[dash]

Phil’s Dad wrote: Yes I did read the entire thread. I did of course see your spinning weight idea but as far as I can discover the phenomenon you hypothesize has never been observed. Have you carried out this experiment? Did it support your hypothesis?

I’m getting the feeling you haven’t actually read this whole thread. And certainly you didn’t read the pdf file referenced very early on.

This isn’t my idea. I have nothing whatsoever to do with this concept of a modified gravity other than I read the pdf file and thought about it a bit. The concept of putting a spinning mass on an airplane to reduce fuel costs was from the original article. I even quoted that piece from the original article. I then just suggested if it worked one could make a spacecraft using the same concept.

Incidentally, your condescending tone is highly offensive. It is also a bit ludicrous, seeing as you are sticking your nose in the middle of a discussion without full knowledge about who said what and when. Now it’s clear your ego is fully in control, rather than admit making a blunder, you dig yourself in deeper. Exactly, amazingly enough, like this other fellow Brian H.

Underneath the obvious holy concept of The Scientific Method is something far more fundamental. I’ve tried to bring it up. It is the realm of what can possibly be known. What can be proved. What is knowledge itself. Some have said this is boring, in a discussion I had with texasbrat. People on this forum appear blind to this fundamental area. The greeks explored it. Philosophy deals with it. It is the true foundation of all knowledge. The scientific method is built on top of it, yet most people here seem wholly ignorant of it.

When I try to point out fundamental limitations in knowledge, I am repeatedly insulted. People jump in in the middle of discussions without understanding the subject matter, and make asses of themselves. You’re just the latest one.

Truth is not subject to majority opinion. Yet people here behave as if it is. People ridicule whatever conflicts with the majority consensus. Exactly as they did back in Galileo’s time.

There is a book called “Blink”. I think some concepts in that book apply here. Here’s my theory. People have worked hard to get their college degree. They have worked so very hard to understand complicated math concepts, complicated physical principles. They’ve finished, gotten their degree. They’re hot stuff, now! Top of the world. They know everything.

Then a person like me comes along and ruins it. I say, “Wait a minute, you know a whole lot of that stuff you learned and were told is gospel, it’s not actually truth. It’s incomplete. Or it’s blatant corruption for political or economic reasons.” I don’t say it in such terms. I merely question conventional wisdom as regards understanding of physics. And as the book “Blink” indicates. people instantly perceive this as destructive to their entire concept of reality, the entire basis for their self confidence.

This education in physics / math required hard work to acquire. It was difficult to get. But does that automatically make it valuable? Digging gold out of the ground is hard work. In the end you get something of certain value. But most people graduating from college, all they’ve managed to do is chew someone else’s gum for 4 years and not spit it out. What real pride can there be in this? What real creative work have these people done? What manner of advancing human knowledge have they done yet? Yet they act as if they’ve already performed miracles.

They use offensive terms like, “Arrogant ignorance.” Such a disgusting term. And so, so offensive when the speaker himself is so blatantly arrogantly ignorant.

I’m disgusted with the people on these forums. It used to be a nice place. Now it’s too offensive for me to want to spend time here.

You can all have fun in your echo chamber. I came here because I loved the book The Big Bang Never Happened. I had hoped to interact with Lerner. Well, he’s a busy fellow. Not much luck there. Some people here are civil, seem to have some real insights and wisdom. But the snotty little bastards ruined it for me, one too many offensively ignorant replies. I’m gone.

[dash]

Phil’s Dad wrote: Until then it is exacltly as you said “Theories are only true until something comes along to disprove them.” Nothing has and so it remains “true”. Your words David.

I see. Now as a bit of useful feedback, in the future you might want to state exactly what you mean, because the “Until then…” was very ambiguous, and what first came to mind was nothing whatsoever like what you intended to convey.

Now I’d like to ask another question of you.

Have you been reading this thread, and have you been following the discussion all the way, or did, perhaps, you just tune in for the last little bit?

Because maybe if you had been reading the whole thread, you might have seen this little bit:

dash wrote: Seems like it would be trivial to test this. Have a very accurate scale with a weight on it underneath a spinning object, see if the scale changes as the spinning object goes faster and faster.

AFTER which, we see this:

Brian H wrote: TAANSTAAFS = There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Spin. Or gravity.

The assertion being that the theory by Jin He being discussed is automatically false, out of the gate, because it would violate conservation of energy.

Maybe you can see the problem? That this is not, in fact science, or the scientific method?

I present an experiment that would test the validity of the theory. And the theory is dismissed because, by definition, the theory, if true, would negate conservation of energy. So therefore there is no need of performing the experiment. And moreover, because I’m even considering the theory, I must have some kind of unfulfilled need for special Divine Revelation…

Strange, Phil’s Dad, that you would chime in on this discussion. And on which side you chose to support.

Maybe it’s not so strange. Perhaps this is all part of the same underlying reason why Focus Fusion itself has so much trouble getting funded. Perhaps it could be called The Herd Mentality.

[dash]

Phil’s Dad wrote: So all you need to do is come along with a repeatable test that shows the conservation thing to be wrong.

Until then…

I’m sorry, I’m not understanding you. “Until then…” what exactly are you saying, may I ask? Can you complete that sentence please?

[dash]

Brian H wrote: Since conservation of energy, especially on a “local” scale (look it up), is strongly supported and nowhere disproved by available evidence, the burden of proof is completely on the side of anyone conjuring gravity out of the void. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Extra-loud complaints about others not having sufficiently “open minds” jest don’t cut the mustard. Please cease to rely on them.
But, you are allowed to ask me if I give a rat’s what you’re getting tired of! :cheese:

Sigh.

You have a misplaced faith in what science is all about. Let me state a truth that you evidently are unaware of.

Conservation of energy is not a law. It is an observation. It is conceivable that no experiment that has been widely publicized has ever demonstrated a violation of the principle of conservation of energy.

Even if that is the case, that is not proof that energy conservation is a fundamental property of this universe.

Indeed, science can never prove its theories are true. Theories can only be proven false or inaccurate. Theories are only true until something comes along to disprove them. There is never any guarantee that a commonly accepted physical theory will not one day be disproved.

I’m surprised someone as educated as you appear to be doesn’t know this fundamental limitation of science itself. Can you honestly believe that all conceivable arrangements of matter have been tried, with the intent of finding a violation of conservation of energy?

You behave as if it is an unquestionable law that energy must be conserved in all situations. Therefore you will automatically dismiss any conceivable physical theory that does not exhibit this principle. Your only saving grace is that you are exactly like the bulk of the mainstream scientific community. Perhaps you perceive yourself safely buried in the herd.

You used the term “Arrogant ignorance,” before. How ironic, really. You yourself are the embodiment of that principle.

I’m done talking to you. Respond or not as you wish.

[dash]

Brian H wrote: It was hardly me began the ad hominem stuff! And what “assumption” would that be, pliz? That mass-energy isn’t free? Oops! 😆

All right. Let’s try again.

Brian H wrote: On the other side of the scale, credulous acceptance of obviously unbalanced theories is surely a sign of some kind of unfulfilled need for special Divine Revelation ….

Now correct me if I’m wrong.

1) I am interested in the possibility that a spinning mass can exert an unexpected gravitational field
2) You assert that energy is always conserved, you can’t get something for free
3) I assert that without a convincing Theory of Everything, one cannot be sure conservation of energy is always valid
4) You assert that giving lip service to (1) above is surely a sign of some kind of unfulfilled need for special Divine Revelation
5) After which I ask for clarification, specifically that by questioning conventional wisdom, must I then be lumped in with the religious crowd?
6) You respond with ad hominem attack

Let me cut to the chase. You, and many people on these forums, seem to delight in criticizing the faith based anti-science group. Yet you are blind to that exact same faith based belief in science itself.

You see the fallacy of religion. Yet you presume that that is the only danger you faced! Science itself is not immune to corruption. Why behave as if it is? Why blindly follow the assertions of so-called experts? Why ridicule anyone who doesn’t blindly follow the assertions of so-called experts?

I do not expect a rational response to this, by the way. And I’m rapidly tiring of interacting with you.

[dash]

Brian H wrote: Look up the list of formal Logical Fallacies, sometime. You seem to be able to use almost all of them in close sequence.

I see. So you make a glaring, incorrect assumption, then when someone calls you on it you don’t respond, and instead you merely engage in an ad-hominem attack?

[dash]

Brian H wrote: On the other side of the scale, credulous acceptance of obviously unbalanced theories is surely a sign of some kind of unfulfilled need for special Divine Revelation ….

So is everything either black or white to you? Nothing in between?

One must either accept unconditionally what the experts have determined the truth to be, or alternatively one must accept unconditionally the exact opposite viewpoint? The idea of being able to rationally pick and choose for onesself is threatening to you for some reason?

[dash]

Brian H wrote: TAANSTAAFS = There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Spin. Or gravity.

It’s funny. We don’t have a convincing Theory Of Everything, yet we are certain of so much that we don’t even question it anymore.

Perhaps being certain of one’s knowledge is the best ticket to irrelevance. Hmmm.

[dash]

pluto wrote:
You may find thinteresting to read.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0605213

That is an interesting article.

For instance, on the top of any aircraft can be put a high-speed rotational mass. The rotational gravity produced by the mass can partially offset the earth gravity from beneath the aircraft. Because rotational gravity is squarely proportional to the rotation speed, rotational gravity can be comparable to aircraft weight if the speed is large enough.

Hmm. So one could construct a spacecraft by having a big spinning gyroscope and underneath it you have your cabin. The spinning gyroscope generates its own gravitational force that pulls on the cabin, and it rises. Since it is connected to the gyroscope, the gyroscope is lifted as well. Sort of pulling itself up by its own bootstraps.

The cabin would be in the plane of rotation (perpendicular to the axis of rotation). Seems like it would be trivial to test this. Have a very accurate scale with a weight on it underneath a spinning object, see if the scale changes as the spinning object goes faster and faster.

Personally I’d love if GR were disproved.

[dash]

texaslabrat wrote: a world where an AK-47 can be had for under $100

Do you have a source for this? I’d like to buy 20 at that price.

[dash]

Brian H wrote: but in general those who use the term “sustainable” are spouting pure arrogant ignorance,

Arrogant ignorance, you say?

[dash]

Rezwan wrote: OK. Invite a thousand people over, have them all poop in your house until the floor is covered. Then hang out in your house. Until you die.

Then get back to me on your concept of “humane”.

I imagine if you grew up in that environment you’d get used to it. Maybe there are nuances to the smell. “Ah, the ***t is especially fragrant today, don’t you think?”

Anyway arguments about the living conditions and comfort of animals that are grown only for slaughter are lost on me. I figure if we’re going to eat animals, lets use farming methods that are sustainable to produce the animals — as opposed to driving animals in the wild to extinction. So the farm grown animals are the sacrifice I willingly pay to protect the others.

[dash]

Rezwan wrote: Have you driven by Harris ranch on the 5 freeway?

Oh yeah, back in the 1980’s when I was going to UC Berkeley I used to drive by there often, my parents live in Pasadena. You can smell it for miles. Cows in huge dirt lots. They used to water them with sprinklers. Then right in the midst of it is the Harris Ranch Restaurant. With a convenient small airplane runway. I guess that’s a feed lot. All in all it didn’t look especially inhumane.

[dash]

Rezwan wrote: [Note: the massive animal migration incompatibility with human civilization/property/transport is one of the issues I’m most interested in exploring. It’s next in line after fusion for my big issues. Oh, maybe water cycle – well, that overlaps with both.]

I’ve got a story for you that a woman told me.

She’s probably nearing her 60’s now. She used to work in some power company on the east coast, right on the Atlantic. She was a security guard. The plant had just opened and she was working the night shift. One night on a full moon she noticed the ground toward the beach seemed to be moving. She went out with her flashlight and saw the ground was covered with sea turtles, marching in to the plant property.

It was a full moon thing, they’re supposed to follow the full moon out to sea, but the plant had some big spotlights they’d turn on at night. The turtles were coming up out of their eggs, laid in the sand. And following their instincts they were going after the wrong light and certain death.

The woman managed to get the lights turned off quickly enough, and the turtles turned around and headed out to sea, and they survived.

The company then did a bit of research and now knows the timing of the hatchings, and they always turn the lights off during this time. As far as I know there were no environmentalists involved, no government intervention. Just the people in the company who had the power to make decisions decided what was the thing to do given the circumstances.

[dash]

Rematog wrote: Yes, but……Economies of scale apply to maintenance and operations as well as capital cost.

Seems like in every city I’ve been to there is an endpoint where long distance powerlines enter the city from outside, and there is a big plot of fenced off land where the voltage is stepped down, and from there distributed throughout the city.

Why not locate the FF 5M right there, or however many are needed? The idea of replacing a giant 600MW coal burning plant yet leaving all those powerlines there…seems so wasteful.

All you’d have to do is find a few cities willing to give it a try, so safety and reliability can be demonstrated. Then you wait for the cities to come beg you to install units. The city hires local talent to maintain / monitor the infrastructure, and this keeps money in the local economy. Also distributed power means no nationwide power outages.

The power lines are copper, right? And copper is valuable stuff. Thousands of miles of high voltage power lines can be recycled… The towers can be recylced. And the freed land can be sold off.

[Author]

Posts