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 >
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.

11 (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?

Well I guess we cracked it then.
I found this article about B-B effect and how it apparently doesn't work in a vacuum:

If this article is correct, then the B-B effect couldn't be used to levitate satellites (unless FE satellites are inside the atmosphere?). I also couldn't find any published articles about the B-B effect in a vacuum, which is disappointing.

So, any estimate must use at least these figures: d = 0.5 cm, e = 10,000 (if not more), surface area for a 45 cm  diameter of the plate, and the voltage at least 60 Kv per capacitor.
Okay, now that I understand this better, let's try again;
I'm using (equation 72, page 11)

We have
e=1e4 [units] (barium titanate)
V=6.67e4 statvolts
G=6.67e-8 [cgs units]
u=2.7 g/cm^3 (aluminium)
S=4.78e6 cm^2 (wing area of a B2 bomber)

This gives F=2.2e10 dyne [cgs] = 2.2e5 N [SI]
Gravitational force on an empty B2 is 7.1e4*9.81 = 6.8e5 N

So that's around 30% of the force required to lift a B2 bomber directly upwards. I'm actually really impressed, the force from these capacitors is almost the same thrust produced by the main engines. Did I make a mistake somewhere? CGS units can die in a fire.

I don't see where this equation came from since I can't see a link to the source, but whatever.

For such important formulas, I always include the sources.

With the addition of the Weyl vector potential theory, the formula for the Biefeld-Brown effect can now be derived:

Weyl electrovacuum solutions and gauge invariance
Dr. B.V. Ivanov

On the gravitational field induced by static electromagnetic sources
Dr. B.V Ivanov

Using your numbers, for a plane at 9km, with a voltage of 20MV:
For some reason it's all in CGS units...
d=9e5 [cm]


d refers to the distance between the PLATES OF THE CAPACITOR.

And there are some 300 capacitors, if not more, on board the B-2 bomber (if they are not using the wings themselves as some huge capacitors to start with).

What we need is the dielectric constant for those capacitors, the distance between the plates, and the voltage applied for a single capacitor (that is, we also need to know the surface area of the plate of the capacitor).

So, any estimate must use at least these figures: d = 0.5 cm, e = 10,000 (if not more), surface area for a 45 cm  diameter of the plate, and the voltage at least 60 Kv per capacitor.

To use the formula for the entire aircraft, in case just a single very large capacitor is utilized, we'd need to know how the 20,000,000 volts are distributed across the wings, the distance chosen between the upper and lower plate of the capacitor, the entire surface area underneath the wings used for the capacitor, the dielectric being used.
This is actually quite interesting. Thanks for linking the source - it was a good read. And also sorry that I got the distance d wrong.
Presumably you'd need to know the mass of the aircraft as well. The equation (21) in the paper you linked just gives an acceleration, but that's not very helpful in the plane scenario. You'd need to convert it into a force and then you could work out the acceleration on the plane from there.

Fancy doing some maths?

Exact formula for the Biefeld-Brown effect:
Okay, I used equation (21) in your link. I don't see where this equation came from since I can't see a link to the source, but whatever. Using your numbers, for a plane at 9km, with a voltage of 20MV:
For some reason it's all in CGS units...
d=9e5 [cm]
e=1e4 [not sure units, got this value from your link]
V=6.67e4 statvolts [this is the CGS unit of voltage apparently]

gz(max)=0.002 g

That's right, the force provided is 0.2% of the force of gravity. Is my maths wrong?

Flat Earth Community / Re: Friendly Discussions to Build Consensus
« on: June 12, 2019, 07:43:08 AM »
Some of this stuff is drifting dangerously into debate again.


Flat Earth Community / Re: Friendly Discussions to Build Consensus
« on: June 11, 2019, 11:36:37 PM »
Yes. Proof does exist in science! Spontaneous Generation was proven false. People studied the matter. Flies don't pop out of nowhere. People did experiments. You know, science?
So if I do a single experiment that doesn't observe Spontaneous Generation, that means Spontaneous Generation is impossible? Maybe it just didn't occur in that one experiment. Maybe the experiment was poorly designed. Maybe my equipment malfunctioned. Maybe it just doesn't happen very often. The only way to prove that Spontaneous Generation false with 100% certainty is to have perfect fly detectors covering 100% of the universe. Even if "people" did 100 experiments, that doesn't prove anything. This is why any semi-serious experiment will put a lot of time into determining reasonable error bars.

Per your redshift query, it is based on multiple hypothesis'.
As is any observation.

Blueshift and redshift as we experience on Earth doesn't occur with stars and galaxies. The theories need to be modified. Most galaxies we see are redshifted to a degree that doesn't really make sense
Most galaxies lie on a nice straight line. How does that not make sense?

The cosmological redshift is known as Hubble’s law, and postulated that the known universe is expanding. Hypothetical mechanisms were put in place to change the observation and its implications into an expanding universe.


If your science is merely about getting things to seem to work, then you are basically just telling me a story. Astronomy is a contest of who has the best explanations and stories. It is simply not a science like other science.
You're now quibbling about the interpretation of the results. My question was about the observation itself: what part of my observation of redshift is not scientific? You're acting like astronomy is the only field of science where there are multiple possible interpretations for a single observation.

The high-voltage differential is measured between the B-2's positive leading edge and its negative ion exhaust stream.

The four engines of the B-2 bomber put out a thrust of 140,000 HP (25 MW, assuming a 30% conversion of efficiency).

A 35-ft electrogravitic disc would need to have access to 50MW.

The B-2 has 72 metric tons, when empty. This works out to 32 grams/ when fully loaded.

T.T. Brown's 18 inch diameter disk was generating an upward thrust of 125 grams when energized at 170 Kv.

That is 0.08 grams/

So, to generate a force capable of lifting the B-2, a thrust per unit area four hundred times greater would be needed. This is accomplished by using a high-K dielectric.

This is would provide 100 times more thrust at 1000 Kv. If the Pyrex insulator is replaced with barium titanate, there would be an additional 32-fold of thrust.

That is, instead of the 125 grams of force, Brown's thruster would have provided 400 kg of force. If we now distribute 380 of these capacitors over the wing surface they would provide an upward thrust of 152 tons.
*munch crunch* This salad is really good! *munch* I really like the dressing, what's it called? You replaced the regular pyrex dressing with a barium titanate dressing, meaning there's an additional 32-fold of flavour? *crunch*
Have you got any more, buddy?

Very easy.

Here is the data for the B-2 bomber Biefeld-Brown effect.

At sea level the aircraft maintains a voltage differential of 57 million volts, while at an altitude of some 9 km, the voltage differential will measure 20 million volts.

Okay, so what force would the Biefield-Brown effect produce if V=20M?
Is this voltage measured between the airplane and the Earth?

Flat Earth Community / Re: Friendly Discussions to Build Consensus
« on: June 07, 2019, 11:55:14 PM »
It is the responsibility of science to prove itself absolutely

I think that's an oxymoron. If I do an experiment a single time, that's clearly not absolute proof. What about 3 times? 5 times? 100 times? At what point does "maybe true" morph into "probably true" and then finally into "absolutely true"? Science can't give absolute truths, just the most likely explanation given the results of repeated observation.

Can you go into more detail about why you think astronomy is a pseudoscience? Let's say I'm trying to measure the redshift of some galaxy by pointing my big telescope at it and measuring the wavelength of the light that comes off. Which part of this observation isn't scientific?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5  Next >