Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Tim Alphabeaver

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mapping the Earth
« on: July 01, 2019, 09:51:18 PM »
An interactive map has an interactive scale. I've demonstrated many times where, based on the interactive scale, there is no distortion.
When you zoom all the way out, it's distorted. That's all that matters. I don't think anybody is arguing about being able to zoom in and have things appear locally flat except you.

Of course if you look at a map of any single country it will get sizes and distances etc. almost exactly right, because across small distances the Earth's curvature is small. According to your logic, this means the Earth is flat, and lets you ignore that it's impossible to produce a flat map of the entire world.

Do you understand that when you zoom in on Bing maps, you're looking at a different map? It's not a zoomed-in version of the same image, it's a different image.

2
There is a huge difference between Einstein's concept of ether (he was practically forced to reintroduce the ether into his general relativity) and Weyl's theory of the ether.

For Weyl, first comes the topological manifold. Then, an affine-connection is added: a world endowed with a gravitation-inertial field named by Weyl "fuhrungsfeld", guiding field. The components of the affine connection, and not those of the metric field, are taken as the field strengths of the gravitational field.

Weyl no longer has an invariant unit of length, so in order to introduce a metric at all, it is necessary to specify an arbitrary unit length at each point, to GAUGE the space, by adding a pseudo-vector field. Then, Weyl equates ψ with the potential of the electromagnetic field. What Weyl accomplished is to anticipate the Aharonov-Bohm effect by 30 years.

"The role of the metric is taken over by the wave function, and the rescaling of the metric has to be replaced
by a phase change of the wave function."

Why is there not a unified field theory at the present time?

Because virtually all mathematicians and physicists fail to notice that within a permanent magnet there are two fluxes of streams: South-Center-North AND North-Center-South.

The modern study of the magnetic field/electromagnetism ONLY includes the South to North flow.

Yet, there are TWO continuous streams of different particles.

What, then, is the nature of the SECOND flux of particles?

https://web.archive.org/web/20160203121514/http://www.electricitybook.com/magnetricity/hojo-leed.jpg

"Magnetic current is the same as electric current is a wrong expression. Really it is not one current they are two currents, one current is composed of North Pole individual magnets in concentrated streams, and the other is composed of South Pole magnets in concentrated streams, and they are running one stream against the other stream in whirling, screw like fashion, and with high speed."


Modern science only studies one of these streams.


Whittaker proved that the potential consists of pairs of bidirectional longitudinal scalar waves, and that the same equation governs both gravity and magnetism.


The second flow/stream of particles IS THE GRAVITATIONAL WAVE, which has a dextrorotatory spin. Both flows/streams form the ELECTROGRAVITATIONAL FIELD.
Ahh okay, I get it now. Thanks for clearing that one up :)

3
Wanna show me some experimental evidence of these thrusters you keep going on about working in a vacuum?

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14949.msg194918#msg194918

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14949.msg194921#msg194921

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14949.msg194939#msg194939 (two videos in vacuum)

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14949.msg194953#msg194953
I've already responded to your the links you gave about B-B in a vaccum. If I recall correctly, you dismissed every experiment except this single one by Townsend for some reason that you didn't make clear.

Weyl's gauge theory requires an ether just as much an Einstein's. That is - not really at all. See this interesting article:
http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

4
Not fermions, but electrogravity. Weyl unified gravity and electricity using gauge theory:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2182319#msg2182319
Great! So can you respond to my point? In fact, when did we start talking about Weyl instead of Biefield-Brown effect. Wanna show me some experimental evidence of these thrusters you keep going on about working in a vacuum? You already gave me some experiments that pretty much destroyed your idea that a Biefield-Brown-type thruster will work in a vacuum, so now you seem to be hiding behind some obscure theoretical physics that neither of us actually understand instead of carrying on down the Bilefield-Brown-clearly-doesn't-work-in-a-vacuum rabbit hole.

I wonder why.

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mapping the Earth
« on: June 29, 2019, 12:13:43 AM »
Again this is just a difference of opinion. In my opinion I have given a map, which depicts the earth as a flat plane, in which the map, by my definition, is undistorted. 
You required that it gets sizes correct, and yet both maps you show clearly don't get sizes correct.

The fact that you can zoom in on Greenland and it shows it as being the correct size is entirely irrelevant: if I'm zoomed in on Greenland, you can't compare the sizes of all the countries anymore because you're no longer looking at a map of the Earth, you're just looking at a map of Greenland. If you zoomed in on every country and grabbed the map that it gave you, every country would be the same size. Great! Except then if you tried to stitch all of those maps that get the relative country sizes correct together, you'd end up with a map that gets other things wrong.

I think my main points are really this:
- zooming in on Bing maps is the same as looking at a different map. The "zoomed in" map and the "zoomed out" map are not the same map. This should be obvious enough, as Greenland is horribly stretched when zoomed out and not when zoomed in.
- The only important question is "can I draw a single map that accurately represents the entire globe on a flat surface". No zooming, just a flat plane with the countries drawn on. This isn't the programming problem that you're making it out to be: it's a question of geometry.

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mapping the Earth
« on: June 27, 2019, 08:33:23 PM »
Not it does not. The scale is interactive. Do I really need to save the image of bing maps that i'm looking at now showing that greenland is about 2k miles from north to south and a second screenshot of bing maps showint that 2k miles is like a third of the height of Africa? Do you know what an interactive map is with an interactive scale is?
Ahh I see, so it only gets the sizes correct when you're zoomed in far enough that it's not showing any other countries, but it can't show direction or distance in this zoomed-in format. Why not just stitch together all of these zoomed-in images into a full flat map that has the correct sizes and distances? The answer is: you can't. That's why it distorts when you zoom out.

I think we're pretty much agreeing here: the Earth is locally flat-ish, so if you zoom in you lose a lot of the distortion and you can do small distances and sizes accurately, but when you actually want to map a significant portion of the Earth on a flat map, you are guaranteed distortion.

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mapping the Earth
« on: June 27, 2019, 07:42:28 PM »
I had already linked a map, with an interactive changing scale, in which the countries were the correct size, distance apart etc. It was rejected because it had an interactive scale which changes depending on which country you look at. So I presented a map which did not have an interactive scale in the the countries were more to scale which was not interactive.
The only other link I saw you link was Bing maps, which uses the Mercator projection (at least when you zoom out far). The Mercator projection is certainly distorted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection#Distortion

My definition of undistorted when referring to a map:

1. The map must have countries the correct size (based on the scale of the map. If the map is interactive then the scale of the map will change depending on where you look and your zoom level).
2. Countries should be the correct distance away from each other (based on the scale of the map. If the map is interactive then the scale of the map will change depending on where you look and your zoom level)
3. Countries should be the correct direction relative to each other
4. The map must be able to be used to accurately navigate every country on earth

Bing maps has all of those listed above but was rejected because it has an interactive scale. I've only really done a lot of extensive traveling in North America, South America, and Europe so I can't corroborate the accuracy of #4 in Africa, Asia, and Australia but, based on my sample data, I will assume that you can.
Bing uses the Mercator projection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection#Distortion
Look at the size of Greenland. It fails #1 miserably.

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mapping the Earth
« on: June 27, 2019, 07:25:31 PM »
I had already linked a map, with an interactive changing scale, in which the countries were the correct size, distance apart etc. It was rejected because it had an interactive scale which changes depending on which country you look at. So I presented a map which did not have an interactive scale in the the countries were more to scale which was not interactive.
The only other link I saw you link was Bing maps, which uses the Mercator projection (at least when you zoom out far). The Mercator projection is certainly distorted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection#Distortion

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mapping the Earth
« on: June 27, 2019, 07:20:31 PM »

What is your definition of "undistorted"? Because clearly having countries the correct size, distance away from each other, or direction relative to each other aren't in your definition.

I had already linked a map, with an interactive changing scale, in which the countries were the correct size, distance apart etc. It was rejected because it had an interactive scale which changes depending on which country you look at. So I presented a map which did not have an interactive scale in the the countries were more to scale which was not interactive.


It also seems to have Russia around the same size as Africa, which is completely wrong.

I don't know how to calculate the internal area of an abstract shape such as the borders of Russia on that map so I don't know if it is the correct size or not.


You don't need much experience. A cursory glance shows that going from South Africa to South America requires crossing the whole of Europe and North America.

This is not a map used by airlines to map flight paths. I had already shown a map which almost all flights are mapped on but, because it has an interactive scale, it was rejected.

You didn't answer my question about your definition of "undistorted".

I don't know how to calculate the internal area from the map either. I can however just put some paper over my screen, trace around Russia and overlay it on Africa, and see that there's zero chance that Africa is twice the area that Russia is on that map, like it should be.


10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mapping the Earth
« on: June 27, 2019, 05:02:20 PM »
I don't have enough experience with the undistorted map (which you said was impossible if the earth was a sphere) to map a flight path on it.
You don't need much experience. A cursory glance shows that going from South Africa to South America requires crossing the whole of Europe and North America. Or, as I pointed out earlier, that North America is about thrice as close to Antarctica as South Africa. To get from New Zealand to Antarctica on this map, you'd need to travel North West (or whatever the equivalent cardinal directions are on this map), and yet you claim it's undistorted?

It also seems to have Russia around the same size as Africa, which is completely wrong.

What is your definition of "undistorted"? Because clearly having countries the correct size, distance away from each other, or direction relative to each other aren't in your definition.

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mapping the Earth
« on: June 27, 2019, 04:07:52 PM »
Here is an undistorted 2D map of the earth. By your logic the earth must be flat. I believe you are incorrect to make assumptions about the shape of the earth based on a map. The earth could be flat or a sphere or an oblate spheroid and we could draw a map of it.

Your map gets distances obviously wrong, though. South Africa isn't ~50x further away from Antarctica than South America. This is because the map is distorted.
There is only one way that you can get a map that gets all distances, shapes etc. correct, and that's on the surface of a sphere. Therefore, the Earth is a sphere. If you tried to accurately represent the Earth on a long ellipsoid, or a dinner plate, or in fact any other shape, it would be distorted.

The point is that the sphere is the only shape that can produce a non-distorted map in this particular case. The argument isn't that distorted map == sphere.

Quote
If you don't like the distorted map then why on earth is it used so commonly and widely for just about everything??
Because phones and flat maps are much easier to carry around than spheres.

12
these papers were swept under the rug immediately
But when I type "weyl fermion" on google scholar I get loads of hits of articles >1000 citations. Maybe it was swept under the rug at one point, I don't know. All I do know is that this area of physics that you're claiming gets you blacklisted from the physics community is undeniably very active. This gets taught in undergrad physics. Telling every single up-and-coming physicist about something is the opposite of rug-sweeping or blacklisting. I don't see any two ways around this: you're just wrong.

13
The fact that relativity and quantum mechanics don't play nice together isn't swept under the rug,

That is very obvious; what should be worrying you is the fact that TGR is presented as a viable option.
Great! Then I guess we agree that trying to disprove relativity is encouraged, not discouraged. The fact that you're talking about people like Weyl and Levi-Civita demonstrates this very well; they are very well-known physicists, not swept under the rug because they disagree with relativity like you were suggesting earlier.

Relativity is presented as a viable option because it very accurately describes reality. Whether it's a complete model or not is important, but doesn't diminish its usefulness. Newtonian mechanics is still used everywhere, despite the fact that we know it's wrong.

14
"Many physicists who believe Einstein’s theory of relativity to be flawed have not been able to get their papers accepted for publication in most scientific journals. Eminent scientists are intimidated and warned that they may spoil their career prospects, if they openly opposed Einstein’s relativity. Distinguished British physicist Dr Louis Essen stated that physicists seem to abandon their critical faculties when considering relativity. He also remarked: ‘Students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma.'
In my experience, this just isn't true. The fact that relativity and quantum mechanics don't play nice together isn't swept under the rug, it's something you're told time and time again if you're taking a physics undergrad. It's one of the big problems in physics, and lots of people are trying to solve this by various means. The place I did my degree even has a whole section of the physics department working on trying to find viable alternatives to relativity. Where are you getting your info?

15
The UFT was already worked out in the period 1919-1929.

Einstein recognized the limitations of his TGR, and that UFT requires a new concept of space, the hyperspace.

The first attempt at unification was made by Hermann Weyl, a mathematician more formidable than Einstein and Minkowski put together.

"Weyl noted that Riemann’s geometry went only halfway towards attaining the ideal of a pure infinitesimal geometry, so he introduced a gauge symmetry into the space-time geometry as a remedy for that oversight. In his new geometry, the parallel transfer of a length in the field would allow a change in the basic unit of length according to the gauge at any given position in our common four-dimensional space-time. This change accounted for the presence of distant-curvature and thus allowed the introduction of electromagnetism into the metric of space-time curvature."

Kozyrev spotted Minkowski's catastrophic error immediately: time is not a scalar, but has density and a rate of flow.

"Time is not merely a “scalar” or “one-dimensional entity” in the geometry of space-time; it is not, therefore, to be viewed in the sense that the geometry of General Relativity — the Minkowski space — or for that matter, most physical theory, views it, namely, as merely duration"

Kaluza fulfilled Riemann's requirement of imbedding space in a hyperspace.

“It appears that the union of gravitation and Maxwell’s theory is achieved in a completely satisfactory way by the five-dimensional theory (Kaluza-Klein).”

(Einstein to H. A. Lorentz, 16 February 1927)

“Kaluza's roundabout way of introducing the five dimensional continuum allows us to regard the gravitational and electromagnetic fields as a unitary space structure”

Einstein, A. & Bergman, P., On a Generalization of Kaluza's Theory of Electricity. In: Modern Kaluza-Klein Theories. Menlo Park: Addison-Wesley, p. 93.

"In 1921, T. Kaluza showed that the gravitational and electromagnetic fields stem from a single universal tensor and such an intimate combination of the two interactions is possible in principle, with the introduction of an additional spacial dimension.

In 1926, Oscar Klein provided an explanation for Kaluza’s fifth dimension by proposing it to have a circular topology so that the coordinate y is periodic i.e., 0 ≤ y ≤ 2πR, where R is the radius of the circle S1. Thus the global space has topology R4× S1.

Kaluza-Klein compactification: although there are four space dimensions, one of the space dimensions is compact with a small radius.

Theodor Kaluza and Oscar Klein were able to recover four dimensional gravity as well as Maxwell’s equations for a vector field.

The extra space dimension somehow had collapsed down to a tiny circle "smaller than the smallest atom".

"Klein theorized that Kaluza's new dimension likely had somehow collapsed down to the "Planck length" itself -- supposedly the smallest possible size allowed by these fundamental interactions: 10-33 cm."

"Kaluza and Klein showed that this extra dimension would still have an effect on the space around us. In particular they showed that the effect of gravity in that very small fifth dimension would actually appear to us, from our larger-scale perspective, as electromagnetism."

There is even the Kaluza-Weyl space-time-time theory.

However, J.C. Maxwell had already provided a UFT some fifty years earlier, his scalar potential terms, which were deleted/censored by Heaviside and Lorentz. In fact, this was the same spatial dimension as the four-space designations used by Maxwell in his theory over 50 years before.

Biefeld and Brown provided the experimental proofs needed for the unification of gravity and electricity.
Please stop reminding me of how little attention I paid during my undergrad.

16
I told you that you haven't done your homework.
Oooh wow, another experiment from the 1920s! You don't seem to understand the concept that science didn't just stop in 1960, and there is actually science still happening today! I can assure you that the advent of computers, as well as improvements in other technologies, has transformed science into a world of hyper-precision.
Did you know that the 1S-2S transition in hydrogen has been measured with a fraction uncertainty of 0.0000000000000042? That's fifteen zeroes! Try doing that in 1920. How many zeroes did Cavendish get? One? None?

Side note: I'm not even sure what your point is anymore. You at some point claimed that gravity isn't related to mass, but now you're linking an equation for gravity that explicity includes a mass term? I'm not even sure what my point is anymore either, I don't think I disagree that electromagnetism and gravity could be related, and in fact I feel that eventually a working Grand Unified Theory will emerge and unite all fundamental forces into one super-theory (kind of like the Avengers)...

Anyway... what are we talking about again?

17
Flat Earth Community / Re: Van Allen Radiation Belt
« on: June 20, 2019, 05:47:46 PM »
About the Van Allen belt - I think people really overhype how radioactive it is. According to wikipedia, the maximum radiation dosage an apollo astronaut received was 1.14 rads, which is less than 2 roentgen (not great, not terrible). It's not life-threatening, but it's a serious enough health risk that it can't just be ignored. Apparently it wasn't a serious enough health risk to give up beating Russia in the space race.

18
Flat Earth Community / Re: Is it a priority?
« on: June 20, 2019, 05:36:42 PM »
I see many good people, bright and intelligent people wasting their time on this when they could use their time to help the world in a better way
People sometimes prioritise things they like doing over other things. Shocker, isn't it?

19
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: I wanted to ask people about this
« on: June 20, 2019, 05:33:44 PM »
So please don't reply to me any more.
bump

20
You haven't done your homework.
Oh you're just being modest ;).

Quote
You are assuming gravity is attractive, which means you are contradicting Newton's own words on the subject.
Me no assume, me just look at experiment.
I'm not really interested in what Newton did or didn't say. I'm a clever boy (just like you), so I can look at his maths and see that it matches all the pretty experiments. Newton's opinion is irrelevant.

Quote
The complete demolition of the Cavendish-type experiments:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg805751#msg805751
Nice job! Now do that for the 700,000 search results on Google Scholar that I linked - bet you can't!

Quote
Why then doesn't your bathroom scale register 2000 pounds?
Wait, are you fat shaming me?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6  Next >