DIY experiment proving graviton is a particle

[philippeb8]

ETA: So you are conceding that DIY with an iphone turns out to be garbage? And that proper, well funded, scientific investigation by qualified persons with sophisticated equipment (ie; the much maligned scientific establishment) is the correct way to proceed?

Well it was conclusive with the GEM experiment but I wasn't lucky enough for the graviton attenuation experiment. So not only the former strengthen my confidence to upscale the 2nd round experiment in a scientific lab but I am also confident the latter will be conclusive as well. The same thing with the ISS experiment, without any doubt.

Again money and law controls the world, open source science is just a disinformation network.

 

[Steve]

Well it was conclusive with the GEM experiment but I wasn't lucky enough for the graviton attenuation experiment. So not only the former strengthen my confidence to upscale the 2nd round experiment in a scientific lab but I am also confident the latter will be conclusive as well. The same thing with the ISS experiment, without any doubt.

Again money and law controls the world, open source science is just a disinformation network.

Excellent non-answer!

Upthread you claimed to have insufficient time to do a proper or complete experiment. Yet you seem to have almost unlimited time to bandy meaningless words around the internet. You should leave this site, conduct all the necessary experiments to reach a scientifically vetted conclusion, and then come back here to tell us what you have done and the conclusions you have reached. The time you spend posting here about what you are supposedly going to do benefits no one.

 

[philippeb8]

Excellent non-answer!

Upthread you claimed to have insufficient time to do a proper or complete experiment. Yet you seem to have almost unlimited time to bandy meaningless words around the internet. You should leave this site, conduct all the necessary experiments to reach a scientifically vetted conclusion, and then come back here to tell us what you have done and the conclusions you have reached. The time you spend posting here about what you are supposedly going to do benefits no one.

Actually, like I said before, I'm doing reverse psychology most of the time, knowing arrogance is a scientist's main weakness.

For example, RealityCheck who seems to have threw in the towel already, taught me many things in his quest to try to publicly humiliate me on a constant basis. His attempts just backfired and strengthened my arguments. I think the funniest one was the double error in the particle accelerator that was canceling each other to get the right results.

 

[philippeb8]

Excellent non-answer!

Upthread you claimed to have insufficient time to do a proper or complete experiment. Yet you seem to have almost unlimited time to bandy meaningless words around the internet. You should leave this site, conduct all the necessary experiments to reach a scientifically vetted conclusion, and then come back here to tell us what you have done and the conclusions you have reached. The time you spend posting here about what you are supposedly going to do benefits no one.

But yeah I'll make the results public as soon as the experiment is completed. Just like the ISS one. But the second round GEM one will remain undisclosed.

 

[Andy_Ross]

But the second round GEM one will remain undisclosed.

Why?

 

[philippeb8]

Why?

Because we're talking about more than just gravitational acceleration dilation and I have an R&D company to feed also.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Because we're talking about more than just gravitational acceleration dilation and I have an R&D company to feed also.

So how do we trust what you tell us if you won't publish your results?

 

[philippeb8]

So how do we trust what you tell us if you won't publish your results?

There is nothing to trust because I will not talk about the GEM results.

 

[Steve]

Why?

Unexpected result did not mesh with prior posts.

 

[Andy_Ross]

There is nothing to trust because I will not talk about the GEM results.

So they weren't what you expected.

 

[Andy_Ross]

TEven Elon Musk believes the Alcubierre Warpdrive is the way to go.

What is your evidence for this?

 

[philippeb8]

So they weren't what you expected.

No it's more than I expected such as:
- Gravitational acceleration dilation;
- Force fields / tractor beams;
- Time travel into the future;
- Even faster-than-light travel (in theory).

 

[philippeb8]

What is your evidence for this?

You see requiring peer-reviewed evidence does not apply in cases like these because it's a proactive efforts in contrast with your reactive peer-reviewed evidence requirements.

Proactive efforts require objective probability projections to predict what is going to happen in the future. And it's obvious to me General Relativity was an intentional hoax because it was impossible to predict the 1919 light bending without knowing the perihelion precession first to determine the hardcoded amplitude constant c^2/G.

You see a real mathematician will tell you that you cannot hardcode constants in your equations. Yes he found the photoelectric effect, time dilation and the gravitational redshift but he brought more problems than he solved.

In my book I'm explaining with a thought experiment length contraction is nonsense in the first chapter. I also debated with your RealityCheck colleague that mass increase is also nonsense for the particle accelerator because time dilation is sufficient to explain the change in momentum. The same thing with the comoving gravitational frameworks to explain the galactic rotation curve and the expansion of the universe that can be explained by galaxies in motion affected by gravitational time contraction. Finally I also solve the mass of the real universe to be 738x the mass of the visible universe.

What more do you want?

 

[philippeb8]

Which has what to do with your claims about Elon Musk?

Well the Alcubierre Warpdrive being based on General Relativity's spacetime curvature concept will not work if GR's spacetime curvature concept is proven to be nonsense.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Because like I said multiple times we require funding. If there is no funding then we cannot perform the expensive experiments and fund our own company for other projects in AI.

So you don't have any results worth publishing?

 

[philippeb8]

So you don't have any results worth publishing?

Like I said before I will make public the results of the ISS experiment and the graviton attenuation but not the GEM experiment.

Also I don't really care about publishing the results in peer-reviewed journal because my work don't fit their narrative and their agenda. I will not waste another 4 months of my life to get told it's the wrong journal or to get no reason at all.

I can make a lot more revenue with my company than these Nobel / Breakthrough mainstream^5 prizes anyways.

 

[Roboramma]

If you measure the weight in Newtons then yes you will weight more at midnight by twice the tidal force of the Sun at midnight compared to at noon.

Right, by the tidal force, not by the total force that the sun's gravity has on your body. So I guess you understand this now, cool.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Proactive efforts require objective probability projections to predict what is going to happen in the future. And it's obvious to me General Relativity was an intentional hoax because it was impossible to predict the 1919 light bending without knowing the perihelion precession first to determine the hardcoded amplitude constant c^2/G.

You see a real mathematician will tell you that you cannot hardcode constants in your equations. Yes he found the photoelectric effect, time dilation and the gravitational redshift but he brought more problems than he solved.

I'm pretty sure the world contains at least a few real mathematicians who are aware that both c (the speed of light in vacuo) and G (the gravitational constant implied by Newton's law of universal gravitation) had been determined experimentally long before Einstein was even born.

Which means the value of c²/G had been determined long before Einstein. Which explains how And also before the anomalous precession of Mercury's orbit was recognized in 1859 and had been measured quite accurately by 1882.

Come to think of it, just about any scientifically literate person would know that sort of thing, which is one of several reasons scientifically literate folk tend to burst out laughing when reading philippeb8's paragraphs above.

(ETA: That highlighted word may have been unnecessary.)

 

[philippeb8]

I'm pretty sure the world contains at least a few real mathematicians who are aware that both c (the speed of light in vacuo) and G (the gravitational constant implied by Newton's law of universal gravitation) had been determined experimentally long before Einstein was even born.

Which means the value of c²/G had been determined long before Einstein. Which explains how And also before the anomalous precession of Mercury's orbit was recognized in 1859 and had been measured quite accurately by 1882.

Come to think of it, just about any scientifically literate person would know that sort of thing, which is one of several reasons scientifically literate folk tend to burst out laughing when reading philippeb8's paragraphs above.

(ETA: That highlighted word may have been unnecessary.)

c, G and c^2/G are 3 different things. The 1st is the speed of light, the 2nd is Newton's gravitational constant and the 3rd is the ambient gravitational potential in the solar system. Thus they have no relation.

 

[philippeb8]

In philippeb8's unique world things that are different can have no relationship. Relationships can only exist between things that are exactly the same.

Ok then, show the derivation of c^2/G. Thanks.

Hint: constants do not have derivations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations#Mathematical_form

Actually Wikipedia silently tossed away the explanation because it was nonsense:
https://web.archive.org/web/2015061....org/wiki/Einstein's_constant#About_constants

Maybe that's why GR is not scalable, what do you think?