DIY experiment proving graviton is a particle

[theprestige]

So the attenuation is in the order of the microgals. It's not going to affect the satellites.

You've done the math?

 

[philippeb8]

You've done the math?

I can but microgals will not change anything for a few hours when the satellites already have their own thrusters to correct the GR's uncertainty, anomalies and paradoxes.

 

[philippeb8]

We are starting to have a creepy stalker vibe in this thread. Along with some doxing.

dox: verb (used with or without object), doxed, dox·ing.Slang.
to publish the private personal information of (another person) or reveal the identity of (an online poster) without the consent of that individual.

So I can't dox someone when the victim himself is asking me to thus gave consent.

 

[theprestige]

I can but microgals will not change anything for a few hours when the satellites already have their own trusters to correct the GR's uncertainty, anomalies and paradoxes.

Thruster use is measurable. The need to use thrusters can be attributed to measurable effects. The results of thruster use can be measured against the predicted effect and the measured amount of thruster use in response to the effect.

If your hypothesis is correct, a satellite's orbital velocity should increase when it comes over the Earth's horizon into full view of the sun. It should continue to accelerate sunward at a higher than predicted rate for that part of its orbit. It should decelerate at a higher than predicted rate as it swings back towards the night side of the Earth.

Do the math required by your hypothesis, and then tell us how certain you are that the math says the additional thruster use would not be measurable.

We're not even getting reports that satellites in low earth orbit are running out of thruster fuel faster than predicted.

 

[philippeb8]

Thruster use is measurable. The need to use thrusters can be attributed to measurable effects. The results of thruster use can be measured against the predicted effect and the measured amount of thruster use in response to the effect.

If your hypothesis is correct, a satellite's orbital velocity should increase when it comes over the Earth's horizon into full view of the sun. It should continue to accelerate sunward at a higher than predicted rate for that part of its orbit. It should decelerate at a higher than predicted rate as it swings back towards the night side of the Earth.

Do the math required by your hypothesis, and then tell us how certain you are that the math says the additional thruster use would not be measurable.

We're not even getting reports that satellites in low earth orbit are running out of thruster fuel faster than predicted.

The atmospheric drag is already in the orders of milli-Newtons:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_station-keeping#Low_Earth_orbit

Why do you think the graviton attenuation is more important?

 

[theprestige]

The atmospheric drag is already in the orders of milli-Newtons:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_station-keeping#Low_Earth_orbit

Why do you think the graviton attenuation is more important?

Atmospheric drag is measurable and accounted for in thruster use. Do the math your hypothesis requires. Then you can tell us how certain you are that graviton attenuation is too small to measure.

And then you can tell us why you were so confident you could measure it with an iPhone, at the beginning of this thread.

You have no idea how strong the effect is supposed to be, do you? All you're able to provide is post-hoc reasoning that however strong it is, it must be too weak for any of the obvious experiments already running to have measured it.

When I say you haven't really thought this through, I mean that you haven't yet done the math your hypothesis requires. Thus you are in no position to make predictions or conduct experiments.

 

[tusenfem]

Well that was the original bet that the theoretical predictions had to match exactly the measurements which is clearly not the case.

You do know that is basically impossible, right?
Or is experimental physics also something you don´t know anything about?
Must be nice being a computer scientist, to get everything exactly right ....... well except for the inevitable numerical diffusion of course in the calculations.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Paraphrased summary of something that happened (ISF discussion quoted in the spoiler):

Six scientists and engineers: We designed and prototyped a scientific instrument that is orders of magnitude smaller and lighter than a class of $100K instruments. When testing the prototype by comparing its measurements against our crudely imperfect mathematical model of tidal deformations in the earth's crust, we observed a correlation of R=0.86. We think that's pretty good for such a tiny and potentially cheap device.

philippeb8: The correlation isn't R=1, which "confirms my graviton attenuation theory....now I get the right order of magnitude....mainstream science is filled with cowardice."

So there you go: the correlation coefficient is not exactly 1 so that confirms my graviton attenuation theory:
https://core.ac.uk/reader/42370604?utm_source=linkout

Well that is a lot of "hineininterpretieren", statistical methods are apparently not your forte.

Well that was the original bet that the theoretical predictions had to match exactly the measurements which is clearly not the case.

Not only you guys tried to make me look clumsy again but now I get the right order of magnitude so it backfired again, pas vrai?

I also have evidence mainstream science is filled with cowardice.

You do know that is basically impossible, right?
Or is experimental physics also something you don´t know anything about?
Must be nice being a computer scientist, to get everything exactly right ....... well except for the inevitable numerical diffusion of course in the calculations.

 

[Crossbow]

Here is a DIY experiment that should convince the mainstream gravity is a particle once and for all. Using the exact same parameters, you measure the sum of the gravitational attraction of the Moon and the Sun not aligned and aligned. There should be a slight offset if gravitons lose energy by traveling through the Moon, making them officially a particle.

That would put the nail in the spacetime curvature coffin once and for all. Next.

I hope that after your suspension has been lifted, that you will show us that Gravitons do actually exist.

After all, it does not make much sense to discuss your various ideas on how the Moon may affect Gravitons that are produced by the Sun unless you can first show that Gravitons actually do exist.

 

[philippeb8]

Atmospheric drag is measurable and accounted for in thruster use. Do the math your hypothesis requires. Then you can tell us how certain you are that graviton attenuation is too small to measure.

- Somebody else already did measure the amplitude of the drag and it is of the exact same g force amplitude of the Earth / Sun tide:
https://space.stackexchange.com/a/12632

- I asked directly the ISS National Lab last week for detailed statistics but they wouldn't share that info.

 

[philippeb8]

Paraphrased summary of something that happened (ISF discussion quoted in the spoiler):

Six scientists and engineers: We designed and prototyped a scientific instrument that is orders of magnitude smaller and lighter than a class of $100K instruments. When testing the prototype by comparing its measurements against our crudely imperfect mathematical model of tidal deformations in the earth's crust, we observed a correlation of R=0.86. We think that's pretty good for such a tiny and potentially cheap device.

- So just the thought spaceship experiment I wrote 12 years ago should have been sufficient to be nominated for one of those "important" prizes which BTW has an approaching deadline (Breakthrough) in case you change your mind:
Thursday, April 1 at 11:59 pm PDT is the deadline for nominations for the 2022 prizes.

- I debated for 12 years my theory despite the lack of professionalism in the community and their continuous attempts to make me looks clumsy and with accumulated "guet-apens" by other members for their infractions agenda.

- I wrote an obvious wavelength meter in motion experiment but it silently got dismissed by the community again.

- You saw yourself that the manuscript is just fine in general.

- I tested an experiment disproving the 19th century Maxwell's equations analog with GEM:
https://youtu.be/yIhoI2OHd8Q

- I gave many chances to repent but instead I fall into one of those "guet-apens" again. That's fine I get the idea now, we're truly in a "2022 Far West Reputation Duel":
https://youtu.be/aJCSNIl2Pls

- But I'll make it quick and painless by pointing out right now that using atom gravimeters, I've analyzed the Earth tides experiment with cutting edge mathematics and it looks like there is some consistent "aether wind" (or underlying comoving gravitational framework) when the gravimeter is perpendicular to the Sun because there is a "preferred direction" and a slight graviton attenuation by a factor of 80% when the gravimeter is aligned with the Sun. But the latter will have to be analyzed with a larger sampling of data:
https://github.com/philippeb8/microgal

- Which is based on:
http://cpb.iphy.ac.cn/article/2015/cpb_24_5_050401/cpb150398f8_hr.png.html

- But basically all the residuals I've seen so far all confirm the underlying comoving gravitational framework can be measured from the surface of the Earth.

That means: you lose.

 

[Norman Alexander]

- Somebody else already did measure the amplitude of the drag and it is of the exact same g force amplitude of the Earth / Sun tide:
https://space.stackexchange.com/a/12632

- I asked directly the ISS National Lab last week for detailed statistics but they wouldn't share that info.

Clearly it's a conspiracy to silence you!

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

- You saw yourself that the manuscript is just fine in general.

So long as all of the masses involved are zero?

Are you aware that your equations (5) and (6), combined with the assumption that m and r are real numbers, imply m=0?

Let ξ be an abbreviation for m/(rh). Then equation (6) tells us equation (5) can be rewritten as

(1 + ξ)^-2 = 1 - 2ξ​

If we assume (1 + ξ) is nonzero, which seems reasonable because ξ=m/(rh) shouldn't be negative, then a bit of high school algebra allows us to derive

0 = - ξ² (3 - 2 ξ)​

which implies ξ=0 or ξ=3/2. If ξ=0, then m=0. If ξ=3/2, then the right hand side of equation (5) is negative, but the left hand side is the square of (1+ξ)^-1, implying (1+ξ) is an imaginary number.

Equation (5) is an immediate consequence of equation (3), which is preceded by prose indicating your belief that equation (3) is obtained by combining special cases of equations (1) and (2). Equation (4) is an approximation to equation (5). I suggest you delete equations (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and so on until you have eliminated from the paper all ideas that depend upon or were inspired by equations (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and so on.

You're just fine with the fact that, starting with your alleged derivation of equation (3) from equations (1) and (2), your entire paper/proposal is limited to the special case of m=0?

According to what you wrote in your paper, a special case of your equations (1) and (2) implies equation (3). Equation (3) implies equation (5) via high school algebra. When combined with those equations, your equation (6) implies m=0.

Your equation (4) is an approximation to equation (5), so the same proof that equations (5) and (6) imply m=0 carries over into a proof that equations (4) and (6) imply m≈0.

....And so on for pretty much everything you've written on pages 4 through 26 of your paper. There might be a few things in your paper that aren't contaminated by your reliance on equations that imply m=0, but that's not the way a sane reader would bet.

You can't even come close to fixing your m=0 problem by changing one of your equals signs to an approximately equals sign.

Finite Theory is valid because it only works (if ever) when m=0?

That means: you lose.

 

[philippeb8]

So long as all of the masses involved are zero?

- Alright so I gave you all more than 12 hours to find major flaws in both the manuscript and the micro-gal's "aether wind" deduction in a quest to save your reputation and all I could hear was:
https://youtu.be/eKmRkS1os7k

- I know mathematicians with 50 years of experience can understand what I've put forward in 5 minutes, but I gave 144 times the chances to do so just to make sure.

- I also know that nominating me for the Breakthrough Prize is the last thing any of you will ever do, but I just wanted clear evidence on the disinformation agenda the entire scientific community has been propagating since coincidentally the dawn of the Nobel Prize itself.


So thank you & adios muchachos.

 

[Lothian]

You're 100% right on that at the personal level but I figured visibility can help you get investors so I'll take it.

Please expect in mid terms from my own company constructive science like:
- Antigravity;
- Time travel into the future;
- Force fields;
- Tractor beams.

We're basically planning to follow Elon Musk's footsteps but the correct way.

Tractor beams - Already invented.

[IMGw=640]https://i.ytimg.com/vi/6EaMfBtxWR0/maxresdefault.jpg[/IMGw]

 

[Crossbow]

You're 100% right on that at the personal level but I figured visibility can help you get investors so I'll take it.

Please expect in mid terms from my own company constructive science like:
- Antigravity;
- Time travel into the future;
- Force fields;
- Tractor beams.

We're basically planning to follow Elon Musk's footsteps but the correct way.

Well, there has been time travel into the future for about the last 13.7 billion years: so that is no big accomplishment.

But, if what the rest of you say is actually true, then you will easily become the richest person in all of human history.

 

[philippeb8]

Well, there has been time travel into the future for about the last 13.7 billion years: so that is no big accomplishment.

Sorry I meant: time travel into the future on fast forward or perfect "cryogenics".

Thank you Scotty.

 

[Crossbow]

Sorry I meant: time travel into the future on fast forward or perfect "cryogenics".

Thank you Scotty.

Well, ...

Since you are having trouble simply stating just what it is that you can do, then I find it quite difficult to believe that you will be able to accomplish any of the various things that you say that you will do.

 

[philippeb8]

Well, ...

Since you are having trouble simply stating just what it is that you can do, then I find it quite difficult to believe that you will be able to accomplish any of the various things that you say that you will do.

If you can manipulate time through gravitomagnetism (s^-1) then you can manipulate everything that has the time component in it such as speed (m/s) and acceleration (m/s^2).

I need to get back to work now.

 

[Steve]

If you can manipulate time through gravitomagnetism (s^-1) then you can manipulate everything that has the time component in it such as speed (m/s) and acceleration (m/s^2).

I need to get back to work now.

Can you?