Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #20 on: April 18, 2016, 05:43:02 AM »
rounder... don't you understand that I ALWAYS do my homework?

The paper you just quoted is old news.

THE AUTHORS OF THE PAPER COMMITTED A CRUCIAL, GRIEVIOUS ERROR: THEY FAILED TO READ THE ORIGINAL PAPER WRITTEN IN FRENCH, BY DR. MAURICE ALLAIS, WHICH DETAILS THE VERY CALCULATIONS THEY WERE COMPLAINING ABOUT.

They only read the short version, the English language report, and based their catastrophic errors on that.

BUT ALLAIS DID DEFINE THE K PARAMETER VERY PROPERLY HERE:

http://ether-wind.narod.ru/Allais_1997/Allais_1997_1.pdf


To explain the REVERSAL OF THE MOTION OF A PENDULUM using building vibrations is ludicrous.

The authors of the German paper are showing their utter ignorance of the facts by having failed to read the original work in French which does include the very description of the k paramater they complain about.


Dr. Maurice Allais is a Nobel prize winner, he carefully took everything into consideration.

In order to arrive at an explanation, M. Allais considered a wide range
of known periodic phenomena, including the terrestrial tides, variations in
the intensity of gravity, thermal or barometric effects, magnetic variations,
microseismic effects, cosmic rays, and the periodic character of human
activity. Yet, on close examination, the very peculiar nature of the
periodicity shown by the change in azimuth of the pendulum forced the
elimination of all of these as cause.

Dr. Maurice Allais:

With regard to the validity of my experiments, it seems
best to reproduce here the testimony of General Paul Bergeron,
ex-president of the Committee for Scientific Activities for
National Defense, in his letter of May 1959 to Werner von
Braun:

"Before writing to you, I considered it necessary to
visit the two laboratories of Professor Allais (one 60
meters underground), in the company of eminent
specialists – including two professors at the Ecole
Polytechnique. During several hours of discussion, we
could find no source of significant error, nor did any
attempt at explanation survive analysis.

"I should also tell you that during the last two years,
more than ten members of the Academy of Sciences and
more than thirty eminent personalities, specialists in
various aspects of gravitation, have visited both his
laboratory at Saint-Germain, and his underground
laboratory at Bougival.

"Deep discussions took place, not only on these
occasions, but many times in various scientific contexts,
notably at the Academy of Sciences and the National
Center for Scientific Research. None of these discussions
could evolve any explanation within the framework of
currently accepted theories."

This letter confirms clearly the fact that was finally
admitted at the time - the total impossibility of explaining the
perceived anomalies within the framework of currently
accepted theory.

The authors of the German paper are ignorant even of these basic facts.


And we have the other carefully performed experiments which did confirm the Allais effect, from 1999 to 2011.


In fact, the results of the experiments of July 1958 confirmed in an electrifying manner my previous reasoning, leading to the conclusion that, in the movement of the paraconical pendulum with anisotropic support, there are anomalies of a periodic character which are totally inexplicable in the framework of currently accepted theories.

The two crucial experiments of June-July 1958 at SaintGermain
and at Bougival (6.5 km away, in an underground
gallery 57 meters deep) (pp. 142-161) gave identical results, in
amplitude and in phase, for the luni-solar periodic component
of 24h 50m (p. 146).

http://www.allais.info/alltrans/nasareport.pdf (pages 28R)

Page 44R carefully describes the 1958 experiments.

In fact, the results of the experiments of July 1958
confirmed in an electrifying manner my previous reasoning,
leading to the conclusion that, in the movement of the
paraconical pendulum with anisotropic support, there are
anomalies of a periodic character which are totally
inexplicable in the framework of currently accepted theories.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2016, 05:51:20 AM by sandokhan »

Offline Round fact

  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Science and math over opinion
    • View Profile
    • Starflight Publishing
Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #21 on: April 18, 2016, 10:08:49 AM »
Quote
Dr. Maurice Allais is a Nobel prize winner, he carefully took everything into consideration.

Allays did not, so far as I can find, have a Doctorate Degree in ANY field of study.

He WAS an economist, and it was in this field that he won the Nobel Prize.

Being that you have misstated TWO basic facts about this man, seemingly on purpose, I have reason to doubt anything you post about him

Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #22 on: April 18, 2016, 11:00:01 AM »
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1988/allais-cv.html

1949   University of Paris, Faculty of Science, Doctor-Engineer

Laureate, Gravity Research Foundation, USA, for his memoir, New Theoretical and Experimental Research Work on Gravity, 1959

1964   Doctor honoris causa, University of Groningen



Offline Round fact

  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Science and math over opinion
    • View Profile
    • Starflight Publishing
Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #23 on: April 18, 2016, 03:59:30 PM »
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1988/allais-cv.html

1949   University of Paris, Faculty of Science, Doctor-Engineer

Laureate, Gravity Research Foundation, USA, for his memoir, New Theoretical and Experimental Research Work on Gravity, 1959

1964   Doctor honoris causa, University of Groningen

Maybe it would help you to look up "Doctor honoris cause,"

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 779
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #24 on: April 18, 2016, 04:15:32 PM »
rounder... don't you understand that I ALWAYS do my homework?

Sure, you do your homework.  I do MY homework.  We arrive at different answers.  "Did the homework" does not imply "Got the right answer"


THE AUTHORS OF THE PAPER COMMITTED A CRUCIAL, GRIEVIOUS ERROR: THEY FAILED TO READ THE ORIGINAL PAPER WRITTEN IN FRENCH, BY DR. MAURICE ALLAIS, WHICH DETAILS THE VERY CALCULATIONS THEY WERE COMPLAINING ABOUT....The authors of the German paper are showing their utter ignorance of the facts by having failed to read the original work in French which does include the very description of the k paramater they complain about.

None of which really matters in the end: the Germans saw the effect Allais saw, but it did not correlate to the moon at any time, eclipse or no eclipse.  And that's really the point here, finding out if it does or does not correspond to an object with gravity and thus justifying the claim that 'gravity needs to be rethought'.  They looked for correlations to the Moon, the Sun, and Jupiter and found none.


They only read the short version, the English language report, and based their catastrophic errors on that.

Perhaps this isn't true.  They only REFERENCED that report, we don't know what else they read.


To explain the REVERSAL OF THE MOTION OF A PENDULUM using building vibrations is ludicrous.

This rather overstates the phenomenon.  The pendulum isn't being reversed, in the way a layperson would read that.  The angular precession is being reversed.
Plus, the observed Allais effect, in their words, "The vibrations of the building, which are recorded in the institute, are coincident at least in times, if not in strength, with more or less significant changes of ∆ϕ or ∆ω per time t in the pendulum’s behaviour."  This is less about explanation, and more about observation.  They observed that changes in the pendulum's behaviour were coincident with building vibration and were not coincident with large gravitational bodies passing overhead.  Observed.


Dr. Maurice Allais is a Nobel prize winner, he carefully took everything into consideration.

A lot of the theory you talk about in other posts goes directly against the work of a great many Nobel Laureates, yet you accord them no such respect.  Why should a Nobel Laureate in the completely unrelated field of economics get such consideration for his work outside his field? 


http://www.allais.info/alltrans/nasareport.pdf (pages 28R)
Page 44R carefully describes the 1958 experiments.

Isn't this the very paper the Germans read, the one they "based their catastrophic errors on", the one you seem quite scornful of?  Thanks, I'm sure that helps us a lot.  If I draw any conclusions from this, will I too be making catastrophic errors?
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 779
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #25 on: April 18, 2016, 04:19:30 PM »
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1988/allais-cv.html

1949   University of Paris, Faculty of Science, Doctor-Engineer

Laureate, Gravity Research Foundation, USA, for his memoir, New Theoretical and Experimental Research Work on Gravity, 1959

1964   Doctor honoris causa, University of Groningen

Maybe it would help you to look up "Doctor honoris cause,"

I forgot to address this point too.  Out of his long and impressive economics CV, Sandokhan cherry-picks a couple of items that might appear to give his gravity work some heft.  That proves about as much as Kylie Minogue’s Doctorate of Health Science from Anglia Ruskin University in Essex.  Nobody’s claiming she knows the first thing about doctoring.
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #26 on: April 18, 2016, 04:21:34 PM »
what causes it to have so much energy density and not burn out?
The sun is not a physical object. 

The sun is the focal point of energy rays that are shining down from the parabolic-reflective surface of the firmament. 
watch?v=xhcVJcINzn8

Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #27 on: April 18, 2016, 04:28:25 PM »
what causes it to have so much energy density and not burn out?
The sun is not a physical object. 

The sun is the focal point of energy rays that are shining down from the parabolic-reflective surface of the firmament.
That's great, and all the evidence to back that rather Crackpot'ish statement up that you supplied is quite on par.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #28 on: April 18, 2016, 04:34:05 PM »
rounder, you thought you had something going, but you failed to bring up anything of interest here.

The Germans made a colossal mistake: they failed to read the original paper which did explain the k parameter, the crucial piece of information on how one interprets the results.

This means of course that the research performed by these "scientists" is woeful, to say the least.

The experiments made by Dr. Allais in 1958 did confirm the effect: contrary to the bizarre description in the paper provided by you.

At the start of the eclipse, the swing direction of the pendulum started to rotate ANTICLOCKWISE, then resumed its CLOCKWISE motion, went into reversal again, and regained its normal motion in the end.

Dr. Allais obtained his degrees in ENGINEERING AND PHYSICS, economics became another field of study of interest where he obtained notable results.

Each and every possible cause for the effect was researched carefully:

"Before writing to you, I considered it necessary to
visit the two laboratories of Professor Allais (one 60
meters underground), in the company of eminent
specialists – including two professors at the Ecole
Polytechnique. During several hours of discussion, we
could find no source of significant error, nor did any
attempt at explanation survive analysis.

"I should also tell you that during the last two years,
more than ten members of the Academy of Sciences and
more than thirty eminent personalities, specialists in
various aspects of gravitation, have visited both his
laboratory at Saint-Germain, and his underground
laboratory at Bougival.

"Deep discussions took place, not only on these
occasions, but many times in various scientific contexts,
notably at the Academy of Sciences and the National
Center for Scientific Research. None of these discussions
could evolve any explanation within the framework of
currently accepted theories."


So far, you have brought here nothing of interest.

I challenge you to do better.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2016, 04:35:42 PM by sandokhan »

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 779
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #29 on: April 18, 2016, 05:29:02 PM »
Tell me this: can ametuer-level test setups observe the effect?  If I build something at home, can I conduct worthwhile experiments?  There is a total eclipse coming in 2017 that sweeps across the United States, and my home is going to experience 96% totality if I remember correctly.  I would like to perform observations, but only if they're not a waste of time.
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #30 on: April 18, 2016, 05:59:59 PM »
Dr. Erwin Saxl, "1970 Solar Eclipse as 'Seen' by a Torsion Pendulum"




Saxl and Allen went on to note that to explain these remarkable eclipse observations, according to "conventional Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitational theory," an increase in the weight of the pendumum bob itself on the order of ~5% would be required ... amounting to (for the ~51.5-lb pendulum bob in the experiment) an increase of ~2.64 lbs!

The two scientists then observed:

"... It is further to be noted that the greatest change [in the torsion pendulum oscillation period] occurs between the [local] onset of the eclipse and its midpoint [below - right]. This agrees qualitatively with Allais with a paraconical pendulum, where the change of azimuth increased substantially in the first half of the eclipse of 30 June 1954 [below - left]. Both these effects would seem to have a gravitational basis [sic] which cannot be explained by accepted classical theory [emphasis added] ....""


http://stoner.phys.uaic.ro/jarp/index.php/jarp/article/viewFile/40/22

Abstract — During the solar eclipse of 1 August 2008 three
programs of physics observations were independently
conducted by teams in Kiev, Ukraine, and Suceava, Romania,
separated by about 440 km. The Ukraine team operated five
independent miniature torsion balances, one Romania team
operated two independent short ball-borne pendulums, and the
other Romania team operated a long Foucault-type pendulum.
All three teams detected unexplained disturbances, and these
disturbances were mutually correlated. The overall pattern of
the observations exhibits certain perplexing features.

Given the above, the authors consider that it is an
inescapable conclusion from our experiments that after the
end of the visible eclipse, as the Moon departed the angular
vicinity of the Sun, some influence exerted itself upon the
Eastern European region containing our three sets of
equipment, extending over a field at least hundreds of
kilometers in width.

The nature of this common influence is unknown, but
plainly it cannot be considered as gravitational in the usually
accepted sense of Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation. The
basic reason is that in those models the gravitational
influences of several bodies are combined by addition, at
least to the accuracy detectable by molar equipment.
However all three of our experiments exhibited rather
brusque variations (the abrupt jumps of the Kiev balances,
the humps and particularly the sharp spikes in the Suceava
short pendulum charts, and the deviation of the Suceava
long pendulum) which cannot have resulted from linear
combination of the gravitational/tidal influences of the Sun
and the Moon
, the magnitudes and angles of which vary
only gently over the time scales of the effects seen. We
therefore are compelled to the opinion that some currently
unknown physical influence was at work.

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/aa/2012/263818/

However, the most important point is that the very high correlation between WEB-1, WEB-2, and the paraconical pendulum was only noted in the interval 1–6, that is, from the beginning of the solar eclipse on the Earth up to its termination. Outside this interval, the correlation disappeared. From this fact, it can unequivocally be concluded that the solar eclipse was a determining factor for the readings.

These nonconventional solar eclipse observations have shown that this phenomenon is accompanied by effects that cannot yet be explained within the current physical picture of the world.


In particular, we wonder how any physical momentum can be transferred to our instrument during a solar eclipse. Gravity can hardly suffice as an explanation even for understanding the results of the PP measurements. The gravitational potential grows slowly and smoothly over a number of days before eclipse and then declines smoothly afterwards without any sudden variations, but we see relatively short-term events. Moreover, gravity is certainly not applicable to the explanation of the results of the TB observations, since the TB is not sensitive to changes in gravitational potential.

The cause of the time lag between the response of the device in Suceava and the reactions of the devices in Kiev also remains unknown. What can be this force which acts so selectively in space and time?

The anomalies found, that defy understanding in terms of modern physics, are in line with other anomalies, described in a recently published compendium “Should the Laws of Gravitation be reconsidered?”. Together, these phenomena presented suggest that the classical theory of gravity is in need of significant additions and amendments.


The Allais effect is fundamental.

It is the key to understand antigravity, cosmology and astrophysics.

And it totally and absolutely defies the accepted "law" of universal gravitation.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2016, 06:01:52 PM by sandokhan »

Offline Unsure101

  • *
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #31 on: April 19, 2016, 01:12:07 PM »
what causes it to have so much energy density and not burn out?
The sun is not a physical object. 

The sun is the focal point of energy rays that are shining down from the parabolic-reflective surface of the firmament.
No, the wiki clearly states that
Quote from: wiki
The sun is a rotating sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

Not a focal point.
How can such a small sphere have such large energy density?

Offline Round fact

  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Science and math over opinion
    • View Profile
    • Starflight Publishing
Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #32 on: April 19, 2016, 02:38:40 PM »
what causes it to have so much energy density and not burn out?
The sun is not a physical object. 

The sun is the focal point of energy rays that are shining down from the parabolic-reflective surface of the firmament.
No, the wiki clearly states that
Quote from: wiki
The sun is a rotating sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

Not a focal point.
How can such a small sphere have such large energy density?

Because he believes the laws of physics don't apply to the sun.

His answer begs more questions. What engird is being focused and from where? What is keeping that energy density and why? What... never mind I don't want to overload him.

Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #33 on: April 20, 2016, 02:54:34 AM »
No, the wiki clearly states that
The Wiki is not the gospel.

I do not believe the Wiki is correct on this. 

watch?v=xhcVJcINzn8

Offline Unsure101

  • *
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #34 on: April 20, 2016, 12:14:17 PM »
No, the wiki clearly states that
The Wiki is not the gospel.

I do not believe the Wiki is correct on this.
Then why are we always directed to the wiki for the "truth"?

Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #35 on: April 20, 2016, 03:18:56 PM »
No, the wiki clearly states that
The Wiki is not the gospel.

I do not believe the Wiki is correct on this.
Then you people need to find a general consensus apart from "the earth is flat" to be able to actually participate in a less embarrassing manner. Try keeping religion out of it. And, you best ignore whatever sandokhan has to offer. According to his AFET which "has won many Internet debates" (I still find that argument for credibility hilarious), the sun is no more than 20km above the surface of the earth.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #36 on: April 20, 2016, 06:58:39 PM »
No, the wiki clearly states that
The Wiki is not the gospel.

I do not believe the Wiki is correct on this.
Then you people need to find a general consensus apart from "the earth is flat" to be able to actually participate in a less embarrassing manner. Try keeping religion out of it. And, you best ignore whatever sandokhan has to offer. According to his AFET which "has won many Internet debates" (I still find that argument for credibility hilarious), the sun is no more than 20km above the surface of the earth.

Is every field of science completely unified? Is there ever only one absolute theory for every phenomenon?

Do you think people should always collude together to provide a dogmatic unified front, regardless of their own opinions, observations, or facts to the contrary? I guess that's what evolution is, so maybe you do.

Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #37 on: April 20, 2016, 07:06:52 PM »
No, the wiki clearly states that
The Wiki is not the gospel.

I do not believe the Wiki is correct on this.
Then you people need to find a general consensus apart from "the earth is flat" to be able to actually participate in a less embarrassing manner. Try keeping religion out of it. And, you best ignore whatever sandokhan has to offer. According to his AFET which "has won many Internet debates" (I still find that argument for credibility hilarious), the sun is no more than 20km above the surface of the earth.

Is every field of science completely unified? Is there ever only one absolute theory for every phenomenon?

Do you think people should always collude together to provide a dogmatic unified front, regardless of their own opinions, observations, or facts to the contrary? I guess that's what evolution is, so maybe you do.
Again, you choose to ignore your intellectual capabilities, just for the mere pleasure of satisfying your need to feel you got the last word.

The vast majority of scientific fields, and the vast majority of the scientists in those given fields, if not all, agree on most of the findings and theories involved. There's well established foundations in nearly all the particular studies.

TFES can't even agree what the sun is, what the moon is, whether the plane is finite of not, what the stars are, if UA is a thing, refraction, if earth is bipolar, distances, maps etcetera. Questions that are otherwise regarded as simply answered with the true knowledge we as a species already possess.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5309
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #38 on: April 20, 2016, 07:36:12 PM »
No, the wiki clearly states that
The Wiki is not the gospel.

I do not believe the Wiki is correct on this.
Then you people need to find a general consensus apart from "the earth is flat" to be able to actually participate in a less embarrassing manner. Try keeping religion out of it. And, you best ignore whatever sandokhan has to offer. According to his AFET which "has won many Internet debates" (I still find that argument for credibility hilarious), the sun is no more than 20km above the surface of the earth.

Is there ever only one absolute theory for every phenomenon?
In some cases: Yes.
Like what's keeping you on the ground: Gravity.  There is no question there.  None.  All of science is unified in that.

Re: Energy density of the sun
« Reply #39 on: April 20, 2016, 07:49:56 PM »
No, the wiki clearly states that
The Wiki is not the gospel.

I do not believe the Wiki is correct on this.
Then you people need to find a general consensus apart from "the earth is flat" to be able to actually participate in a less embarrassing manner. Try keeping religion out of it. And, you best ignore whatever sandokhan has to offer. According to his AFET which "has won many Internet debates" (I still find that argument for credibility hilarious), the sun is no more than 20km above the surface of the earth.

Is there ever only one absolute theory for every phenomenon?
In some cases: Yes.
Like what's keeping you on the ground: Gravity.  There is no question there.  None.  All of science is unified in that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Modern_alternative_theories