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 ... 5  Next >
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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

The complete demolition of the Cavendish-type experiments:
Nice job! Now do that for the 700,000 search results on Google Scholar that I linked - bet you can't!

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

Then, the formula provided by Newton is worthless and useless: gravity has nothing to do with mass.
Except this is patently false: gravity has everything to do with mass. If I double the mass of an object while keeping its charge the same, its weight doubles. If I double the charge on an object while keeping its mass the same, its weight stays the same.

Also masses attracting each other proportional to their mass can be measured in a lab.

How can a force that's directly proportional to mass have nothing to do with mass? You seem like a smart guy, so I can't believe that you'd truly believe that's such an obvious logical contradiction.

What Dr. Daniel Gezari (CalTech) did is to put an end to heliocentrism for good.
I feel like I was concentrating quite hard when I read your post, but I still don't know what your point is. Could you clarify for me?

Ahh the classic Sandokhan line of "Since then you're going to have to explain this."

Down another rabbit hole we go!

What I'm saying has nothing to do with the Eotvos effect, and your comment wasn't related to my point.

A change in √G means that in vacuum you need a higher voltage and/or a dielectric constant.

In vacuum, √G < 2.58 x 10-4.
Okay, let's assume you're right, and G isn't a constant.
In the B-B effect, ( eq. 72) F is proportional to sqrt(G), right? So a 10% change in G would be a 3% change in sqrt(G).
You could compensate for this by increasing the voltage by 3%, or the dielectric constant by 10%.

Except it seems like in reality, these variation in G are <<10%, so you'd need to change the voltage applied by <<3%.

So how could a 1/2000 change in G possibly affect the voltage you need to apply by so much that you're claiming it's the reason that some people aren't seeing an effect? You could estimate the voltage change has got to be <1V at a maximum, surely that's just within the noise of your kV or MV power supply?

What exactly is your point here?

Additionally this "hypercharge" force seems to be proportional to the number of nucleons, and is apparently such a small effect that it wasn't noticed until 1986 (It looks like this effect must be <G/2000). How is this effect relevant to charging a capacitor? Does the number of nucleons in the capacitor change when the capacitor is placed into a vacuum chamber? How does this tiny effect make such a huge difference to the voltage required for the B-B effect?

The B-B effect is proportional to sqrt(G), so a small change in G will produce a squared-small change in the B-B effect. I'm really not buying this explanation, even if you can show me that there is some tiny variation in G.
What am I missing?

In the mainstream Newtonian theory, G varies slightly:

The G "constant" is correctly defined in terms of the ether (ZPF) mass-density equivalent and Planck time and is a vacuum repulsion reaction and a quantum function.
If I can summarise your links, this is a hypothesis that has been experimentally verified a grand total of... one time. In 1922. This is far from "mainstream newtonian".
Perhaps, the paper speculates, there is new and very weak force associated with hypercharge which is responsible for the anomalies in both the gravitational and the kaon measurements.
What part of this is Newtonian?

I think you really need to rethink your general approach to how you interpret scientific results. This isn't the first time you've pointed to a single experiment and basically said "this experiment therefore it must be true", and happily ignored the fact that the result hasn't been reproduced in the last 60+ years. You have a remarkably low bar for evidence before you'll believe something is true.

The reason why the voltage has to be increased in the vacuum experiments has everything to do with the value of G which is a variable,
Isn't big G a constant? Is this something about aether theory that I don't understand?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think I can disprove everything
« on: June 14, 2019, 08:16:51 AM »
Tom's spot on here.  Even if it's possible to walk in a perfectly straight line in theory, in reality it's basically impossible. I think if you really wanted to know for sure that you were walking in a straight line, you could use the aether as a reference frame, which would be kind of hard since it's never been detected.

Read this carefully, T. Brown's own report on the vacuum experiments:

I've already read it. Je ne parle pas le francais, so I can't really read the full report since it's in French.
The problem isn't that I don't understand Brown's report, it's that an unrepeatable result isn't a meaningful result. I don't think that Brown was lying.

Really we need some further experimentation to know for sure, but unless you can explain why the below report is fundamentally flawed, believing Brown's report over any other report is just blind faith. Dismissing experimental evidence just because it doesn't agree with what you've already decided is illogical.
I'll reiterate: they measured the B-B effect in atmosphere, and then it went away when they pumped down the vacuum chamber. This report actually goes into a lot of detail about removing other sources of interference etc., so I hardly think it's reasonable to dismiss it with hardly a second glance. It seems to me to be a well-designed experiment.

Re-read the paper I linked

It looks like they observed the B-B effect in atmosphere, but didn't observe it in vacuum. What part of the experiment is badly performed, considering that it was good enough to measure the B-B effect in atmosphere? It looks like the only difference is turning on some pumps.

Now you have at your disposal an exact formula: it should be easy to understand where those other attempts went wrong.
It should be easy, and yet I cannot see. Please enlighten me.
All I see is a single unrepeatable result from 60 years ago.

If it could be measured in a vacuum, then it would be repeatable. Given those 3 links I sent you earlier, it's clearly not repeatable.

I guess you've already read this as well:

You can believe in it if you want, I guess, but experimentally the B-B effect doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is known.

20 (formula for the maximum weight loss of a capacitor, the reason why various researched failed to record the Biefeld-Brown in vacuum)

I have included several videos with the Biefeld-Brown effect in vacuum, look for them.

Satellites require the use of Tesla's cosmic ray device combined with Hans Koller's apparatus and Reich's ether box to provide the voltage for the capacitors.
One of the links you provided, directly shows a strong negative correlation between energy required and pressure. The guy only has to go down to 700 mbar (525 torr), which can hardly be called a vacuum, and he already can't even lift his lifter.

This link you provided also can't get his lifter to work below 500 torr:

This link actually does get some motion at 1e-6 torr, although it is visibly much worse in a vacuum. Can't say much more since there are no numbers. Also the whole thing is written in comic sans lmao.

So it looks like the better the vacuum, the less this effect works. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it probably barely works at all in the vacuum of space. Am I missing something?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5  Next >