Discussion:
anti-gravity?
(too old to reply)
jim whitby
2024-04-20 23:19:30 UTC
Permalink
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.

<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
earths-gravity/>
--
Jim Whitby


HAIR TONICS, please!!
----------------------
Mageia release 9 (Official) for x86_64
6.6.22-server-1.mga9
----------------------
jim whitby
2024-04-20 23:27:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim whitby
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
I do know how to spell... most of the time. educatded
Post by jim whitby
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive->
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat->
earths-gravity/>
--
Jim Whitby


HAIR TONICS, please!!
----------------------
Mageia release 9 (Official) for x86_64
6.6.22-server-1.mga9
----------------------
Phil Hobbs
2024-04-20 23:31:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim whitby
Post by jim whitby
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
I do know how to spell... most of the time. educatded
Post by jim whitby
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive->
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat->
earths-gravity/>
I wouldn’t invest if I were you.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC /
Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
John Larkin
2024-04-20 23:53:35 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:31:19 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
Post by jim whitby
Post by jim whitby
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
I do know how to spell... most of the time. educatded
Post by jim whitby
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive->
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat->
earths-gravity/>
Then it should float in mid-air, or accelerate upward. So why does it
need to be tested in space?
I wouldn’t invest if I were you.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
It's fun to look at older thedebrief miracles that, so far, haven't
happened.
Phil Hobbs
2024-04-21 00:11:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Larkin
On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:31:19 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
Post by jim whitby
Post by jim whitby
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
I do know how to spell... most of the time. educatded
Post by jim whitby
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive->
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat->
earths-gravity/>
Then it should float in mid-air, or accelerate upward. So why does it
need to be tested in space?
There’s no gravity gravy train if it gets debunked on the first day.
What’s the use of that?
Post by John Larkin
I wouldn’t invest if I were you.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
It's fun to look at older thedebrief miracles that, so far, haven't
happened.
I prefer to keep my briefs, thanks. ;)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
Martin Brown
2024-04-21 12:35:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Hobbs
Post by John Larkin
On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:31:19 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
Post by jim whitby
Post by jim whitby
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
I do know how to spell... most of the time. educatded
Post by jim whitby
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive->
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat->
earths-gravity/>
Then it should float in mid-air, or accelerate upward. So why does it
need to be tested in space?
To avoid embarrassment when it doesn't actually work as claimed!
Post by Phil Hobbs
There’s no gravity gravy train if it gets debunked on the first day.
What’s the use of that?
Surely it is yet another standard pump and dump models for dodgy fringe
science IPOs much like the LENR scams that have been around for decades.

Some genuine engineers who didn't properly understand the physics of
gyroscopes have famously announced their anti gravity machines.

Most notably one Eric Laithwaite who once gave the Royal Institution
Xmas Lectures in 1966 on magnetic levitation and linear motors before he
quite literally went off the rails in 1974.

https://www.rigb.org/explore-science/explore/blog/gyroscope-engineer-and-christmas-lectures

Great communicator with the public but not very good at physics.
--
Martin Brown
Joe Gwinn
2024-04-21 15:20:53 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 13:35:27 +0100, Martin Brown
Post by Martin Brown
Post by John Larkin
On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:31:19 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
Post by jim whitby
Post by jim whitby
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
I do know how to spell... most of the time. educatded
Post by jim whitby
.<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
earths-gravity/>
Post by Martin Brown
Post by John Larkin
Then it should float in mid-air, or accelerate upward. So why does it
need to be tested in space?
Vacuum to get rid of corona.

Space (orbit really) so tiny forces can be detected and measured.

A steady one G acceleration would be pretty impressive, and would
settle the issue.
Post by Martin Brown
To avoid embarrassment when it doesn't actually work as claimed!
There’s no gravity gravy train if it gets debunked on the first day.
What’s the use of that?
Surely it is yet another standard pump and dump models for dodgy fringe
science IPOs much like the LENR scams that have been around for decades.
Some genuine engineers who didn't properly understand the physics of
gyroscopes have famously announced their anti gravity machines.
Most notably one Eric Laithwaite who once gave the Royal Institution
Xmas Lectures in 1966 on magnetic levitation and linear motors before he
quite literally went off the rails in 1974.
<https://www.rigb.org/explore-science/explore/blog/gyroscope-engineer-and-christmas-lectures>
Great communicator with the public but not very good at physics.
Yeah. Investment not recommended.

As for our asymmetrical capacitor fellow, there has to be some big
errors in the derivation. I watched part of his lecture, where he did
note that this force endured even when the HV was turned off, and that
it should therefore accelerate continuously. Which it doesn't,
despite his theory. He knew that this was a problem, but figured that
it was fixable. Hmm.

That fellow reminds me of the inventor I met, described in the SED
thread "Non-Inertial Navigation Technology" (July 2020). That company
still exists, and he still toils away. I don't know where the money
comes from.

Joe Gwinn
Phil Hobbs
2024-04-21 19:31:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Gwinn
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 13:35:27 +0100, Martin Brown
Post by Martin Brown
Post by John Larkin
On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:31:19 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
Post by jim whitby
Post by jim whitby
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
I do know how to spell... most of the time. educatded
Post by jim whitby
.<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
earths-gravity/>
Post by Martin Brown
Post by John Larkin
Then it should float in mid-air, or accelerate upward. So why does it
need to be tested in space?
Vacuum to get rid of corona.
Space (orbit really) so tiny forces can be detected and measured.
A steady one G acceleration would be pretty impressive, and would
settle the issue.
Post by Martin Brown
To avoid embarrassment when it doesn't actually work as claimed!
There’s no gravity gravy train if it gets debunked on the first day.
What’s the use of that?
Surely it is yet another standard pump and dump models for dodgy fringe
science IPOs much like the LENR scams that have been around for decades.
Some genuine engineers who didn't properly understand the physics of
gyroscopes have famously announced their anti gravity machines.
Most notably one Eric Laithwaite who once gave the Royal Institution
Xmas Lectures in 1966 on magnetic levitation and linear motors before he
quite literally went off the rails in 1974.
<https://www.rigb.org/explore-science/explore/blog/gyroscope-engineer-and-christmas-lectures>
Great communicator with the public but not very good at physics.
Yeah. Investment not recommended.
As for our asymmetrical capacitor fellow, there has to be some big
errors in the derivation. I watched part of his lecture, where he did
note that this force endured even when the HV was turned off, and that
it should therefore accelerate continuously. Which it doesn't,
despite his theory. He knew that this was a problem, but figured that
it was fixable. Hmm.
That fellow reminds me of the inventor I met, described in the SED
thread "Non-Inertial Navigation Technology" (July 2020). That company
still exists, and he still toils away. I don't know where the money
comes from.
Joe Gwinn
And then there was the Dean drive, which worked by rattling a mass back and
forth inside a vehicle.

The tabletop demo went perfectly. ;)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC /
Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Joe Gwinn
2024-04-21 21:02:32 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 19:31:17 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
Post by Phil Hobbs
Post by Joe Gwinn
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 13:35:27 +0100, Martin Brown
Post by Martin Brown
Post by John Larkin
On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:31:19 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
Post by jim whitby
Post by jim whitby
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
I do know how to spell... most of the time. educatded
Post by jim whitby
.<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
earths-gravity/>
Post by Martin Brown
Post by John Larkin
Then it should float in mid-air, or accelerate upward. So why does it
need to be tested in space?
Vacuum to get rid of corona.
Space (orbit really) so tiny forces can be detected and measured.
A steady one G acceleration would be pretty impressive, and would
settle the issue.
Post by Martin Brown
To avoid embarrassment when it doesn't actually work as claimed!
There's no gravity gravy train if it gets debunked on the first day.
What?s the use of that?
Surely it is yet another standard pump and dump models for dodgy fringe
science IPOs much like the LENR scams that have been around for decades.
Some genuine engineers who didn't properly understand the physics of
gyroscopes have famously announced their anti gravity machines.
Most notably one Eric Laithwaite who once gave the Royal Institution
Xmas Lectures in 1966 on magnetic levitation and linear motors before he
quite literally went off the rails in 1974.
<https://www.rigb.org/explore-science/explore/blog/gyroscope-engineer-and-christmas-lectures>
Great communicator with the public but not very good at physics.
Yeah. Investment not recommended.
As for our asymmetrical capacitor fellow, there has to be some big
errors in the derivation. I watched part of his lecture, where he did
note that this force endured even when the HV was turned off, and that
it should therefore accelerate continuously. Which it doesn't,
despite his theory. He knew that this was a problem, but figured that
it was fixable. Hmm.
That fellow reminds me of the inventor I met, described in the SED
thread "Non-Inertial Navigation Technology" (July 2020). That company
still exists, and he still toils away. I don't know where the money
comes from.
Joe Gwinn
And then there was the Dean drive, which worked by rattling a mass back and
forth inside a vehicle.
The tabletop demo went perfectly. ;)
Yeah, I remember that story. I bet that if one simply suspended the
dean drive assembly from a rafter using a long spring, no net motion
would be seen.

I will say that with Non-Inertial Navigation, after talking with the
inventor on a video conference, my instinct was that he was sincere
but misguided.

After watching the asymmetrical capacitor video presentation, my
instinct is that the inventor is a complete huckster, and does know
better, as I watched him deftly include everything likely to impress
the relevant audience, up to and including perpetual motion, free
energy, and alien technology. But no warp drive.

As for Dean, I have no idea, but tend towards pure huckster.

Joe Gwinn
John Larkin
2024-04-21 22:06:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Gwinn
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 13:35:27 +0100, Martin Brown
Post by John Larkin
On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:31:19 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
Post by jim whitby
Post by jim whitby
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
I do know how to spell... most of the time. educatded
Post by jim whitby
.<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
earths-gravity/>
Post by John Larkin
Then it should float in mid-air, or accelerate upward. So why does it
need to be tested in space?
Vacuum to get rid of corona.
So the failure can be blamed on the Farnsworth multipactor effect.
Joe Gwinn
2024-04-22 13:52:32 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:06:19 -0700, John Larkin
Post by John Larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 13:35:27 +0100, Martin Brown
Post by John Larkin
On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:31:19 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
Post by jim whitby
Post by jim whitby
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
I do know how to spell... most of the time. educatded
Post by jim whitby
.<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
earths-gravity/>
Post by John Larkin
Then it should float in mid-air, or accelerate upward. So why does it
need to be tested in space?
Vacuum to get rid of corona.
So the failure can be blamed on the Farnsworth multipactor effect.
I suppose so, but he was talking of corona in much higher air
pressures than multipactors require. Think corona as seen around HV
lines.

Joe Gwinn
Martin Brown
2024-04-22 12:07:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Gwinn
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 13:35:27 +0100, Martin Brown
Post by John Larkin
On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:31:19 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
Post by jim whitby
Post by jim whitby
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
I do know how to spell... most of the time. educatded
Post by jim whitby
.<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
earths-gravity/>
Post by John Larkin
Then it should float in mid-air, or accelerate upward. So why does it
need to be tested in space?
Vacuum to get rid of corona.
There are space vehicle qualifying hard vacuum facilities on the ground.
If this thing can generate 1g it could levitate inside there.
Post by Joe Gwinn
Space (orbit really) so tiny forces can be detected and measured.
The guy claims 1g acceleration. 1g of continuous acceleration is enough
to reach the centre of our galaxy in about 20 years if memory serves.
Post by Joe Gwinn
A steady one G acceleration would be pretty impressive, and would
settle the issue.
I might believe 1 G (as in the gravitational constant ie thermal noise)
but not 1g acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface.
Post by Joe Gwinn
That fellow reminds me of the inventor I met, described in the SED
thread "Non-Inertial Navigation Technology" (July 2020). That company
still exists, and he still toils away. I don't know where the money
comes from.
As always from gullible suckers with more money than sense. The most
successful recent high profile scam took in a lot of experienced
investors who should have known better or employed people who did.
Elizabeth Holmes at Theranos managed to almost pull it off too.

https://news.sky.com/story/elizabeth-holmes-former-chief-executive-of-blood-testing-startup-theranos-found-guilty-of-fraud-12508609

But if you want a real example of how to do it big time then the
vanishing OneCoin crypto queen has to be it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64407723
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/cryptoqueen-ruja-ignatova-fugitive-greenwood-b2414415.html

A successful $4bn scam is very impressive! FOMO drives these bubbles.
--
Martin Brown
Jeff Layman
2024-04-22 21:20:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Brown
The guy claims 1g acceleration. 1g of continuous acceleration is enough
to reach the centre of our galaxy in about 20 years if memory serves.
20 years?! I think there's a "k" missing. According to
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way#Sun's_location_and_neighborhood>,
the sun is 26 - 27 kly from the centre of the galaxy.

Or are you proposing FTL speeds?
--
Jeff
Martin Brown
2024-04-23 08:59:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Layman
Post by Martin Brown
The guy claims 1g acceleration. 1g of continuous acceleration is enough
to reach the centre of our galaxy in about 20 years if memory serves.
20 years?! I think there's a "k" missing. According to
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way#Sun's_location_and_neighborhood>, the sun is 26 - 27 kly from the centre of the galaxy.
Or are you proposing FTL speeds?
20 years in the rest frame of the individual travelling there with
continuous acceleration of 1g.

Obviously the stay at home twin will be long dead by then.
--
Martin Brown
Jan Panteltje
2024-04-23 10:12:24 UTC
Permalink
On a sunny day (Tue, 23 Apr 2024 09:59:13 +0100) it happened Martin Brown
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Jeff Layman
Post by Martin Brown
The guy claims 1g acceleration. 1g of continuous acceleration is enough
to reach the centre of our galaxy in about 20 years if memory serves.
20 years?! I think there's a "k" missing. According to
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way#Sun's_location_and_neighborhood>, the sun is 26 - 27 kly from the centre of the
galaxy.
Or are you proposing FTL speeds?
20 years in the rest frame of the individual travelling there with
continuous acceleration of 1g.
Obviously the stay at home twin will be long dead by then.
I think that whole relatitvitty shit is wrong
Onestone likely got this from his wife it seems she was a mamatician

Without a mechanism it is all mamamatical crap.
Just like Ohm's law without electrons.
Broke down in a bad way when Fleming came up with a current in a vacuum tube.

Onestone is the hero of the jewish genocide committing club.
A bunch of brainwashed kids that are now brainwashing science.

In a Le Sage theory if you go ever faster at one point the particles from behind have zero speed
and the ones you face in front hit you with double light speed.
That leads to assymetry in 3 D (even in 2D)
and to state clocks / time changes in the way relatitvitty math says it does, is wrong.

Your nose gets shorter and your ears keep the same distance from each other?
Seems to me things cancel to a point, past lightspeed it get even more interesting.
Come on, ditch Onestone and try reasoning from a particle POV for a change.

Spectral spreading! Electron orbits not round but flattened in one direction...
Simple
Jan Panteltje
2024-04-24 05:19:50 UTC
Permalink
PS
as to all that stuff, if you want a simple example of how 'length contraction' works:
Take a balloon, fill it with some air.
hold it in your hand, now push it forward fast
It will get flattened by the air pressure, BUT will also get wider (air must go somewhere)

Space is NOT empty.,
Searches for 'dark matter',. while Le Sage has it and predicts all we see.
Same for galaxies, crap about Modified Newtonian Dynamics
while the galaxy arms as NOT in orbit
Some thing spitting out 2 opposite arms and rotating,
that forms the galaxy arms, again not in empty space
but space filled with Le Sage particles that than compress stuff into stars etc..
Like a garden sprinkler in air.

Get a life idiots
How Long Will It take For The Blind to See?

Brain dead hammered club by their teachers and peers.

Mamaticians doing divide by zero and selling it as the ultimate fishsicks truth.

There is an other interesting thing about length contraction in a Le Sage model
When moving forward faster you get increasing pressure from the LS particles coming at you
and less from the ones coming from behind you, but past light speed you overtake the ones behind you and face extra pressure from those..
:-)

maaz
who needs it.
hehe :-)
Martin Brown
2024-04-24 10:04:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jan Panteltje
PS
Take a balloon, fill it with some air.
hold it in your hand, now push it forward fast
It will get flattened by the air pressure, BUT will also get wider (air must go somewhere)
This is exactly why mathematics is used to describe science. It is way
to easy to concoct some handwaving non-quantitative sounds right to me
cock and bull story and use sophistry to sell it to the credulous.
Post by Jan Panteltje
Space is NOT empty.,
On that we can agree. It is a very thin plasma of ordinary matter with a
smattering of virtual particles hopping in and out of existence on
borrowed energy from the quantum mechanics uncertainty principle. The
Casimir effect was measured back in 1997 to within 5% of the prediction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

Natural language is not adequate for discussing these topics. The
equations are clear and unambiguous even if you refuse to accept them.
--
Martin Brown
Jan Panteltje
2024-04-24 11:24:30 UTC
Permalink
On a sunny day (Wed, 24 Apr 2024 11:04:01 +0100) it happened Martin Brown
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Jan Panteltje
PS
Take a balloon, fill it with some air.
hold it in your hand, now push it forward fast
It will get flattened by the air pressure, BUT will also get wider (air must go somewhere)
This is exactly why mathematics is used to describe science. It is way
to easy to concoct some handwaving non-quantitative sounds right to me
cock and bull story and use sophistry to sell it to the credulous.
Simple example, simple experiment, simple conclusion
If that is too much for you then keep dreaming up numbers.
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Jan Panteltje
Space is NOT empty.,
On that we can agree. It is a very thin plasma of ordinary matter with a
smattering of virtual particles hopping in and out of existence on
borrowed energy from the quantum mechanics uncertainty principle. The
Casimir effect was measured back in 1997 to within 5% of the prediction.
I hope you see that does away with reality.
Neurons hopping in an out of existence?
Virtual particles? Oh man, you mean you did dream them up?
Post by Martin Brown
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
Natural language is not adequate for discussing these topics.
Rule is simple:
'If you cannot describe your theory on a simple A4 format piece of paper it is likely crap.'
Post by Martin Brown
The equations are clear and unambiguous even if you refuse to accept them.
You can write equations for anything, those will NEVER describe nature in all detail.
Parroting Albert stonecounter is a dead end road, and has been for a long time.
His vote-on particle is crap :-)

Do not see that as personal attack.
Maaz is just about quantities for those who have not the neural net programmed to see beyond say 'abstractions'.


mamaticians claim anything
The guy who did see the lid of the kettle move when it was heated and decided to make it move some wheel did give us the steam engine
Not the endless mamamatics that came later.

I have a nice every day explanation for quantum action at a distance too...

SEE what happens, Connect what happens.
Forget the endless brainwash..

Math is just a game played by a small subset of neurons in the brain.
John R Walliker
2024-04-21 22:29:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Phil Hobbs
Post by John Larkin
On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:31:19 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
Post by jim whitby
Post by jim whitby
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
I do know how to spell... most of the time. educatded
Post by jim whitby
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive->
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat->
earths-gravity/>
Then it should float in mid-air, or accelerate upward. So why does it
need to be tested in space?
To avoid embarrassment when it doesn't actually work as claimed!
Post by Phil Hobbs
There’s no gravity gravy train if it gets debunked on the first day.
What’s the use of that?
Surely it is yet another standard pump and dump models for dodgy fringe
science IPOs much like the LENR scams that have been around for decades.
Some genuine engineers who didn't properly understand the physics of
gyroscopes have famously announced their anti gravity machines.
Most notably one Eric Laithwaite who once gave the Royal Institution
Xmas Lectures in 1966 on magnetic levitation and linear motors before he
quite literally went off the rails in 1974.
I went to one of his RI Christmas Lecture series (and several
other Xmas lectures). He could easily have killed somebody
in the audience when he demonstrated an electromagnetic gun.
The projectile was fired into a target made of several stacked
sheets of timber blockboard. It penetrated much deeper than
expected and partly emerged from the other side - just in front
of a member of the audience.
As usual with such events, not everything was as it might have
seemed to the TV audience. Apparently, the children "randomly"
selected to help with demonstrations were often those of
the producer.

John
Post by Martin Brown
https://www.rigb.org/explore-science/explore/blog/gyroscope-engineer-and-christmas-lectures
Great communicator with the public but not very good at physics.
jim whitby
2024-04-21 00:47:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Larkin
On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:31:19 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
Post by jim whitby
Post by jim whitby
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
I do know how to spell... most of the time. educatded
Post by jim whitby
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-
drive->
Post by John Larkin
Post by jim whitby
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
earths-gravity/>
Then it should float in mid-air, or accelerate upward. So why does it
need to be tested in space?
I wouldn’t invest if I were you.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
It's fun to look at older thedebrief miracles that, so far, haven't
happened.
I don't have (and wouldn't anyway ) anything to invest.

You've answered my question. For that I say,
THANKS!

I'm sure that one day, sometime, it'll work.
--
Jim Whitby


I don't even call it violence when it's in self defense; I call it
intelligence.
-- Malcolm X
----------------------
Mageia release 9 (Official) for x86_64
6.6.22-server-1.mga9
----------------------
--
Jim Whitby


The past has no power to stop you from being present now. Only your
grievance about the past can do that.
- Eckhart Tolle
----------------------
Mageia release 9 (Official) for x86_64
6.6.22-server-1.mga9
----------------------
--
Jim Whitby


The past has no power to stop you from being present now. Only your
grievance about the past can do that.
- Eckhart Tolle
----------------------
Mageia release 9 (Official) for x86_64
6.6.22-server-1.mga9
----------------------
Jeff Layman
2024-04-21 07:16:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim whitby
I'm sure that one day, sometime, it'll work.
Powered by cold fusion, no doubt...
--
Jeff
Bill Sloman
2024-04-21 14:00:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Layman
Post by jim whitby
I'm sure that one day, sometime, it'll work.
Powered by cold fusion, no doubt...
I'm not sure that that is piling Pelion on Ossa. Anti-gravity is even
more unlikely than cold fusion.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Clive Arthur
2024-04-22 21:21:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Hobbs
Post by jim whitby
Post by jim whitby
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
I do know how to spell... most of the time. educatded
Post by jim whitby
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive->
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat->
earths-gravity/>
I wouldn’t invest if I were you.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Gravitational repulsion is easy. The hard bit is reversing time.
--
Cheers
Clive
Martin Brown
2024-04-22 09:20:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim whitby
Post by jim whitby
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
I do know how to spell... most of the time. educatded
Post by jim whitby
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive->
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat->
earths-gravity/>
Powered by an inexhaustible supply of flying pigs this invention will
revolutionise world transport and sales of heavy duty umbrellas!
--
Martin Brown
wmartin
2024-04-22 19:12:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Brown
Post by jim whitby
Post by jim whitby
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
I do know how to spell... most of the time. educatded
Post by jim whitby
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive->
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat->
earths-gravity/>
Powered by an inexhaustible supply of flying pigs this invention will
revolutionise world transport and sales of heavy duty umbrellas!
Oh no, think of the methane emissions! Well if it gets hot enough, it
will be bacon from the sky, not manna...
John Larkin
2024-04-22 19:20:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by wmartin
Post by Martin Brown
Post by jim whitby
Post by jim whitby
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
I do know how to spell... most of the time. educatded
Post by jim whitby
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive->
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat->
earths-gravity/>
Powered by an inexhaustible supply of flying pigs this invention will
revolutionise world transport and sales of heavy duty umbrellas!
Oh no, think of the methane emissions! Well if it gets hot enough, it
will be bacon from the sky, not manna...
What is manna? Our Safeway doesn't seem to have it.
Phil Hobbs
2024-04-22 21:21:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Larkin
Post by wmartin
Post by Martin Brown
Post by jim whitby
Post by jim whitby
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
I do know how to spell... most of the time. educatded
Post by jim whitby
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive->
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat->
earths-gravity/>
Powered by an inexhaustible supply of flying pigs this invention will
revolutionise world transport and sales of heavy duty umbrellas!
Oh no, think of the methane emissions! Well if it gets hot enough, it
will be bacon from the sky, not manna...
What is manna? Our Safeway doesn't seem to have it.
Exactly. (*)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

(*) “manna” translates as “what is it?”
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC /
Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
John Larkin
2024-04-22 21:31:21 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 21:21:51 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
Post by Phil Hobbs
Post by John Larkin
Post by wmartin
Post by Martin Brown
Post by jim whitby
Post by jim whitby
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
I do know how to spell... most of the time. educatded
Post by jim whitby
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive->
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat->
earths-gravity/>
Powered by an inexhaustible supply of flying pigs this invention will
revolutionise world transport and sales of heavy duty umbrellas!
Oh no, think of the methane emissions! Well if it gets hot enough, it
will be bacon from the sky, not manna...
What is manna? Our Safeway doesn't seem to have it.
Exactly. (*)
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
(*) “manna” translates as “what is it?”
I did find New Orleans CDM Coffee and Chicory in the Asian foods
section at our Safeway. Mo loves it.
Martin Brown
2024-04-23 09:02:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Larkin
Post by wmartin
Post by Martin Brown
Post by jim whitby
Post by jim whitby
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
I do know how to spell... most of the time. educatded
Post by jim whitby
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive->
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat->
earths-gravity/>
Powered by an inexhaustible supply of flying pigs this invention will
revolutionise world transport and sales of heavy duty umbrellas!
Oh no, think of the methane emissions! Well if it gets hot enough, it
will be bacon from the sky, not manna...
What is manna? Our Safeway doesn't seem to have it.
Probably mealy bug or scale insect excreta.
Desert equivalent of honeydew from aphids.
--
Martin Brown
ehsjr
2024-04-21 19:54:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim whitby
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
earths-gravity/>
Right month. Wrong day.
Ed
Liz Tuddenham
2024-04-22 07:27:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim whitby
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
earths-gravity/>
Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first
heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?

It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air
pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.

The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions.
When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
towards each other.

I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
observed effects.
--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
Jan Panteltje
2024-04-22 10:12:19 UTC
Permalink
On a sunny day (Mon, 22 Apr 2024 08:27:32 +0100) it happened
Post by Liz Tuddenham
Post by jim whitby
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
earths-gravity/>
Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first
heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air
pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions.
When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
towards each other.
I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
observed effects.
I still go with this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation#
It is predictive as to time deletion,
clocks / pendulums/ atoms/ get less compressed where particles are intercepted like close to a planet
it predicts internal heating of heavenly bodies
It challenges Albert's babble...
and a few more things..
If you could make a machine that would let those particles through in only one direction
then you _have_ a propulsion system.
It does away with all the infinities in 'singularities' as there is a point where all particles would be stopped
by an object.
Also if EM radiation is a form (state) of those LS particles then light travels at the speed of gravity (seems to have been observed)
Once you question where those LS particles originate and that could be in stars or [black] holes,
or in other bangs of which there must be trillions, then the universe would expand ever faster as observed.
I am open to a better theory but this checks all boxes and gets rid of silly parroting Albert Stone Counter.
Interesting is questions like do those particles have chirality and the effect it has on those particles passing through matter.
Superconducting chiral propeller?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Podkletnov

There is much more.
Last few hundred years humming beans discovered 'radio and electronics'
learned to drive in cars, steam engines, fly airplanes,
Thousands of years ago leaned to make and use 'fire'
Looks almost exponential.
OTOH just a bit of mutual nuking and we are back to wood fires, or go dino's way.
Must be happening all over the universes (yes more than one).
Maybe that cosmic microwave background is the sum of all them alien's radio and TV transmissions...
We are just a few neurons in a very very very large 'space?'
Lots to discover I'm sure. And limits we have, or are we connected to it all and know it all..
Liz Tuddenham
2024-04-22 14:50:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Mon, 22 Apr 2024 08:27:32 +0100) it happened
Post by Liz Tuddenham
Post by jim whitby
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
earths-gravity/>
Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first
heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air
pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions.
When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
towards each other.
I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
observed effects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation#
It was an interesting explanation in the light of the way things were
thought of at the time: physical particles and elastic collisions.
Voight's explanation makes sense if you simply conside "a force" without
trying to evoke an explanation for that force. We can be fairly certain
it isn't caused by physical particles or electromagnetic waves, but who
is to say there isn't another 'thing' in space that we haven't
identified yet.

I agree with you: rather than saying this theory is impossible because
we don't know anything that could cause it, why don't we say this theory
could point to something we don't know about yet.
--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
Bill Sloman
2024-04-22 15:02:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Liz Tuddenham
Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Mon, 22 Apr 2024 08:27:32 +0100) it happened
Post by Liz Tuddenham
Post by jim whitby
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
earths-gravity/>
Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first
heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air
pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions.
When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
towards each other.
I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
observed effects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation#
It was an interesting explanation in the light of the way things were
thought of at the time: physical particles and elastic collisions.
Voight's explanation makes sense if you simply conside "a force" without
trying to evoke an explanation for that force. We can be fairly certain
it isn't caused by physical particles or electromagnetic waves, but who
is to say there isn't another 'thing' in space that we haven't
identified yet.
I agree with you: rather than saying this theory is impossible because
we don't know anything that could cause it, why don't we say this theory
could point to something we don't know about yet.
But it isn't backed up by any experimental observations that point to
anything we haven't known about for centuries now, as is pointed out by
Jan Panteltje's wikipedia link, which he doesn't seem to understand.

The basic idea came from "Nicolas Fatio de Duillier in 1690" He was a
friend of Newton, but rather less clever.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Phil Hobbs
2024-04-22 15:00:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Liz Tuddenham
Post by jim whitby
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
earths-gravity/>
Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first
heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air
pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions.
When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
towards each other.
I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
observed effects.
Of course little things like the equality of inertial and gravitational
mass (so that objects of different density fall at the same speed) don’t
fit easily into such a picture.

Also, the rate at which the hypothetical particles collide with matter has
to be extremely large in order to work with very dense matter, such as free
neutrons.

Neutrons have been observed to follow Newtonian gravity to very high
accuracy in the lab.

And then there’s the complete absence of Brownian motion in free particles.
With some huge flux of particles carrying the sort of momentum that would
be required to account for the gravitational motion of free neutrons, the
resulting fluctuations would be very visible.

Besides, if the particles bounce off the gravitating objects, their
velocity distribution will change as a consequence. (Some of them will
rattle around between them, going faster and faster as the objects get
closer.) Thus there will be a wake effect, like a small plane taking off
right after an A380. No such effects are observed.

Not to pile on, or at least not as much as the notion deserves, but if
relativity is completely wrong, then there is only one velocity in a given
reference frame for which the drag force of such a particle ensemble is
zero.

And, of course, there’s the question of the origin, distribution, and
regulation of the momentum-carrying particles.

To have any chance of avoiding even these purely classical effects, the
particles would have to have infinite speed, zero mass, perfectly uniform
and isotropic distribution in both position and direction, perfectly timed
arrival at each object to make the fluctuations cancel out, and on an on.

This is the luminiferous ether, on stilts.

And then there are matter-wave interferometers, which work not only on
electrons, but on neutrons and even buckyballs. They set far tighter
limits on most of these classical effects.

So no, these sorts of theories are not good candidates to explain gravity
or other relativistic effects.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC /
Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
John Larkin
2024-04-22 16:11:16 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 15:00:21 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
Post by Phil Hobbs
Post by Liz Tuddenham
Post by jim whitby
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
earths-gravity/>
Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first
heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air
pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions.
When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
towards each other.
I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
observed effects.
Of course little things like the equality of inertial and gravitational
mass (so that objects of different density fall at the same speed) don’t
fit easily into such a picture.
Also, the rate at which the hypothetical particles collide with matter has
to be extremely large in order to work with very dense matter, such as free
neutrons.
Neutrons have been observed to follow Newtonian gravity to very high
accuracy in the lab.
And then there’s the complete absence of Brownian motion in free particles.
With some huge flux of particles carrying the sort of momentum that would
be required to account for the gravitational motion of free neutrons, the
resulting fluctuations would be very visible.
Besides, if the particles bounce off the gravitating objects, their
velocity distribution will change as a consequence. (Some of them will
rattle around between them, going faster and faster as the objects get
closer.) Thus there will be a wake effect, like a small plane taking off
right after an A380. No such effects are observed.
Not to pile on, or at least not as much as the notion deserves, but if
relativity is completely wrong, then there is only one velocity in a given
reference frame for which the drag force of such a particle ensemble is
zero.
And, of course, there’s the question of the origin, distribution, and
regulation of the momentum-carrying particles.
To have any chance of avoiding even these purely classical effects, the
particles would have to have infinite speed, zero mass, perfectly uniform
and isotropic distribution in both position and direction, perfectly timed
arrival at each object to make the fluctuations cancel out, and on an on.
This is the luminiferous ether, on stilts.
And then there are matter-wave interferometers, which work not only on
electrons, but on neutrons and even buckyballs. They set far tighter
limits on most of these classical effects.
So no, these sorts of theories are not good candidates to explain gravity
or other relativistic effects.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Is there any deeper explanation for conservation of energy, and for
Newton's laws, other than that's just the way things are?

(That gets philosophical, namely why does mathematics define the
world?)
bitrex
2024-04-22 20:44:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Larkin
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 15:00:21 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
Post by Phil Hobbs
Post by Liz Tuddenham
Post by jim whitby
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
earths-gravity/>
Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first
heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air
pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions.
When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
towards each other.
I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
observed effects.
Of course little things like the equality of inertial and gravitational
mass (so that objects of different density fall at the same speed) don’t
fit easily into such a picture.
Also, the rate at which the hypothetical particles collide with matter has
to be extremely large in order to work with very dense matter, such as free
neutrons.
Neutrons have been observed to follow Newtonian gravity to very high
accuracy in the lab.
And then there’s the complete absence of Brownian motion in free particles.
With some huge flux of particles carrying the sort of momentum that would
be required to account for the gravitational motion of free neutrons, the
resulting fluctuations would be very visible.
Besides, if the particles bounce off the gravitating objects, their
velocity distribution will change as a consequence. (Some of them will
rattle around between them, going faster and faster as the objects get
closer.) Thus there will be a wake effect, like a small plane taking off
right after an A380. No such effects are observed.
Not to pile on, or at least not as much as the notion deserves, but if
relativity is completely wrong, then there is only one velocity in a given
reference frame for which the drag force of such a particle ensemble is
zero.
And, of course, there’s the question of the origin, distribution, and
regulation of the momentum-carrying particles.
To have any chance of avoiding even these purely classical effects, the
particles would have to have infinite speed, zero mass, perfectly uniform
and isotropic distribution in both position and direction, perfectly timed
arrival at each object to make the fluctuations cancel out, and on an on.
This is the luminiferous ether, on stilts.
And then there are matter-wave interferometers, which work not only on
electrons, but on neutrons and even buckyballs. They set far tighter
limits on most of these classical effects.
So no, these sorts of theories are not good candidates to explain gravity
or other relativistic effects.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Is there any deeper explanation for conservation of energy, and for
Newton's laws, other than that's just the way things are?
(That gets philosophical, namely why does mathematics define the
world?)
I don't think we know for sure that conservation of energy holds on a
cosmological scale, since we don't know for sure the global topology of
the Universe.

In a hypothetical Universe that's topologically flat and unbounded
there's still the boundary condition at infinity to be considered, which
I think could in principle be a singularity sort of like a "white hole",
anything could come flying in and conservation of energy can't hold exactly.
Bill Sloman
2024-04-23 08:59:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Larkin
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 15:00:21 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
Post by Phil Hobbs
Post by Liz Tuddenham
Post by jim whitby
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
earths-gravity/>
Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first
heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air
pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions.
When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
towards each other.
I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
observed effects.
Of course little things like the equality of inertial and gravitational
mass (so that objects of different density fall at the same speed) don’t
fit easily into such a picture.
Also, the rate at which the hypothetical particles collide with matter has
to be extremely large in order to work with very dense matter, such as free
neutrons.
Neutrons have been observed to follow Newtonian gravity to very high
accuracy in the lab.
And then there’s the complete absence of Brownian motion in free particles.
With some huge flux of particles carrying the sort of momentum that would
be required to account for the gravitational motion of free neutrons, the
resulting fluctuations would be very visible.
Besides, if the particles bounce off the gravitating objects, their
velocity distribution will change as a consequence. (Some of them will
rattle around between them, going faster and faster as the objects get
closer.) Thus there will be a wake effect, like a small plane taking off
right after an A380. No such effects are observed.
Not to pile on, or at least not as much as the notion deserves, but if
relativity is completely wrong, then there is only one velocity in a given
reference frame for which the drag force of such a particle ensemble is
zero.
And, of course, there’s the question of the origin, distribution, and
regulation of the momentum-carrying particles.
To have any chance of avoiding even these purely classical effects, the
particles would have to have infinite speed, zero mass, perfectly uniform
and isotropic distribution in both position and direction, perfectly timed
arrival at each object to make the fluctuations cancel out, and on an on.
This is the luminiferous ether, on stilts.
And then there are matter-wave interferometers, which work not only on
electrons, but on neutrons and even buckyballs. They set far tighter
limits on most of these classical effects.
So no, these sorts of theories are not good candidates to explain gravity
or other relativistic effects.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Is there any deeper explanation for conservation of energy, and for
Newton's laws, other than that's just the way things are?
No. That's what science is about.
Post by John Larkin
(That gets philosophical, namely why does mathematics define the world?)
The world was there first, so it defines mathematics.

Mathematics is a way of describing a simpler world that is close enough
to the real world to be useful. It evolved in the same way as language,
and for exactly the same reason - it makes organising stuff easier.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Martin Brown
2024-04-23 12:57:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Larkin
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 15:00:21 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
Post by Phil Hobbs
So no, these sorts of theories are not good candidates to explain gravity
or other relativistic effects.
+1

The trouble is that simple *wrong* answers appeal to a lot of people.
The "Einstein was wrong" brigade have been going ever since he first
published the special theory of relativity.

https://skepticalinquirer.org/2020/11/100-authors-against-einstein-a-look-in-the-rearview-mirror/

His repost to "A hundred authors against Einstein" was that it would
only take one iff they were actually correct. That is true of all
science. It doesn't matter how elegant the theory is it can still be
refuted by an experimental test where it predicts the wrong answer.
Post by John Larkin
Post by Phil Hobbs
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Is there any deeper explanation for conservation of energy, and for
Newton's laws, other than that's just the way things are?
(That gets philosophical, namely why does mathematics define the
world?)
Invariants of motion are a higher level version of the classical
conservation laws that can be formulated in general relativity.

Mathematical notation is just our best way so far of ensuring accuracy,
logical consistency and precision in our description of things.

Hand waving with "just so" stories can only get you so far. Natural
language is far too ambiguous and flexible to be effective for science.
--
Martin Brown
bitrex
2024-04-23 16:15:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Brown
Post by John Larkin
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 15:00:21 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
Post by Phil Hobbs
So no, these sorts of theories are not good candidates to explain gravity
or other relativistic effects.
+1
The trouble is that simple *wrong* answers appeal to a lot of people.
The "Einstein was wrong" brigade have been going ever since he first
published the special theory of relativity.
https://skepticalinquirer.org/2020/11/100-authors-against-einstein-a-look-in-the-rearview-mirror/
His repost to "A hundred authors against Einstein" was that it would
only take one iff they were actually correct. That is true of all
science. It doesn't matter how elegant the theory is it can still be
refuted by an experimental test where it predicts the wrong answer.
Post by John Larkin
Post by Phil Hobbs
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Is there any deeper explanation for conservation of energy, and for
Newton's laws, other than that's just the way things are?
(That gets philosophical, namely why does mathematics define the
world?)
Invariants of motion are a higher level version of the classical
conservation laws that can be formulated in general relativity.
Mathematical notation is just our best way so far of ensuring accuracy,
logical consistency and precision in our description of things.
Hand waving with "just so" stories can only get you so far. Natural
language is far too ambiguous and flexible to be effective for science.
I don't know whether it's appropriate to say that conservation laws are
"caused" by Noether's theorem, but in the Lagrangian/Hamiltonian
formulation it's easier to see what symmetries/invariant lead to what
conserved quantities as opposed to the Newtonian form.

Maybe one could say at some level the "cause" of those symmetries (which
then have associated conservation laws) is the principle of least action.
Liz Tuddenham
2024-04-22 16:30:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Hobbs
Post by Liz Tuddenham
Post by jim whitby
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
earths-gravity/>
Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first
heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air
pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions.
When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
towards each other.
I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
observed effects.
Of course little things like the equality of inertial and gravitational
mass (so that objects of different density fall at the same speed) don’t
fit easily into such a picture.
If you postulate that the forces interact with mass rather than area or
volume, that is easily explained.

Why do we assume that gravity is a pull based on mass, when it could
equally well be a push based on mass?
--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
Phil Hobbs
2024-04-22 16:57:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Liz Tuddenham
Post by Phil Hobbs
Post by Liz Tuddenham
Post by jim whitby
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
earths-gravity/>
Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first
heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air
pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions.
When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
towards each other.
I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
observed effects.
Of course little things like the equality of inertial and gravitational
mass (so that objects of different density fall at the same speed) don’t
fit easily into such a picture.
If you postulate that the forces interact with mass rather than area or
volume, that is easily explained.
Why do we assume that gravity is a pull based on mass, when it could
equally well be a push based on mass?
Whenever you feel like reading the rest of my post, let me know. ;)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC /
Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Liz Tuddenham
2024-04-22 19:25:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Hobbs
Post by Liz Tuddenham
Post by Phil Hobbs
Post by Liz Tuddenham
Post by jim whitby
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
earths-gravity/>
Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first
heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air
pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions.
When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
towards each other.
I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
observed effects.
Of course little things like the equality of inertial and gravitational
mass (so that objects of different density fall at the same speed)
don’t fit easily into such a picture.
If you postulate that the forces interact with mass rather than area or
volume, that is easily explained.
Why do we assume that gravity is a pull based on mass, when it could
equally well be a push based on mass?
Whenever you feel like reading the rest of my post, let me know. ;)
Your post appeared to concentrate on particles,which, I agree, are not a
good explanation for gravity. I am taking a more general view that
gravitatioal 'attraction' could equally likely be something-or-other
'non-repulsion' . The something-or-other isn't particles and isn't
electromagnetic waves but we don't know what it is and have ignored the
possibility that it might exist.

We invented the term "gravity" to account for an observed phenomenon but
we don't really know what it is or whether it exists -- why can't we
invent an equally plausible mass-intercepted force and see if we can
find out if that exists and what causes it?
--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
Jasen Betts
2024-04-24 08:53:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Liz Tuddenham
Post by Phil Hobbs
Post by Liz Tuddenham
Post by jim whitby
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
earths-gravity/>
Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first
heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air
pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions.
When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
towards each other.
I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
observed effects.
Of course little things like the equality of inertial and gravitational
mass (so that objects of different density fall at the same speed) don’t
fit easily into such a picture.
If you postulate that the forces interact with mass rather than area or
volume, that is easily explained.
Why do we assume that gravity is a pull based on mass, when it could
equally well be a push based on mass?
Can you get there from Kepplers laws of planetary motion, or even vice-
versa.


If you assume that the Earth is flat and the Moon is painted on the
firmament, then perhaps a push theory of gravity can be entertained, but
it does not seem to work well with the majority understanding of nature.
--
Jasen.
🇺🇦 Слава Україні
John Larkin
2024-04-24 14:30:38 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 08:53:25 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts
Post by Jasen Betts
Post by Liz Tuddenham
Post by Phil Hobbs
Post by Liz Tuddenham
Post by jim whitby
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
earths-gravity/>
Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first
heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air
pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions.
When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
towards each other.
I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
observed effects.
Of course little things like the equality of inertial and gravitational
mass (so that objects of different density fall at the same speed) donâ??t
fit easily into such a picture.
If you postulate that the forces interact with mass rather than area or
volume, that is easily explained.
Why do we assume that gravity is a pull based on mass, when it could
equally well be a push based on mass?
Can you get there from Kepplers laws of planetary motion, or even vice-
versa.
If you assume that the Earth is flat and the Moon is painted on the
firmament, then perhaps a push theory of gravity can be entertained, but
it does not seem to work well with the majority understanding of nature.
The universe is a giant balloon with stuff painted on it. Or we live
in a planetarium.

Since gravity moves at the speed of light, none of the classic
equations of planetary motion are true. Lately the 3-body problem is
popular, but the finite speed of gravity complicates that too.

An object is not attracted to another object, but to where it used to
be. Objects are attracted to gravity waves.
Martin Brown
2024-04-24 15:29:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Larkin
On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 08:53:25 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts
Post by Jasen Betts
Post by Liz Tuddenham
Post by Phil Hobbs
Post by Liz Tuddenham
Post by jim whitby
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
earths-gravity/>
Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first
heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air
pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions.
When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
towards each other.
I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
observed effects.
Of course little things like the equality of inertial and gravitational
mass (so that objects of different density fall at the same speed) donâ??t
fit easily into such a picture.
If you postulate that the forces interact with mass rather than area or
volume, that is easily explained.
Why do we assume that gravity is a pull based on mass, when it could
equally well be a push based on mass?
Can you get there from Kepplers laws of planetary motion, or even vice-
versa.
It might require considerable sleight of hand to have Gauss's theorem
still work even if you could fudge it somehow.
Post by John Larkin
Post by Jasen Betts
If you assume that the Earth is flat and the Moon is painted on the
firmament, then perhaps a push theory of gravity can be entertained, but
it does not seem to work well with the majority understanding of nature.
The universe is a giant balloon with stuff painted on it. Or we live
in a planetarium.
It is entirely possible that we live in a very sophisticated simulation
and that possibility becomes considerably more likely iff we should ever
succeed in building a non-trivial word length quantum computer.
Post by John Larkin
Since gravity moves at the speed of light, none of the classic
equations of planetary motion are true. Lately the 3-body problem is
popular, but the finite speed of gravity complicates that too.
Gravitational *changes* move at the speed of light, but the distortion
of spacetime is already there as a property of how objects move in GR.

Gravitational waves move at the speed of light but the gravitational
influence of the two massive components in orbit was always there out to
a huge distance determined by their age or the age of the universe
whichever happens to be shorter. It becomes a lot more noticeable when
they get really close together and spin up faster and faster.

Errors in the processing of Fortran continuation card beyond 9 were
found by observational discreprancies observed in pulsars that got close
enough to Jupiter occassionally for the gravitational corrections for
delays along light paths near large masses to really matter.
Post by John Larkin
An object is not attracted to another object, but to where it used to
be. Objects are attracted to gravity waves.
*NO*! That is completely wrong. Classical mechanics requires "the force
of" gravity to have infinite propagation speed or it doesn't work. That
was why Newton found it somewhat troublesome as "action at a distance".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation#Newton's_"causes_hitherto_unknown"

The solar system would collapse in on itself if the force of gravity was
anything other than *exactly* radial as everything in orbit would then
experience a drag force and spiral into the sun. That clearly doesn't
happen.

The only time when it can happen is in accretion disks of compact
stellar objects or black holes where magnetic forces and thermal
friction provide the drag and up to about 30% of the rest mass can be
converted into energy. That mechanism powers quasars and pulsars.

The BOAT event happened fairly recently and blinded the gamma ray
telescopes with its off scale brilliance. It was an order of magnitude
bigger than anything that had ever been seen before.

https://www.nasa.gov/universe/nasa-missions-study-what-may-be-a-1-in-10000-year-gamma-ray-burst/

Just as well it was nearly 2bn lightyears away from us!
--
Martin Brown
John Larkin
2024-04-24 15:58:20 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:29:01 +0100, Martin Brown
Post by Martin Brown
Post by John Larkin
On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 08:53:25 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts
Post by Jasen Betts
Post by Liz Tuddenham
Post by Phil Hobbs
Post by Liz Tuddenham
Post by jim whitby
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
earths-gravity/>
Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first
heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air
pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions.
When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
towards each other.
I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
observed effects.
Of course little things like the equality of inertial and gravitational
mass (so that objects of different density fall at the same speed) donâ??t
fit easily into such a picture.
If you postulate that the forces interact with mass rather than area or
volume, that is easily explained.
Why do we assume that gravity is a pull based on mass, when it could
equally well be a push based on mass?
Can you get there from Kepplers laws of planetary motion, or even vice-
versa.
It might require considerable sleight of hand to have Gauss's theorem
still work even if you could fudge it somehow.
Post by John Larkin
Post by Jasen Betts
If you assume that the Earth is flat and the Moon is painted on the
firmament, then perhaps a push theory of gravity can be entertained, but
it does not seem to work well with the majority understanding of nature.
The universe is a giant balloon with stuff painted on it. Or we live
in a planetarium.
It is entirely possible that we live in a very sophisticated simulation
and that possibility becomes considerably more likely iff we should ever
succeed in building a non-trivial word length quantum computer.
Post by John Larkin
Since gravity moves at the speed of light, none of the classic
equations of planetary motion are true. Lately the 3-body problem is
popular, but the finite speed of gravity complicates that too.
Gravitational *changes* move at the speed of light, but the distortion
of spacetime is already there as a property of how objects move in GR.
Gravitational waves move at the speed of light but the gravitational
influence of the two massive components in orbit was always there out to
a huge distance determined by their age or the age of the universe
whichever happens to be shorter. It becomes a lot more noticeable when
they get really close together and spin up faster and faster.
Errors in the processing of Fortran continuation card beyond 9 were
found by observational discreprancies observed in pulsars that got close
enough to Jupiter occassionally for the gravitational corrections for
delays along light paths near large masses to really matter.
Post by John Larkin
An object is not attracted to another object, but to where it used to
be. Objects are attracted to gravity waves.
*NO*! That is completely wrong. Classical mechanics requires "the force
of" gravity to have infinite propagation speed or it doesn't work. That
was why Newton found it somewhat troublesome as "action at a distance".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation#Newton's_"causes_hitherto_unknown"
The solar system would collapse in on itself if the force of gravity was
anything other than *exactly* radial as everything in orbit would then
experience a drag force and spiral into the sun. That clearly doesn't
happen.
But gravity doesn't have infinite speed.

We are attracted to things that don't even exist any more. Some
billions of years from now, the light and the gravity from those
things will cease to arrive, and you can call that event a "gravity
wave." If the light stops, you can call that a "light wave" too.

Earth emits gravity waves as it orbits the sun, so it does experience
a drag force.

Tidal effects slow our orbit around the sun too; our orbital radius is
increasing. The moon's orbit around earth increases too; that has been
measured.

There is also "thermal gravitational wave" emission which I guess
cools things off.

Jeroen Belleman
2024-04-22 19:56:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Hobbs
Post by Liz Tuddenham
Post by jim whitby
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
earths-gravity/>
Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first
heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air
pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions.
When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
towards each other.
I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
observed effects.
Of course little things like the equality of inertial and gravitational
mass (so that objects of different density fall at the same speed) don’t
fit easily into such a picture.
Also, the rate at which the hypothetical particles collide with matter has
to be extremely large in order to work with very dense matter, such as free
neutrons.
Neutrons have been observed to follow Newtonian gravity to very high
accuracy in the lab.
And then there’s the complete absence of Brownian motion in free particles.
With some huge flux of particles carrying the sort of momentum that would
be required to account for the gravitational motion of free neutrons, the
resulting fluctuations would be very visible.
Besides, if the particles bounce off the gravitating objects, their
velocity distribution will change as a consequence. (Some of them will
rattle around between them, going faster and faster as the objects get
closer.) Thus there will be a wake effect, like a small plane taking off
right after an A380. No such effects are observed.
Not to pile on, or at least not as much as the notion deserves, but if
relativity is completely wrong, then there is only one velocity in a given
reference frame for which the drag force of such a particle ensemble is
zero.
And, of course, there’s the question of the origin, distribution, and
regulation of the momentum-carrying particles.
To have any chance of avoiding even these purely classical effects, the
particles would have to have infinite speed, zero mass, perfectly uniform
and isotropic distribution in both position and direction, perfectly timed
arrival at each object to make the fluctuations cancel out, and on an on.
This is the luminiferous ether, on stilts.
And then there are matter-wave interferometers, which work not only on
electrons, but on neutrons and even buckyballs. They set far tighter
limits on most of these classical effects.
So no, these sorts of theories are not good candidates to explain gravity
or other relativistic effects.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
If you're interested in outlandish theories for gravity -and much else-
read the two papers published by Wolfgang Schnell in 'Il Nuovo Cimento'
in 1998. Starting from a model of the universe as a dense spherical
chunk of very rigid particles that can sustain shear and compression
waves and dislocations, he derives the existence of mass and electric
charge, relativity and gravity, and works out the masses of a whole
list of elementary particles.

There were two papers. I have them here:
W. Schnell, A non-local wave model for particles and fields,
Il Nuovo Cimento, VOL. 113 B, N. 2, Febbraio 1998
<https://cern/ch/jeroen/tmp/Wolfgang-Schnell-1.pdf>
and
<https://cern/ch/jeroen/tmp/Wolfgang-Schnell-2.pdf>.

Nobody paid much attention. They are altogether too weird, but
intriguing nevertheless.

Jeroen Belleman
Joe Gwinn
2024-04-22 21:07:53 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 21:56:53 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<***@nospam.please> wrote:

[snip]
Post by Jeroen Belleman
If you're interested in outlandish theories for gravity -and much else-
read the two papers published by Wolfgang Schnell in 'Il Nuovo Cimento'
in 1998. Starting from a model of the universe as a dense spherical
chunk of very rigid particles that can sustain shear and compression
waves and dislocations, he derives the existence of mass and electric
charge, relativity and gravity, and works out the masses of a whole
list of elementary particles.
W. Schnell, A non-local wave model for particles and fields,
Il Nuovo Cimento, VOL. 113 B, N. 2, Febbraio 1998
<https://cern/ch/jeroen/tmp/Wolfgang-Schnell-1.pdf>
and
<https://cern/ch/jeroen/tmp/Wolfgang-Schnell-2.pdf>.
The above URLs won't work until "cern/ch" is replaced by "cern.ch".

Joe
Jeroen Belleman
2024-04-22 21:27:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Gwinn
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 21:56:53 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
[snip]
Post by Jeroen Belleman
If you're interested in outlandish theories for gravity -and much else-
read the two papers published by Wolfgang Schnell in 'Il Nuovo Cimento'
in 1998. Starting from a model of the universe as a dense spherical
chunk of very rigid particles that can sustain shear and compression
waves and dislocations, he derives the existence of mass and electric
charge, relativity and gravity, and works out the masses of a whole
list of elementary particles.
W. Schnell, A non-local wave model for particles and fields,
Il Nuovo Cimento, VOL. 113 B, N. 2, Febbraio 1998
<https://cern/ch/jeroen/tmp/Wolfgang-Schnell-1.pdf>
and
<https://cern/ch/jeroen/tmp/Wolfgang-Schnell-2.pdf>.
The above URLs won't work until "cern/ch" is replaced by "cern.ch".
Joe
Oops, indeed. Sorry.

Thanks,
Jeroen Belleman
Jan Panteltje
2024-04-23 06:55:11 UTC
Permalink
On a sunny day (Mon, 22 Apr 2024 21:56:53 +0200) it happened Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
If you're interested in outlandish theories for gravity -and much else-
read the two papers published by Wolfgang Schnell in 'Il Nuovo Cimento'
in 1998. Starting from a model of the universe as a dense spherical
chunk of very rigid particles that can sustain shear and compression
waves and dislocations, he derives the existence of mass and electric
charge, relativity and gravity, and works out the masses of a whole
list of elementary particles.
W. Schnell, A non-local wave model for particles and fields,
Il Nuovo Cimento, VOL. 113 B, N. 2, Febbraio 1998
<https://cern/ch/jeroen/tmp/Wolfgang-Schnell-1.pdf>
and
<https://cern/ch/jeroen/tmp/Wolfgang-Schnell-2.pdf>.
wget https://cern/ch/jeroen/tmp/Wolfgang-Schnell-1.pdf
--2024-04-23 08:49:53-- https://cern/ch/jeroen/tmp/Wolfgang-Schnell-1.pdf
Resolving cern (cern)... failed: No address associated with hostname.


Correct links are:
https://cern.ch/jeroen/tmp/Wolfgang-Schnell-1.pdf
https://cern.ch/jeroen/tmp/Wolfgang-Schnell-2.pdf
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Nobody paid much attention. They are altogether too weird, but
intriguing nevertheless.
I did read one, you posted that years ago.
Loading...