• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

DIY experiment proving graviton is a particle

philippeb8 said:
Alright here are the aforementioned predictions and here is the data I collected this morning:
https://www.fornux.com/files/data/Ground_Noise-8_30am.csv
Click to expand...

1) Again here are this morning's results:
https://www.fornux.com/files/data/Ground_Noise-8_30am.csv

With a standard deviation of: 0.0000037836503781761 g

2) Alright so here are tonight's results:
https://www.fornux.com/files/data/Ground_Noise-8_30pm.csv

With a standard deviation of: 0.00000331000079393766 g

Not only it is lesser than the prediction, but also lesser than this morning's statistics.

So I win twice here!
 
With my highlighting:
philippeb8 said:
Correction:

I just measured the ground noise right now for 172 seconds at 8:30 am EST and I get a standard deviation of: 3.8e-6 g.

Ok so here's the deal:

1) The Sun's tidal ratio on Earth is: 1.00017
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tide.html

2) I will measure the standard deviation of the gravitational pull tonight at exactly 8:30 pm EST;

3) Sun's g: G*1.9885e30/(1496e8^2)/9.8 = 6e-4 g
4) If I get lesser than 3.8e-6 g / 1.00017 + 6e-4 g = 6.037993541098013e-4 g then I am right and it proves your GR is a longstanding hoax.

Period.
Click to expand...
To prove general relativity a hoax, it will take more than philippeb8's failure to recognize that the earth is in orbit around the sun.
According to mainstream physics, the earth's orbit puts the earth in free fall toward the sun, so using an accelerometer to "measure" "Sun's g" should yield a result of 0±noise, not 6e-4 g, which means—as discussed above—philippeb8 is just measuring the noise (standard deviation) of his accelerometer. If philippeb8's measurement is less than 6e-4 g, then philippeb8 is confirming mainstream physics, not overturning it.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
With my highlighting:

To prove general relativity a hoax, it will take more than philippeb8's failure to recognize that the earth is in orbit around the sun.
According to mainstream physics, the earth's orbit puts the earth in free fall toward the sun, so using an accelerometer to "measure" "Sun's g" should yield a result of 0±noise, not 6e-4 g, which means—as discussed above—philippeb8 is just measuring the noise (standard deviation) of his accelerometer. If philippeb8's measurement is less than 6e-4 g, then philippeb8 is confirming mainstream physics, not overturning it.
Click to expand...

Oh you mean that the free fall acceleration - Sun's g should be equal 0?

I still get an attenuation of 3.78e-6 - 3.31e-6 = 4.7e-7. So that proves my experience actually... thanks!
 
Last edited:
philippeb8 said:
Oh you mean that the free fall acceleration - Sun's g should be equal 0?
Click to expand...
No.

The earth's acceleration toward the sun is nonzero, and is in fact approximately 6e-4 times the 9.8 m s-2 acceleration of objects dropped near the earth's surface.

The point is that you can't measure the earth's acceleration toward the sun using an accelerometer located on earth and therefore in free fall toward the sun just as the earth itself is in free fall.

philippeb8 said:
I still get an attenuation of 3.78e-6 - 3.31e-6 = 4.7e-7. So that proves my experience actually... thanks!
Click to expand...
No matter how you invented those numbers, that alleged 4.7e-7 "attenuation" is an order of magnitude less than the rms error you have been reporting for your measurements.

ETA: The 3.78e-6 and 3.31e-6 are the standard deviations philippeb8 reported for his morning and evening measurements, respectively. So he is subtracting one measurement of the error in his measurements from a different measurement of the error in his measurements and pretending that difference, which amounts to an estimate of the error in his measurements of error, is meaningful.
 
Last edited:
W.D.Clinger said:
No.

The earth's acceleration toward the sun is nonzero, and is in fact approximately 6e-4 times the 9.8 m s-2 acceleration of objects dropped near the earth's surface.

The point is that you can't measure the earth's acceleration toward the sun using an accelerometer located on earth and therefore in free fall toward the sun just as the earth itself is in free fall.


No matter how you invented those numbers, that alleged 4.7e-7 "attenuation" is an order of magnitude less than the rms error you have been reporting for your measurements.

ETA: The 3.78e-6 and 3.31e-6 are the standard deviations philippeb8 reported for his morning and evening measurements, respectively. So he is subtracting one measurement of the error in his measurements from a different measurement of the error in his measurements and pretending that difference, which amounts to an estimate of the error in his measurements of error, is meaningful.
Click to expand...

How about I redo the experiment tomorrow and if I get a similar offset then I'm right?

In general uncertainties aren't exactly a multiple of 10.
 
philippeb8 said:
I just admitted in the previous post that my equipment is not sensitive enough:
Click to expand...
Yeah, we told you that your iPhone is useless for that and you ignored everyone. Nevertheless you claimed you were going to take the measurements yesterday and post the results here. You failed to do that as well.
 
abaddon said:
That is a bit of a problem. The other day my phone told me it was a balmy 9 degrees. How reassuring was that as I chipped the ice off my car?

9 degrees my swiss. But phillipe thinks if his phone tells him so it must be true. It is absurd.
Click to expand...
Is your phone set to Fahrenheit for some reason?
 
W.D.Clinger said:
How about you write a computer program that generates all possible English sentences of the form "If I [...], then I'm right.", in some definite order that gives priority to shorter sentences?

Then go through that infinite sequence of sentences, crossing out every sentence that is untrue.

You will find that you have crossed out almost all of the sentences. Of the sentences that remain, hardly any will have anything to do with science. Cross out the ones that don't.

Having pruned the list twice, cross out every sentence where you don't understand the "[...]" part or don't possess the expertise or equipment to do that part.

Having pruned the list three times, pick one of the extremely rare sentences that hasn't been crossed out, and do the "[...]" part.

The process outlined above would be far more productive than the process you've been following so far.
Click to expand...

Problem: he's absolutely convinced he understands certain things that it's painfully obvious he has no understanding of. Like the whole concept of virtual particles, or whatever confused chain of misunderstandings has led to him measuring accelerometer noise and calling it signal.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
and yet you are going to do exactly the same thing again.
Click to expand...


So the moral of the story is to repeat the experiment with equipment more sensitive to an 1-2 order of magnitude.

I wasn't very far away and yes I did underestimate it by doing the experiment ahead of theoretical estimates but I'm proposing yet another way to refute the spacetime curvature nonsense already.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
philippeb8 said:
So the moral of the story is to repeat the experiment with equipment more sensitive to an 1-2 order of magnitude.

I wasn't very far away and yes I did underestimate it by doing the experiment ahead of theoretical estimates but I'm proposing yet another way to refute the spacetime curvature nonsense already.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You seem to be plodding on to finding some way to prove that the curvature of space-time is nonsense. You lack the knowledge or experience to even form a real experiment to test your notion. You lack the equipment to conduct the experiment that you can’t come up with.

Do you really expect to get time and space to test anything on the ISS?
 
Edited by Darat: 
Rule 11 breach edited out.


And his experiments are worthless, as he has no comprehension of what he is doing and no desire to even attempt to eliminate his own bias from the results. All he wants is some numbers he can cherry pick or otherwise manipulate to confirm his "theory", they don't even need to be related to what he claims to be measuring...see his current measurements of accelerometer noise.
Click to expand...

I fully understand what I am doing and I will single handedly get all the credibility I deserve after my experiments are all funded, positive and peer-reviewed.

You guys can keep on hoping to find dark matter, dark energy and wormholes meanwhile.

philippeb8 - keep to the relevant topics for this thread and section. You had a thread to discuss your issues with another forum but that was closed since you could not keep to that topic. In this section discuss the topics relevant to this section, which is never another forum.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited by a moderator:
phillipeb8, I wonder what you mean by "funded, positive, and peer-reviewed"?

You must be careful not to string too many words together. It starts sounding like word salad.

Seriously.
 
Do not continue to discuss behaviours that happened of or on another forum. This is the "Science..." section stick to topics that are appropriate for this section.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
sarge said:
You seem to be plodding on to finding some way to prove that the curvature of space-time is nonsense. You lack the knowledge or experience to even form a real experiment to test your notion. You lack the equipment to conduct the experiment that you can’t come up with.
Click to expand...

I did put the cart ahead of the horses this time but usually I don't. Although the issue is just a 1-2 order of magnitude, I'm sure this can be easily tested with advanced scientific equipment.

Do you really expect to get time and space to test anything on the ISS?
Click to expand...

If I pay for why not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom