Merged Antigravity, engine and experiments with a flying saucer.

Wudang said:
That was the point at which I stopped reading. The Michelson-Morley experiment is well documented and widely reported at the time and repeated since.
http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de...Light Propagation at the 10-17 Level 2009.pdf
Click to expand...

Yup. Saw it done in undergrad physics at UF. The United States Navel Academy has a set-up for doing the experiment with very long perpendicular arms for the light beam, making for exceptional accuracy, showing no movement with regard to any aether
 
An aether has been shown not to exist since 1887

MasterOgon said:
This article is a set of scientific facts, the results of my own research and their theoretical justification...
Since antiquity, it was believed that all world space is filled with ether
Click to expand...
Lots of posts with errors, MasterOgon, that suggest that you need to learn science before you write about science.

No one in antiquity thought about gravity, etc. and aether. Galileo, Newton, etc. lived only ~400 years ago. As soon as people thought about forces propagating through an aether, they came to the conclusion that its properties made it highly unlikely to exist. As soon as people did experiments, they found that the aether did not exist :eye-poppi!

An aether has been shown not to exist since 1887 and the Michelson–Morley experiment. This has been verified in dozens of more and more accurate experiments.
 
Listing old, invalid "theories" of gravity is irrelevant

MasterOgon said:
The first theory explaining gravity, ....
Click to expand...
Listing old, invalid "theories" of gravity is irrelevant.
As soon as Newton produced a working, valid theory of gravity that explained everything we observed for the next few hundred years, the ideas about aether and gravity became dubious. As soon as an aether was shown to have no effect experimentally, aether theories of gravity became invalid.
 
These dozens of experiments showed that the aether did not exist

MasterOgon said:
In order to prove the existence of ether, a number of experiments were also conducted....
Click to expand...
Those dozens of experiments and other experiments showed that the aether did not exist!

Luminiferous aether. Problems with such an aether were known since the 1870's - "a fluid in order to fill space, but one that was millions of times more rigid than steel in order to support the high frequencies of light waves. It also had to be massless and without viscosity, otherwise it would visibly affect the orbits of planets. Additionally it appeared it had to be completely transparent, non-dispersive, incompressible, and continuous at a very small scale.[citation needed]".
Michelson–Morley experiments show that no stationary aether existed.

Aether drag hypothesis - Problems of partial aether dragging show that no entrained aether exists.
 
A story about a discovery by Gauss in 1835 is not a valid source

MasterOgon said:
... discovered by Gauss in 1835.
Click to expand...
A story about a discovery by Gauss in 1835 is not a valid source.
This is a general issue with your posts - a lack of sources and citing old possibly invalid "discoveries".
 
The theory of relativity is not quantum mechanics (the theory of atoms)

MasterOgon said:
... As it is known, the theory of relativity assumes that energy is transferred from atom to atom instantly.
Click to expand...
1. The theory of relativity is not quantum mechanics (the theory of atoms).
SR and GR are the relativistic theories of classical mechanics and gravitation.
QM describes atoms.

2. Energy is transferred between atoms by particles travelling at finite speeds - it is not instant. For example an excited electron in atom A emits a photon and drops to a lower orbital. That photon travels a distance x at a speed c to be absorbed by atom B. There is a finite time t between the photon emission and absorption.
 
The curvature of spacetime explains gravity and is not "the measurement system"

MasterOgon said:
...Therefore, in order for the theory to work, the curvature of the space of time — the measurement system — was invented.
Click to expand...
The curvature of spacetime explains gravity and is not "the measurement system".
General relativity is a theory of gravitation. The spacetime in GR was "invented" (actually it was existing mathematics that Einstein learned with help from his colleagues) to generalize special relativity. The inertial frames in SR had to be extended include acceleration. That gave rise to a pseudo-Riemannian metric - roughly a spacetime that locally is SR's but globally is a collection of a different spacetime, inertial or accelerating, for each observer (the mathematical definition is much more complex).
 
No evidence that "number of discoveries that do not fit into the theory of relativity

MasterOgon said:
Already relatively recently, modern scientists have made a number of discoveries that do not fit into the theory of relativity. For example, the superluminal propagation of photons, discovered by a group of American scientists led by Alain Aspect.
Click to expand...
No evidence that "number of discoveries that do not fit into the theory of relativity" exist.

Alain Aspect never discovered "superluminal propagation of photons". The experiments that Alain Aspect is known for are on Bell's inequalities. If violated, these show that QM results cannot be explained by local hidden variable theories. Non-locality suggests "superluminal propagation" of information.
 
More important to note is no citation of this discovery by Nikolai Noskov

MasterOgon said:
It is also important to note the discovery made by nuclear engineer Nikolai Noskov ....
Click to expand...
More important to note is no citation of this discovery by Nikolai Noskov!

Also important - this is Nikolai Noskov - a aether pseudo-scientist who published in a "newspaper" and an electronics journal.
 
History of the atomic model followed by a "vibrating balls", aether, etc. fantasy

MasterOgon said:
...The planetary model of the atom, proposed in 1911 by Ernest Rutherford after a series of experiments, came into conflict with classical electrodynamics, according to which an electron must radiate electromagnetic waves when moving with centripetal acceleration therefore, lose energy and fall on the core. Therefore, it was rejected in favor of quantum mechanics and the principle of the cloud of probabilities. But if we take into account the experience with vibrating balls and the presence of ether, then we can assume that the waves emitted by the electron are the force that prevents the electron from falling. From all this we can conclude that the atom can be described by classical mechanics as an exact mechanism.
Click to expand...
History of the atomic model followed by a "vibrating balls", aether, etc. fantasy.

The fact is that an atom cannot be described by classical mechanics as you state. Electrons moving in a classical orbit accelerate and electromagnetism states they have to radiate and fall into the nucleus.
However, classical orbits were also rejected for other reasons.
  • We measure that the electrons in atoms absorb and emit discrete spectra.
    That is a signature of elections moving between "orbits" with discrete distances from the nucleus. This is impossible with classical orbits.
  • Atoms combine to produce molecules via chemical bonds.
    These are usually impossible with classical orbits. For example, look at the hydrogen molecule H2. This is the only stable hydrogen molecule. Classical orbits place not limits on the number of binding atoms so where is stable H3, etc?
  • Atoms combine to produce molecules with specific shapes.
    Classical orbits by themselves give no limits on the shapes of molecules.
 
A physically impossible "mechanical model of the hydrogen atom"

MasterOgon said:
Consider the mechanical model of the hydrogen atom, ....
Click to expand...
A physically impossible "mechanical model of the hydrogen atom".

The measured properties of the hydrogen atom were part of the foundations of the QM theory of atoms. The Bohr model quantized orbits because the measured spectral lines of H has the empirical Rydberg formula.

Word salad that the nucleus is an electric motor, an electron is a magnet, etc.
 
Irrelevant "oscillatory motion in homogeneous - liquid and gaseous media" word salad

MasterOgon said:
The process occurring during oscillatory motion in homogeneous - liquid and gaseous media ...
Click to expand...
Irrelevant "oscillatory motion in homogeneous - liquid and gaseous media" word salad.

There is a field of physics called fluid mechanics that is used to describe objects moving in liquid and gaseous media. This word salad is not fluid mechanics.
 
An irrelevant non-experiment with ignorant word salad ignoring basic physics

MasterOgon said:
Such an experiment is easy to repeat at home. ...
Click to expand...
An irrelevant non-experiment with ignorant word salad ignoring basic physics.
Gibberish about triangles does not explain anything. You have the non-experiment of swirling water in your palm one way and then swirling it the other way. A guess that the speed of varies according to the direction of rotation. If that happened then it could be because you change the shape of your palm to make that happen either by accident or on purpose.

A proper experiment of swirling water in a circular flask will show no measurable direction preference (make it into a swimming pool and the Coriolis effect may have an effect) because the friction is the same in either direction.
 
Last edited:
An "assumed" fantasy about the aether, atoms, electrons, etc.

MasterOgon said:
It can be assumed ...
Click to expand...
An "assumed" fantasy about the aether, atoms, electrons, etc.

An ignorant "high electron rotation velocity" + heating gases fantasy.
If it were possible for an electron to be in a classical orbit (it is not) then it will have a set orbital speed. A heated gas expands because its atoms are moving faster and exerting more pressure. A heated gas expands rises because it is less dense than its surrounding, cooler gas.

"gravitate" and "Adding electrons to the atomic orbit" gibberish.
 
Reality Check said:
A story about a discovery by Gauss in 1835 is not a valid source.
This is a general issue with your posts - a lack of sources and citing old possibly invalid "discoveries".
Click to expand...

Right. This is an aspect that really gets under my skin. Somehow 19th century science is sacrosanct. 200 years later, science is not at all reliable. Somehow science has learned nothing in two centuries.

This flip flopping is simply pandering to suoerstitious nonsense. Theist seem to prefer an imaginary 18th century golden age when slavery was legal. And genocide, rape and all the rest. Not to mention that I fail to see how 18th century morality is even vaguely relevant to the 21st century. That simply puts religion a whole 3 centuries behind reality.
 
Bad "greater the mass of the pendulum, the more efficient the movement" physics

MasterOgon said:
The greater the mass of the pendulum, the more efficient the movement....
Click to expand...
Bad irrelevant "greater the mass of the pendulum, the more efficient the movement" physics.

Ideal pendulums have frictionless supports. Real pendulums have real supports with friction that increases with the mass of the pendulum. They are less efficient as mass increases.
 
Ignorant fantasy about "asymmetric oscillations" and planetary systems

MasterOgon said:
In this process, leading to asymmetric oscillations occur at the level of planetary systems. ...
Click to expand...
A long and ignorant fantasy about "asymmetric oscillations" and planetary systems.

No planets are "located chaotically in orbits around a star". They have established orbits!
Deep "their gravitational forces act evenly" ignorance. Planets have different masses and different distance from each other and their star. Planetary orbits are not perfect circles. Gravity depends on mass and distance :eye-poppi!
Stars remain in the center of single star systems because they have most of the mass of the system. Binary star systems can have no star at the center - the 2 stars orbit each other when they are roughly equal in mass. Multiple star systems are even more complex.
Followed by a long spate of gibberish, e.g. water appears again!

The "I see bunnies in the clouds" logic that cranks often use. Just because 2 things look alike does not means that the same processes made them. Light has waves. Oceans have waves. They are not the same kind of waves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom