DIY experiment proving graviton is a particle

[philippeb8]

You have dodged my question. This didn't go unnoticed. (And Mathematics shouldn't be cheapened by coupling it tightly to computer science.)

Then how do you explain you're being reminded by a computer scientist you can't hardcode a constant in an equation?

- So anyway just my thought spaceship experiment I wrote 13 years ago should have been sufficient to get nominated for the Breakthrough Prize, Nobel Prize or both.

- The rest is just years of defamation by what is referred to as the "scientific community", despite my efforts to explain the nonsense of dark matter, dark energy, wormholes and paradoxes.

- I also clearly explained the socio-political deadend we're stuck in just to increase our deficit and getting our patents inherited by the central banks using a "big reset" to close the circle.

- I gave after that evidence there is indeed an "aether wind" after a simple search engine search and a short 67 lines long Python script.

- I was not planning to but I also explained time is a form of energy, just like gravity is thus can be manipulated to create force fields, tractor beams and time travel into the future.

The irony is I don't even have kids yet and I care more about future generations than all of you combined together do.

 

[tusenfem]

Exactly. What was silently dismissed by mainstream physicists for the last century actually turns out to be the most important variable ever. You can call it a frequency (in Hertz) if you want.

So basically I can do that with music, which is s^-1 too.
If I let my turntable run at 45 instead of 33, I will move into the future!

 

[tusenfem]

Then how do you explain you're being reminded by a computer scientist you can't hardcode a constant in an equation?

So you now turn away from your hard coded constants G/c2 etc I assume?

 

[philippeb8]

So basically I can do that with music, which is s^-1 too.
If I let my turntable run at 45 instead of 33, I will move into the future!

No it's a "virtual particle" that is measured in Hertz.

 

[Andy_Ross]

No it's a "virtual particle" that is measured in Hertz.

virtual hertz surely?

 

[Myriad]

You can't light a room by waving Maxwell's equations at a light bulb. You need an actual electric current from an actual battery or generator. You can't reverse the velocity of a train by changing the sign in an equation. You need a force, such as torque from a motor or the reaction force from a loop of track, to do work on the train.

Philippe, assuming all your theories about gravitons are correct, how do you make a force field? A tractor beam? What sort of equipment is used? How does it work?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

dodging and weaving, failing and railing, consistently flailing

I do not care anymore because I made my point.

philippeb8 made his point by providing irrefutable evidence of the following:

• The device that philippeb8 said was "precise enough" for philippeb8's "DIY experiment" falls several orders of magnitude short of the sensitivity philippeb8 ascribed to it.
  
  
• philippeb8 confused a device's noise (standard deviation of its measurements) with its sensitivity.
  
  
• philippeb8 boasted that his crude estimate of the error in his crude estimates of his device's noise proved he was right.
  
  
• philippeb8 is soliciting donations to a fund he controls.
  
  
• Phil Bouchard's paper/proposal, which philippeb8 cited as the theory behind his "DIY experiment", is rubbish.
  
  
• Bouchard's errors can be confirmed by anyone who understands high school algebra. As a result of those errors, Bouchard's Finite Theory applies only (if at all!) to situations in which no object has any mass.
  
  
• To philippeb8, the fact that Bouchard's theory of gravitation applies only when all gravitational fields are generated by objects that have no mass whatsoever "basically confirms the validity of" Bouchard's theory.

That is not an exhaustive list of the howlers philippeb8 has contributed to this thread.

philippeb8 has responded to relevant questions with dodging and weaving, railing against a scientific establishment that looks down upon papers/proposals whose first six equations disprove contradict all major claims made by the paper, hoping flail can disguise fail.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Copernicus and Galileo are known today because they did actual science that was published, peer reviewed, repeated by others and determined to be correct.

Returning to Phil Bouchard's paper/proposal, here's another reason that paper might not survive peer review.

Equation (8) defines f as the sum of two indefinite integrals

f = ∫ φ(r₂) dr₂ + ∫ ((4π r₂² / (r₂²)) dr₂​

where φ(r₂) is a moderately complicated algebraic function of r₂.

(Readers who understand high school algebra will notice that

∫ ((4π r₂² / (r₂²)) dr₂ = ∫ 4π dr₂​

while readers who know anything at all about calculus will know

∫ 4π dr₂ = 4π r₂ + C​

for some constant C. Do you think Phil Bouchard noticed either of those things? Right you are.)

Equation (9) is stated just below equation (8), and is another equation for the same f. We're supposed to believe equation (9) was derived from equation (8) by solving the indefinite integrals, but equation (9) is of the form

f = K​

where K is a complicated expression whose visual complexity might intimidate casual readers into failing to notice that K is a constant. That's right, folks, the constant K does not mention the variable r₂.

(Readers who have some nodding familiarity with integral calculus may recall that you can check an alleged solution to an indefinite integral by differentiating. Because K is a constant, its derivative is zero. Do you think Phil Bouchard noticed his equation (9) is laughably wrong? Perhaps he did, but left it in his paper anyway. Or perhaps Bouchard isn't as dishonest as equation (9) makes him appear, and is merely incompetent.)

Bouchard's equation (10) is said to be "Equation (9) into FT's context", and purports to be an equation for a different f. Equation (10) is almost the same as equation (8), except both integrands have been multiplied by r₂. Bouchard's equation (11) says f is a constant, independent of r₂, so equation (11) is just as wrong as equation (9), albeit even more obviously wrong because the constant in equation (11) is simpler.

If we assume Bouchard just made some honest mistakes, it's still hard to understand how anyone remotely acquainted with calculus could have gotten those equations so badly wrong. One possible clue is that the second term of equation (8) would simplify to the second term of equation (9) if that second term of equation (8) had been a definite integral over the interval [d₂,r₁]. On the other hand, making that change to the second term of equation (10) does not allow it to simplify to the second term of equation (11). On the third hand, it is easy to see how anyone who could make such fundamental mistakes would also get the anti-derivatives badly wrong. In short, it seems likely that equations (8), (9), (10), and (11) are all nonsensical beyond repair.

 

[tusenfem]

It's funded by the Swedish Central Bank, which is even worse.

Nah, it´s not

 

[catsmate]

Nah, it´s not

Mere facts.....

 

[Steve]

Nah, it´s not

Mere facts.....

No doubt our ace computer scientist could write a program that shows it is true.

 

[autumn1971]

No doubt our ace computer scientist could write a program that shows it is true.

First assume a spherical Swedish bank...

 

[Norman Alexander]

First assume a spherical Swedish bank...

...massless point Swedish bank...

 

[philippeb8]

Returning to Phil Bouchard's paper/proposal, here's another reason that paper might not survive peer review.

Equation (8) defines f as the sum of two indefinite integrals

f = ∫ φ(r₂) dr₂ + ∫ ((4π r₂² / (r₂²)) dr₂​

where φ(r₂) is a moderately complicated algebraic function of r₂.

(Readers who understand high school algebra will notice that

∫ ((4π r₂² / (r₂²)) dr₂ = ∫ 4π dr₂​

while readers who know anything at all about calculus will know

∫ 4π dr₂ = 4π r₂ + C​

for some constant C. Do you think Phil Bouchard noticed either of those things? Right you are.)

Equation (9) is stated just below equation (8), and is another equation for the same f. We're supposed to believe equation (9) was derived from equation (8) by solving the indefinite integrals, but equation (9) is of the form

f = K​

where K is a complicated expression whose visual complexity might intimidate casual readers into failing to notice that K is a constant. That's right, folks, the constant K does not mention the variable r₂.

(Readers who have some nodding familiarity with integral calculus may recall that you can check an alleged solution to an indefinite integral by differentiating. Because K is a constant, its derivative is zero. Do you think Phil Bouchard noticed his equation (9) is laughably wrong? Perhaps he did, but left it in his paper anyway. Or perhaps Bouchard isn't as dishonest as equation (9) makes him appear, and is merely incompetent.)

Bouchard's equation (10) is said to be "Equation (9) into FT's context", and purports to be an equation for a different f. Equation (10) is almost the same as equation (8), except both integrands have been multiplied by r₂. Bouchard's equation (11) says f is a constant, independent of r₂, so equation (11) is just as wrong as equation (9), albeit even more obviously wrong because the constant in equation (11) is simpler.

If we assume Bouchard just made some honest mistakes, it's still hard to understand how anyone remotely acquainted with calculus could have gotten those equations so badly wrong. One possible clue is that the second term of equation (8) would simplify to the second term of equation (9) if that second term of equation (8) had been a definite integral over the interval [d₂,r₁]. On the other hand, making that change to the second term of equation (10) does not allow it to simplify to the second term of equation (11). On the third hand, it is easy to see how anyone who could make such fundamental mistakes would also get the anti-derivatives badly wrong. In short, it seems likely that equations (8), (9), (10), and (11) are all nonsensical beyond repair.

Yeah that's what happens when you copy and paste a book from 2009. The integral should have bounds:

 

[jsfisher]

Then how do you explain you're being reminded by a computer scientist you can't hardcode a constant in an equation?

Well, I don't recall you reminding me of anything, except that you continue to avoid the question I posed to you.

- So anyway just my thought spaceship experiment I wrote 13 years ago should have been sufficient to get nominated for the Breakthrough Prize, Nobel Prize or both.

Getting nominated is easy. You can do that yourself. Getting awarded any of those prize requires a bit more effort that you've demonstrated so far.

- The rest is just years of defamation by what is referred to as the "scientific community", despite my efforts to explain the nonsense of dark matter, dark energy, wormholes and paradoxes.

Yeah, that must be it. Defamation. The total lack of evidence for your conclusions is of no consequence.

...
- I gave after that evidence there is indeed an "aether wind" after a simple search engine search and a short 67 lines long Python script.

I missed that. You have evidence there is indeed an aether wind? Do tell. And "proof by Python" is not a familiar scientific technique to me, but I do have experience with proof by Youtube. Is this similar?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Yeah that's what happens when you copy and paste a book from 2009. The integral should have bounds:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_7448962099fa7655e0.png[/qimg]

If that was the intended form of Bouchard's equation (8), then omitting the bounds of the definite integral was not his only mistake. He also wrote the second term of equation (8) as an indefinite integral. Changing that second term into a definite integral with the same bounds as on the first integral does not yield the same second term as in the book philippeb8 and Phil Bouchard both failed to cite as the source of equation (8). Equations (10) and (11) contain similar errors.

(Edited: In my original version, I made three mistakes, two of which gave Bouchard too much credit.)

(Yet another edit: None of Bouchard's nine references is a book published in 2009.)

 

[philippeb8]

Getting nominated is easy. You can do that yourself. Getting awarded any of those prize requires a bit more effort that you've demonstrated so far.

That's not true. You need to have published to one of the following journals and for that you need to be referred to by another mainstream scientist who already published there before:
https://inspirehep.net/
https://arxiv.org/

Then to get awarded any prize, you need to be nominated by a majority of mainstream physics.

Plus it looks like I'll have to teach mainstream physicists calculus.

But given my 13 years of efforts trying to educate the fact you can't hardcode a constant miserably failed, I don't see any hope in the next 500 years trying to teach you the hypotheses of Finite Theory.

Finally I respect the fact Jean Paul Sartre refused the Nobel Prize but he couldn't really elaborate on why. In my case I know exactly why.

I missed that. You have evidence there is indeed an aether wind? Do tell. And "proof by Python" is not a familiar scientific technique to me, but I do have experience with proof by Youtube. Is this similar?

Well reread the thread then. Bye.

 

[philippeb8]

If that was the intended form of Bouchard's equation (8), then omitting the bounds of the definite integral was not his only mistake. He also wrote the second term of equation (8) as an indefinite integral. Changing that second term into a definite integral with the same bounds as on the first integral does not yield the same second term as in the book philippeb8 and Phil Bouchard both failed to cite as the source of equation (8). Equations (10) and (11) contain similar errors.

(Edited: In my original version, I made three mistakes, two of which gave Bouchard too much credit.)

(Yet another edit: None of Bouchard's nine references is a book published in 2009.)

The bounds of the second are: [0, r_1 - d_2]

It was first published on CreateSpace in 2009 and got published on Amazon 2 years after:
https://www.amazon.ca/dp/1441453105/

 

[jsfisher]

That's not true. You need to have published to one of the following journals and for that you need to be referred to by another mainstream scientist who already published there before:
https://inspirehep.net/
https://arxiv.org/

No, you don't. As I said, nominations are easy. You can do it yourself.

Be that as it may, you still dodge my question. Why is that?

Well reread the thread then. Bye.

I've read the entire thread. Still looking for anything approximating what you claim to have done. Assertions are easy. Got anything beyond that?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Plus it looks like I'll have to teach mainstream physicists calculus.

Before you could do that, you'd have to learn some high school algebra.

The bounds of the second are: [0, r_1 - d_2]

It was first published on CreateSpace in 2009 and got published on Amazon 2 years after:
https://www.amazon.ca/dp/1441453105/

So there is no credible source for Bouchard's equations (8) through (11).

Even the non-credible source that Bouchard failed to cite is "Currently unavailable. We don't know when or if this item will be back in stock."