DIY experiment proving graviton is a particle

[philippeb8]

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."

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

The way I see it there are two options here.

1: phillipeb8 is right and the rest of the scientific community is wrong. Given his claims about how far along he is, in a year or two he'll have solved the world energy crisis and supply problems in one fell swoop, be a mega billionaire and a hero to mankind.
I can live with that

2: phillipeb8 is wrong and it turns out good science is hard and does not need to be intuitive and conform to common sense, no matter what anyone thinks. In which case this thread will (like all the others promising to overthrow physics) have given me a few minutes of vague entertainment.
I can live with that too.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_744896209e1252bda9.png[/qimg]

That page was not the source of the image you posted earlier.

At this point, Bouchard's paper/proposal mostly serves as an example of why crackpot papers seldom survive peer review:

• Equations (1) through (6) say the paper applies only to gravitational fields generated by massless objects.
• Equations (8) through (11) are incorrect as they appear in the paper.

There might be a Brokedown Prize that accepts self-nominations.

 

[Steve]

The way I see it there are two options here.

1: phillipeb8 is right and the rest of the scientific community is wrong. Given his claims about how far along he is, in a year or two he'll have solved the world energy crisis and supply problems in one fell swoop, be a mega billionaire and a hero to mankind.
I can live with that

2: phillipeb8 is wrong and it turns out good science is hard and does not need to be intuitive and conform to common sense, no matter what anyone thinks. In which case this thread will (like all the others promising to overthrow physics) have given me a few minutes of vague entertainment.
I can live with that too.

All options are not created equal . One of those options quite likely. The other exists only in the fevered imagination of one individual. Guess which way I am leaning.

 

[Steve]

It would be such a shame for you to be denied fame and fortune simply because no-one anywhere in the world is convinced by your genius.

Have you thought about setting up your own award? If you make yourself the judge you must be in with a decent shout.

We are advised that the US government is convinced and is sending wheelbarrows full of money to further the research. And because that is not sufficient he has a gofundme page that has added the astounding figure of $305!

 

[Andy_Ross]

Why hasn't 'Big Science' silenced him yet?
They have apparently kept the lid on the conspiracy for centuries but they are letting him expose it?

 

[Steve]

Why hasn't 'Big Science' silenced him yet?
They have apparently kept the lid on the conspiracy for centuries but they are letting him expose it?

There are a few noble people in this world so righteous that they cannot be silenced. Most of them post here.

 

[malbui]

Why hasn't 'Big Science' silenced him yet?
They have apparently kept the lid on the conspiracy for centuries but they are letting him expose it?

Did you not get the memo? This is part of a cunning plan run by a group of conspirators who make those behind the sinking of the Estonia look like part-timers.

 

[philippeb8]

How'd that go?

I didn't have time obviously but I'll ping them this week.

But the only help I would require at this time might be quantum physics because I already covered everything else.

 

[philippeb8]

That page was not the source of the image you posted earlier.

At this point, Bouchard's paper/proposal mostly serves as an example of why crackpot papers seldom survive peer review:

• Equations (1) through (6) say the paper applies only to gravitational fields generated by massless objects.
• Equations (8) through (11) are incorrect as they appear in the paper.

There might be a Brokedown Prize that accepts self-nominations.

You're the sole reason I'm here Dr. Clinger because I know you are smart enough to understand the manuscript and at the same time you are clearly bribed by the "scientific community" to translate them medium level mathematics.

That makes you the perfect individual to freely review the manuscript and I honestly thank you for that. You have discovered 2 minor erratas I need to fix (approximation sign and missing integral bounds).

Now you rely on trash talk in the hope to tarnish my image so it's time to go.

 

[Steve]

You're the sole reason I'm here Dr. Clinger because I know you are smart enough to understand the manuscript and at the same time you are clearly bribed by the "scientific community" to translate them medium level mathematics.

That makes you the perfect individual to freely review the manuscript and I honestly thank you for that. You have discovered 2 minor erratas I need to fix (approximation sign and missing integral bounds).

Now you rely on trash talk in the hope to tarnish my image so it's time to go.

Your reasons for posting here seem to change every time you mention them . And you really have no reputation that can be in any way tarnished.

Anyway:

"Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Swiftly taking to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!"

Ta ta. It's been a blast. (Are you sure you want this entire thread archived forever? )

 

[philippeb8]

Why hasn't 'Big Science' silenced him yet?
They have apparently kept the lid on the conspiracy for centuries but they are letting him expose it?

Just 1 century, not many. "Science" was extremely productive before the Nobel Prize and Einstein's spacetime curvature nonsense.

They have failed to silence me on time because everything is public now. Maybe that's because the Truck Convoy here in Canada has higher priority so that would suggest I've got the perfect timing.

On a final note, a have proven the Nobel / Breakthrough Prizes are actually counterproductive and slow human evolution down because of the following relation:
mainstream^5 * n_phd * n_np * n_bp

Where:
n_phd = number of new physics PhD per year
n_np = number of years since the dawn of the Nobel Prize
n_bp = number of years since the dawn of the Breakthrough Prize

Now in 2022 it's mathematically impossible to undo that mess and not worth the efforts.

I have also mathematically proven the sole purpose of the Kavli / Perimeter Institutes, the Snolab, Xenon lab, ... is to increase our deficit to benefit the Central Banks slowly but surely.

 

[Crossbow]

You're the sole reason I'm here Dr. Clinger because I know you are smart enough to understand the manuscript and at the same time you are clearly bribed by the "scientific community" to translate them medium level mathematics.

That makes you the perfect individual to freely review the manuscript and I honestly thank you for that. You have discovered 2 minor erratas I need to fix (approximation sign and missing integral bounds).

Now you rely on trash talk in the hope to tarnish my image so it's time to go.

Aw shucks!

I might as well admit the truth, now that 'philippeb8' has figured it all out.

I am the one who leads the "scientific community" and as such, I have been passing out bribes for many years now in order to stop the development of force fields, tractor beams, anti-gravity, and other such Star Trek type stuff.

So I guess this means that before too long that all of these various products will soon be available for sale at every Wal-Mart throughout the world, and as such, I will have to find another line of work.

Oh well! I sure had a nice job while it lasted.

 

[philippeb8]

Your reasons for posting here seem to change every time you mention them . And you really have no reputation that can be in any way tarnished.

I don't since yesterday where Dr. Clinger desperately relies on trash talk.

Anyway:

"Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Swiftly taking to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!"

Ta ta. It's been a blast. (Are you sure you want this entire thread archived forever? )

Yeah it will by WebArchive. All the best... Ciao.

 

[Steve]

Aw shucks!

I might as well admit the truth, now that 'philippeb8' has figured it all out.

I am the one who leads the "scientific community" and as such, I have been passing out bribes for many years now in order to stop the development of force fields, tractor beams, anti-gravity, and other such Star Trek type stuff.

So I guess this means that before too long that all of these various products will soon be available for sale at every Wal-Mart throughout the world, and as such, I will have to find another line of work.

Oh well! I sure had a nice job while it lasted.

So no more cheques then? Right-o, time to find a new source of income. Any idea who I should contact to get in on the alt medicine suppression squad?

 

[catsmate]

First assume a spherical Swedish bank...

...massless point Swedish bank...

....in a perfect vacuum.

 

[catsmate]

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 equine waste continues to pile up....

 

[catsmate]

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.

Bollocks.
As usual you have not the slightest clue.

 

[catsmate]

The way I see it there are two options here.

1: phillipeb8 is right and the rest of the scientific community is wrong. Given his claims about how far along he is, in a year or two he'll have solved the world energy crisis and supply problems in one fell swoop, be a mega billionaire and a hero to mankind.I can live with that

2: phillipeb8 is wrong and it turns out good science is hard and does not need to be intuitive and conform to common sense, no matter what anyone thinks. In which case this thread will (like all the others promising to overthrow physics) have given me a few minutes of vague entertainment.
I can live with that too.

Given that he's been spewing this garbage for years I don't expect much.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

You're the sole reason I'm here Dr. Clinger because I know you are smart enough to understand the manuscript and at the same time you are clearly bribed by the "scientific community" to translate them medium level mathematics.

I am not smart enough to understand Phil Bouchard's paper/proposal. I'm not sure anyone is. I'm pretty sure Bouchard isn't.

philippeb8 must not be smart enough to understand Bouchard's paper either, because philippeb8 thinks that paper can be repaired by changing an equals sign to approximately equals:

You have discovered 2 minor erratas I need to fix (approximation sign and missing integral bounds).

After those changes, the paper will be applicable (if at all!) only to gravitational fields generated by objects that have approximately zero mass.

Pro tip: If you want your theory to overturn 300 years of physics and replace the general theory of relativity, you ought to check whether it's an adequate weak-field replacement for Newton's theory of gravitation, even when the weak field is generated by large masses located far away.

ETA:

With the changes proposed by philippeb8, Bouchard's crackpot theory of gravity would be applicable (if at all!) only to gravitational fields generated by objects whose mass m is tiny compared to their distance r. (That is, when m ≪ r, with the units reconciled by Bouchard's h.) Newton's theory is applicable and reasonably accurate so long as m ≪ r² (with the Newton-appropriate reconciliation of units). That means Newton's theory is applicable and reasonably accurate in gravitational fields that are strong enough to make things fall down or remain in orbit, whereas Bouchard's theory (as "corrected" by philippeb8) would be applicable (if at all!) only within empty regions of interstellar (or, more likely, intergalactic) space.