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

Merged Theory links Newtonian/Quantum the amazing Frank Znidarsic

MattusMaximus said:
Wrong, this is a common misconception. You neglect to take into account the expansion of spacetime since the big bang, so the distance this light has traveled is actually closer to 46 billion LY
Click to expand...

That's why I said "minus the horizon"... anyway, this applies to every POV in the universe, and there is no "center", I think?
Beyond spacetime (where no universe has gone before :))) there is ....nothing? The future? We can think about it, but it doesn't exist.

Anyway, if we argue from a "conciousness of now" POV, there is no space as it is already in the past, even when you watch your hand you are experiencing the past because the signals have to travel to your brain first.
The future also does not exist (yet).
The moment you are experiencing as NOW is already gone.
So there is no past (it's in its nature... it's already gone), no future (not yet) and no NOW.

But conciousness is not a physics realm. (Although people like Brian Josephson and Roger Penrose seem to work on it ;-))

As for FZ: it seems there's a lot to do for him...

Still, I think I know what he wants.

It's like stimulating a glass with the right frequency to make it break.
My question: do you need more or less energy to break a glass using sound than using your hand?
Or maybe let's switch to a bridge collapsing due to unfortunate stimulation.
If we could do that to an atom, it might help fusion to occur...
 
Chronopolitan, phonons do not appear to be required for the phenomena of high-temp superconductivity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-temperature_superconductivity#History_and_progress

In a conventional superconductor, Cooper pairs are created as follows. When an electron moves through the system, it creates a depression in the atomic lattice through lattice vibrations known as phonons. If the depression of the lattice is strong enough, another electron can fall into the depression created by the first electron—the so-called water-bed effect—and a Cooper pair is formed. When this effect becomes strong enough, Cooper pairs win over the creation of holes behind the electrons, and the normal conductor turns into a superconductor through an unlimited supply of electrons by the creation of Cooper pairs.

In a high-Tc superconductor, the mechanism is extremely similar to a conventional superconductor.Except, in this case, phonons virtually play no role and their role is replaced by spin-density waves. As all conventional superconductors are strong phonon systems, all high-Tc superconductors are strong spin-density wave systems, within close vicinity of a magnetic transition to, for example, an antiferromagnet. When an electron moves in a high-Tc superconductor, its spin creates a spin-density wave around it. This spin-density wave in turn causes a nearby electron to fall into the spin depression created by the first electron (water-bed effect again). Hence, again, a Cooper pair is formed. Eventually, when the system temperature is lowered, more spin density waves and Cooper pairs are created and superconductivity begins when an unlimited supply of Cooper pairs, denoted as a phase transition, happens. Note that in high-Tc systems, as these systems are magnetic systems due to the Coulomb interaction, there is a strong Coulomb repulsion between electrons. This Coulomb repulsion prevents pairing of the Cooper pairs on the same lattice site. The pairing of the electrons occur at near-neighbor lattice sites as a result. This is the so-called d-wave pairing, where the pairing state has a node (zero) at the origin.
Click to expand...
 
Chronopolitan said:
Well, how about this one:

We are able to see about 13.700.000.000 lightyears into space.
That accounts for every direction.
We are at the center of a sphere with that radius.
This distance equals the distance light has traveled after the "Big Bang" (minus the horizon we cannot look behind)
That's what people say.

So, NOW is on earth, the rest is the past.

From "outside" (which doesn't exist), the universe started as a singularity (where laws are not applicable) then created spacetime and expanded rapidly since. From "outside", NOW is at the edge of the expanding universe.

It is not possible to take on both views at the same time unless you consider both the edge of the universe and its center the same.... point.

A point without a reference frame does not exist unless it's a singularity.

Therefore, there is only singularity. (Which can be interpreted as... let's say, G*D).
Click to expand...

Excuse me, this is another derial of this thread, please stop this. If you wish to bring this up, start a new thread.

I would address your strawmen and errors but I will not contribute to your derail.

Start new threads rather than throwing in irrelevant topics please.
 
Chronopolitan said:
That's why I said "minus the horizon"... anyway, this applies to every POV in the universe, and there is no "center", I think?
Beyond spacetime (where no universe has gone before :))) there is ....nothing? The future? We can think about it, but it doesn't exist.

Anyway, if we argue from a "conciousness of now" POV, there is no space as it is already in the past, even when you watch your hand you are experiencing the past because the signals have to travel to your brain first.
The future also does not exist (yet).
The moment you are experiencing as NOW is already gone.
So there is no past (it's in its nature... it's already gone), no future (not yet) and no NOW.

But conciousness is not a physics realm. (Although people like Brian Josephson and Roger Penrose seem to work on it ;-))

As for FZ: it seems there's a lot to do for him...

Still, I think I know what he wants.

It's like stimulating a glass with the right frequency to make it break.
My question: do you need more or less energy to break a glass using sound than using your hand?
Or maybe let's switch to a bridge collapsing due to unfortunate stimulation.
If we could do that to an atom, it might help fusion to occur...
Click to expand...

*Sigh*

What Dancing David said.
 
The variable 1/r remains the same. The strength of the electric field varies with distance r away from the electron
Wrong, the electric field varies as 1/r2 around an electron (or any other point-like source charge).
Click to expand...
I thought Lane's youtube video explained why 1/r2 was instead 1/r but I am not sure maybe it is a mistake
 
Last edited:
Puzzled: I cannot be the first to spot this...

[latex] h=\dfrac {Q^{2}} {4e_{0}v_{t}} [/latex]

[edit - OK: how do I get fractions to come out?! - hah: needed \dfrac]

Surely everything in this relation is a constant except Q ... doesn't that show right away that the relation is junk? The only way this can be made to work is if the transmission speed is a function of the accumulated charge ...

But even before that point, the equation for the "transmission speed"

[latex]v_{t}=f\lambda[/latex]

... while it is, indeed an equation for a speed (the propagation speed for wave motion), the dimensions for the transmission speed turn out to be frequency-length ... which does not match the RHS which is length-over-time as befits a physical speed. This error junks every equation that follows.

Demand the author balances his equations and sit back - what further discussion is there to be had?
 
Last edited:
Simon Bridge said:
But even before that point, the equation for the "transmission speed"

[latex]v_{t}=f\lambda[/latex]

... while it is, indeed an equation for a speed (the propagation speed for wave motion), the dimensions for the transmission speed turn out to be frequency-length ... which does not match the RHS which is length-over-time as befits a physical speed. This error junks every equation that follows.
Click to expand...

I don't get it. The units of frequency are 1/time, so frequency*length is length/time.
 
I think Frank is just saying that forces drop off from a point source as 1/r^2, and potentials drop off as 1/r.

That said, if someone said "strength of the electric field" I would assume they meant the magnitude of the force per unit charge. I'd consider it wrong to talk of the potential as the strength.
 
i tried....I really did, but so many repeated questions, so much 'word salad'.

What about that sound wave inside the nucleus? was that ever pointed out? if sound is a kinetic vibration of gas molecules, how could any sound exist within the nucleus of an atom? There's nothing small enough to vibrate within it. Unless there's some kind of quantum sound I've never heard of.

I'm probably out of my depth.
 
Cuddles said:
I don't get it. The units of frequency are 1/time, so frequency*length is length/time.
Click to expand...
Which is a speed so ... Ah amnday! You are right ... I added that last bit in a bit of a hurry. :blush:

And this, kind folks, demonstrates the importance of peer review <ahem>.

Anybody check the first one?
 
edd said:
I think Frank is just saying that forces drop off from a point source as 1/r^2, and potentials drop off as 1/r.

That said, if someone said "strength of the electric field" I would assume they meant the magnitude of the force per unit charge. I'd consider it wrong to talk of the potential as the strength.
Click to expand...

The "electric field" would be the energy field so that F=qE

It is not unusual to work with the "electric potential" instead, and refer to it, sloppily, as an electric field.

Note that the "strength of the electric field" is often used imprecisely and may refer to the potential (the speaker may give field strength in volts) or the intensity (the square of the field strength.)

In these forums (fora?) we should be aiming for more precision. Deliberate and constant use of ambiguous terms is a good sign of trolls.
 
eh? said:
i tried....I really did, but so many repeated questions, so much 'word salad'.

What about that sound wave inside the nucleus? was that ever pointed out? if sound is a kinetic vibration of gas molecules, how could any sound exist within the nucleus of an atom? There's nothing small enough to vibrate within it. Unless there's some kind of quantum sound I've never heard of.

I'm probably out of my depth.
Click to expand...

Well, you also get sound in liquids and solids too - no gas involved there. So your idea of what sound is, is not quite complete enough. Also, protons and neutrons are small enough to vibrate inside a nucleus.

There is a liquid-drop model for the nucleus which works quite well.

We would not normally think of these as sound like you can get from sterio speakers ... more as vibrational modes in the LDM. I'd look sideways at suggestions of playing sounds at a bunch of atoms to induce a nuclear reaction through some sort of resonance.
 
Frank how did your presentation go?
3:30 – 5:30PM
OTHER FUTURE ENERGY SOURCES
Chair: Thomas Valone Integrity Research Institute, Beltsville MD 20705, 301-220-0440;
[email protected]
Co-Chair: Len Danczyk, Energetics Technology, LLC, Santa Barbara, CA 93109-1506, 805-
966-1234; [email protected]
4:00-The Flow of Energy (Abstract)
Frank Znidarsic and Glen A Robertson
4:30-Department of Energy (DOE) R&D Programs
Dave Goodwin
Click to expand...
Was anyone able to record it or the one after? What did the person speaking after you have to say about your ideas/theory/presentation? Did anyone from JREF view the talk?
 
Last edited:
The conference went very well a friend made a home quality video of my lecture. Chief Scientists for NASA and the DOE were there.

.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/movies/cofe_3_2011.wmv

add www to the beginning of the link as this site will not allow me to post URL's.

I would like to appear on SCI-FI, however, this is not going to happen. I invite questions and comments.

Frank Znidarsic
 
fznidarsic said:
The conference went very well a friend made a home quality video of my lecture. Chief Scientists for NASA and the DOE were there.

.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/movies/cofe_3_2011.wmv

add www to the beginning of the link as this site will not allow me to post URL's.

I would like to appear on SCI-FI, however, this is not going to happen. I invite questions and comments.

Frank Znidarsic
Click to expand...

The quality of that video is rather low. I assume you had an assistant with a small camcorder shooting it for you. Could you not get a copy of what UMD was recording with its equipment in the back of the room? I got to believe it would be easier to hear whats been said and see the slides.
 
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