molecules (yes, even gasses),
strongly influencing bulk fluid motion.
|
All the more reason to expect the air, or the styrofoam disc, to
maintain a fixed relationship with the rotating housing. Would you
expect anything else? It takes energy to induce charge dipoles. The
more dipoles, the greater the input energy requirement. Wouldn't it
seem more logical that the air mass would be driven more to a
stationary relationship with the housing?
But by all means continue working on your theory. Perpetual motion
is just what we need about now.
The one thing that will cause the air to move the way it does is an
anisotropy in the up-down directions relative to a gravity source.
In a universe where the action of gravity is dynamic, of course.
| Quote: | He sure did his research
alright.
David A. Smith
|
-----
Max Keon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Max Keon
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 05 Jun 2005
Posts: 111
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 5:33 am Post subject:
Re: Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
|
|
|
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM> wrote in
message news:250620060423010880%phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM...
I'm sorry about all this, but someone is stuffing about with my posts.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/gravair.html
This link is posted with only the single ~ in the address. It always
ends up with two wiggles instead of one. Remove the second wiggle and try
it again. But please don't blame me.
| Quote: | --
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson
why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
Official emperor of sci.physics, head mumbler of the "Cult of INSANE
SCIENCE".
Please pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding.
Relf's Law?
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eric Gisse
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 9:41 am Post subject:
Re: Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
|
|
|
Max Keon wrote:
| Quote: | "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:JXfng.497$RD.270@fed1read08...
Dear Eric Gisse:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151143547.386061.241910@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Jerry wrote:
...
Then again, my understanding of his device is rather
fluid - when did he start using smoke? I gave up
figuring out what he was trying to do since he listed
everything he has ever tried without really saying
what he is actually doing now. Metal rotor?
Styrofoam roater? Who the hell knows! Argh.
Styrofoam is never known to accumulate a static charge in motion
either. And moving static charges in non-uniform distribution
never induce dipoles in fluid molecules (yes, even gasses),
strongly influencing bulk fluid motion.
All the more reason to expect the air, or the styrofoam disc, to
maintain a fixed relationship with the rotating housing. Would you
expect anything else? It takes energy to induce charge dipoles. The
more dipoles, the greater the input energy requirement. Wouldn't it
seem more logical that the air mass would be driven more to a
stationary relationship with the housing?
|
Uh...no? Have you heard of drag?
| Quote: |
But by all means continue working on your theory. Perpetual motion
is just what we need about now.
The one thing that will cause the air to move the way it does is an
anisotropy in the up-down directions relative to a gravity source.
In a universe where the action of gravity is dynamic, of course.
|
Have you even tried turning the apparatus 90 degrees and seeing if the
effect is still there? Or is that trivial bit of effort just too much
for you?
| Quote: |
He sure did his research
alright.
David A. Smith
-----
Max Keon |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Max Keon
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 05 Jun 2005
Posts: 111
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 9:52 am Post subject:
Re: Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
|
|
|
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:Ssnng.511$RD.423@fed1read08...
| Quote: | Dear Max Keon:
"Max Keon" <maxkeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:449df343$0$31607$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
...
You start this off with a title that purportedly will talk about
an anisotropy in gravity. Then you run the apparatus only
horizontally, in a small area, so that no possible anisotropy in
gravity will be evident.
|
The rotation plane of the housing is perpendicular to the earth's
surface. It's axle is pointed north-south.
The dynamic curvature of space resulting from the action of gravity
in the zero origin universe is nothing like the static space curve
of GR. Dimension itself is physically shifting into a gravity well.
Understanding how, is to understand the zero origin concept. I can't
do much about that.
The up moving side of the rotating housing is shifting through the
in-moving dimension at a greater rate than the down moving side,
hence the gravity anisotropy.
------
------
| Quote: | ...
The "ramblings" are the result of how that
experiment evolved.
Sir, if you are trying to be heard/understood,
you can make it simpler.
This latest experiment couldn't possibly be any
simpler.
Then you have provided a parts list, with construction details?
|
Go and find an old 44 gallon drum somewhere, fit a small visual
access window at some point around the outer of the drum, then stick
a broom through its two ends. Get some hungry mice to chase some
cheese which is just beyond reach, around its outer surface. You
don't want to disturb the air inside the drum. Then attach a set
of old car ignition contacts points between the broom handle and
the drum, which you can set to switch an ignition coil at the
location that aligns with your ignition timing stobe light, window,
and the smoke tube that you must also instal, extending toward the
window. Drum acceleration won't be a problem because the mice will
most likely tire and slow.
Then just sit back and watch the picture.
| Quote: | And in the quest for truth we communicate
via the entirely fluid medium of physics
No. We are forced to use "words" and "pictures". You have
plenty of words, and few that describe the experimental setup.
You have a few pictures, and none that allow independent
verification.
which should not ever be dammed or damned.
You are pretty far from physics now. You are doing fluid
mechanics. And you aren't understanding what you are seeing, and
no one can help you, because you (apparently) cannot describe
where you are.
Seriously, you don't need to reply to me anymore. Unless you are
going to adequately describe your experiment, such that someone
could construct and repeat it, then I am simply wasting your
time.
Over and out.
David A. Smith
|
You'll be back.
-----
Max Keon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eric Gisse
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 10:22 am Post subject:
Re: Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
|
|
|
Max Keon wrote:
| Quote: | "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:Ssnng.511$RD.423@fed1read08...
Dear Max Keon:
"Max Keon" <maxkeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:449df343$0$31607$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
...
You start this off with a title that purportedly will talk about
an anisotropy in gravity. Then you run the apparatus only
horizontally, in a small area, so that no possible anisotropy in
gravity will be evident.
The rotation plane of the housing is perpendicular to the earth's
surface. It's axle is pointed north-south.
The dynamic curvature of space resulting from the action of gravity
in the zero origin universe is nothing like the static space curve
of GR. Dimension itself is physically shifting into a gravity well.
Understanding how, is to understand the zero origin concept. I can't
do much about that.
|
Probably not, but you could at least not speak gibberish in reference
to general relativity.
[...] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 574
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 9:01 pm Post subject:
Re: Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
|
|
|
Max Keon wrote:
| Quote: | "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1151146577.507001.198630@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
I'm going back on duty in a few hours, so I desperately need to get
some sleep. Tell me what you see when you play it.
Don't go away just yet. I presume that you predict roughly the
same outcome if the rotation axis is tipped at 90 degrees to be
perpendicular to the earth's surface?
State your prediction Jerry, or buy yourself an everlasting
gobbstopper.
|
Your insults just show your immaturity.
Think it out, Max. Imagine yourself standing on a rotating carousel.
Align yourself facing outwards from the center. Close your eyes and
walk "forwards".
What will be the path that you follow?
In this thought experiment, you take the place of the column of
smoke. You aren't "really" changing direction; instead the carousel
is changing its orientation under you as you walk. So the path that
you walk is curved relative to the carousel, even as the path that
the smoke column takes is curved relative to the rotor housing.
So-called "gravitational anisotropy" has nothing to do with it.
This is high school physics, Max.
Jerry |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sorcerer
science forum Guru
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 10:49 pm Post subject:
Re: Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
|
|
|
"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1151269309.777109.127150@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
| Max Keon wrote:
| > "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
| > news:1151146577.507001.198630@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
|
| > > I'm going back on duty in a few hours, so I desperately need to get
| > > some sleep. Tell me what you see when you play it.
| >
| > Don't go away just yet. I presume that you predict roughly the
| > same outcome if the rotation axis is tipped at 90 degrees to be
| > perpendicular to the earth's surface?
| >
| > State your prediction Jerry, or buy yourself an everlasting
| > gobbstopper.
|
| Your insults just show your immaturity.
Your stupidity just shows you lack humour, Max is quite funny.
Have you calculated the advance of perihelion of Mercury
with a 3 significant digit slide rule using GR the way Einstein did
to account for 43 arc seconds per century yet, shithead?
Androcles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 574
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 11:22 pm Post subject:
Re: Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
|
|
|
Sorcerer wrote:
| Quote: | "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1151269309.777109.127150@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
| Max Keon wrote:
| > "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
| > news:1151146577.507001.198630@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
|
| > > I'm going back on duty in a few hours, so I desperately need to get
| > > some sleep. Tell me what you see when you play it.
|
| > Don't go away just yet. I presume that you predict roughly the
| > same outcome if the rotation axis is tipped at 90 degrees to be
| > perpendicular to the earth's surface?
|
| > State your prediction Jerry, or buy yourself an everlasting
| > gobbstopper.
|
| Your insults just show your immaturity.
Your stupidity just shows you lack humour, Max is quite funny.
Have you calculated the advance of perihelion of Mercury
with a 3 significant digit slide rule using GR the way Einstein did
to account for 43 arc seconds per century yet, shithead?
|
You're on the wrong thread.
Androcles, why don't you first show me how YOU calculate the 532 arc
seconds per century contribution to the precession of Mercury's orbit
predicted by Newtonian mechanics, which when added to 5025 arc
seconds per century from the precession of the equinoxes, yields a
total of 5557 arc seconds per century.
Unless you can do that, you are totally irrelevant.
Jerry |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Max Keon
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 05 Jun 2005
Posts: 111
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 11:45 pm Post subject:
Re: Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
|
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151228510.326794.26180@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Max Keon wrote:
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:JXfng.497$RD.270@fed1read08...
Dear Eric Gisse:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151143547.386061.241910@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Then again, my understanding of his device is rather
fluid - when did he start using smoke? I gave up
figuring out what he was trying to do since he listed
everything he has ever tried without really saying
what he is actually doing now. Metal rotor?
Styrofoam roater? Who the hell knows! Argh.
Styrofoam is never known to accumulate a static charge in motion
either. And moving static charges in non-uniform distribution
never induce dipoles in fluid molecules (yes, even gasses),
strongly influencing bulk fluid motion.
All the more reason to expect the air, or the styrofoam disc, to
maintain a fixed relationship with the rotating housing. Would you
expect anything else? It takes energy to induce charge dipoles. The
more dipoles, the greater the input energy requirement. Wouldn't it
seem more logical that the air mass would be driven more to a
stationary relationship with the housing?
Uh...no? Have you heard of drag?
|
Yes. It's the thing which guarantees that the air should remain
fixed with the rotating housing. And it doesn't.
| Quote: | But by all means continue working on your theory. Perpetual motion
is just what we need about now.
The one thing that will cause the air to move the way it does is an
anisotropy in the up-down directions relative to a gravity source.
In a universe where the action of gravity is dynamic, of course.
Have you even tried turning the apparatus 90 degrees and seeing if the
effect is still there? Or is that trivial bit of effort just too much
for you?
|
I'm waiting for a prediction, other than mine. Do you have one?
We'll test the air filled device first of course.
-----
Max Keon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Max Keon
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 05 Jun 2005
Posts: 111
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:35 am Post subject:
Re: Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
|
|
|
"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1151269309.777109.127150@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Max Keon wrote:
"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1151146577.507001.198630@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
I'm going back on duty in a few hours, so I desperately need to get
some sleep. Tell me what you see when you play it.
Don't go away just yet. I presume that you predict roughly the
same outcome if the rotation axis is tipped at 90 degrees to be
perpendicular to the earth's surface?
State your prediction Jerry, or buy yourself an everlasting
gobbstopper.
Your insults just show your immaturity.
|
Come on Jerry, state your prediction. I'm anxious to move on.
| Quote: | Think it out, Max. Imagine yourself standing on a rotating carousel.
Align yourself facing outwards from the center. Close your eyes and
walk "forwards".
What will be the path that you follow?
In this thought experiment, you take the place of the column of
smoke. You aren't "really" changing direction; instead the carousel
is changing its orientation under you as you walk. So the path that
you walk is curved relative to the carousel, even as the path that
the smoke column takes is curved relative to the rotor housing.
|
I really don't like seeing you embarrass yourself like this. I don't
think you believe it though. You are comparing chalk and cheese.
Place a straight tube on the carousel, with one end fixed at the
carousel axis. Now fire a marble along the tube. What direction will
it take relative to the rotating carousel when it leaves the tube
end? What direction do you think the smoke would take if the
carousel was completely enclosed so that the air mass inside was
carried with it, via friction (horses and stuff)? Mables and smoke
are guided by physics, not senses.
This is kindergarten stuff, Jerry.
| Quote: | So-called "gravitational anisotropy" has nothing to do with it.
This is high school physics, Max.
Jerry
|
-----
Max Keon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eric Gisse
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:36 am Post subject:
Re: Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
|
|
|
Jerry wrote:
| Quote: | Sorcerer wrote:
"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1151269309.777109.127150@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
| Max Keon wrote:
| > "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
| > news:1151146577.507001.198630@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
|
| > > I'm going back on duty in a few hours, so I desperately need to get
| > > some sleep. Tell me what you see when you play it.
|
| > Don't go away just yet. I presume that you predict roughly the
| > same outcome if the rotation axis is tipped at 90 degrees to be
| > perpendicular to the earth's surface?
|
| > State your prediction Jerry, or buy yourself an everlasting
| > gobbstopper.
|
| Your insults just show your immaturity.
Your stupidity just shows you lack humour, Max is quite funny.
Have you calculated the advance of perihelion of Mercury
with a 3 significant digit slide rule using GR the way Einstein did
to account for 43 arc seconds per century yet, shithead?
You're on the wrong thread.
Androcles, why don't you first show me how YOU calculate the 532 arc
seconds per century contribution to the precession of Mercury's orbit
predicted by Newtonian mechanics, which when added to 5025 arc
seconds per century from the precession of the equinoxes, yields a
total of 5557 arc seconds per century.
Unless you can do that, you are totally irrelevant.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Der_alte_Hexenmeister
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eric Gisse
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:44 am Post subject:
Re: Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
|
|
|
Max Keon wrote:
| Quote: | "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151228510.326794.26180@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:JXfng.497$RD.270@fed1read08...
Dear Eric Gisse:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151143547.386061.241910@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Then again, my understanding of his device is rather
fluid - when did he start using smoke? I gave up
figuring out what he was trying to do since he listed
everything he has ever tried without really saying
what he is actually doing now. Metal rotor?
Styrofoam roater? Who the hell knows! Argh.
Styrofoam is never known to accumulate a static charge in motion
either. And moving static charges in non-uniform distribution
never induce dipoles in fluid molecules (yes, even gasses),
strongly influencing bulk fluid motion.
All the more reason to expect the air, or the styrofoam disc, to
maintain a fixed relationship with the rotating housing. Would you
expect anything else? It takes energy to induce charge dipoles. The
more dipoles, the greater the input energy requirement. Wouldn't it
seem more logical that the air mass would be driven more to a
stationary relationship with the housing?
Uh...no? Have you heard of drag?
Yes. It's the thing which guarantees that the air should remain
fixed with the rotating housing. And it doesn't.
|
NO! NO NO NO and NO.
The rotating part is going to drag air and make it move with respect to
the housing.
| Quote: |
But by all means continue working on your theory. Perpetual motion
is just what we need about now.
The one thing that will cause the air to move the way it does is an
anisotropy in the up-down directions relative to a gravity source.
In a universe where the action of gravity is dynamic, of course.
Have you even tried turning the apparatus 90 degrees and seeing if the
effect is still there? Or is that trivial bit of effort just too much
for you?
I'm waiting for a prediction, other than mine. Do you have one?
We'll test the air filled device first of course.
|
I predict the exact same thing will happen as is happening now.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:58 am | All times are GMT
|
|
Music Lyrics | Life Insurence | Credit Cards | Bankruptcy | MPAA
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
Electronics forum |
Medicine forum |
Unix/Linux blog |
Unix/Linux documentation |
Unix/Linux forums
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Science and Technology
»
Physics
»
Relativity
