*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 143
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #140 on: June 27, 2019, 12:29:35 AM »
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.
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #141 on: June 27, 2019, 04:29:51 AM »
To disprove relativity is not encouraged at all, on the contrary. They couldn't do anything about Levi-Civita and
Weyl since they were very well known mathematicians, with world-wide recognition; however, these papers were swept under the rug immediately, as soon as they were published.

Relativity is presented as a viable option because it very accurately describes reality.

Relativity described Einstein's own fantasy world, where the speed of light is constant.

How did Einstein justify this personal opinion?

"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations”

What Einstein is telling the other physicists is that the principle of the constancy of the speed of light is based SOLELY on the Heaviside-Lorentz equations (modified Maxwell equations): a different set of equations will lead of course to a DEEPER understanding of the entire phenomenon.

TGR is a low-level subset of electrogravity, a limited view of reality.

The original Maxwell equations are invariant under galilean transformations:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2168036#msg2168036

Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #142 on: June 27, 2019, 10:23:54 AM »
Hermann Weyl's derivation of the electrogravitational formula (relationship between the gravitational potential and the electric potential, for static electric fields, i.e. the Biefeld-Brown effect) in 1917:

http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf



*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 143
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #143 on: June 27, 2019, 03:59:10 PM »
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.
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #144 on: June 27, 2019, 04:44:40 PM »
Not fermions, but electrogravity. Weyl unified gravity and electricity using gauge theory:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2182319#msg2182319

*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 143
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #145 on: June 29, 2019, 12:16:27 AM »
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.
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #146 on: June 29, 2019, 05:14:48 AM »
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

to be hiding behind some obscure theoretical physics


Weyl's gauge theory is mainstream, a huge generalization of Einstein's relativity. However, this kind of generalization requires the presence of the ether (potential):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2182319#msg2182319

In fact, when did we start talking about Weyl instead of Biefield-Brown effect.

Weyl's axially symmetric static electrovacuum solutions = the exact formula for the Biefeld-Brown effect:



https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14949.msg195048#msg195048

*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 143
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #147 on: June 30, 2019, 10:13:42 AM »
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
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #148 on: June 30, 2019, 12:24:38 PM »
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.


*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 143
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #149 on: July 01, 2019, 09:45:20 PM »
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 :)
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #150 on: July 10, 2019, 09:42:31 PM »
Brown has been proven wrong numerous times. 

Wiki
He struggled with the required curriculum of a freshman student and to help Thomas in his school work his parents set up a fully provisioned private laboratory in the family home in Pasadena, California. Here he demonstrated his ideas on electricity and gravity to invited guests such as the physicist and Nobel laureate, Robert A. Millikan. Millikan told the freshman student his ideas were impossible and advised him to complete his college education before trying to develop such theories. Brown left Caltech after his first year. In 1924 he attended Denison University, but left there after a year as well.

He failed freshman calculus and physics
« Last Edit: July 10, 2019, 09:55:46 PM by Snoopy »
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.

Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #151 on: July 10, 2019, 09:53:47 PM »
The 'effect' is a novelty, a parlor trick and is not a new physics or description of any unknown. It does not propel aircraft.  It is simply a capacitor with plates of different sizes hence a net charge resulting in a net force/thrust. 

It is not an ionic 'wind' related in any way to gravity it it an ion shift.
It does not exist in a vacuum, gravity does.

To brown him to refute Einstein is absurd.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.