nav

Re: Abstract workshop challenge: Travel to the stars in no time at all
One last thing: What or who is stopping us traveling among the stars?
-The people that have tried to determine the size of the Universe with a finite number. The Universe is only as big as you let it be, control the binary system of the atomic structure and you control the Universe.
Re: Abstract workshop challenge: Travel to the stars in no time at all
Quote
That's about the long and short of it for now. We'd have to move a ways up the Kardashev scale to achieve the energy levels necessary to travel very fast just via field radiation pressure alone (which is about the only way to achieve the impulse force speed necessary to reach reaction force speeds at middling to high fractions of c). Even then, we'll never break c (in fact, we'll likely never even approach it)... to go faster than c is impossible.
C is the differential between matter that moves through time and matter that does not. C is not a velocity as such but rather a comparison and if you take Einstein down to his exact wording and read his white paper correctly then people would understand this. C is a time differential even if you misinterpret what Einstein said it still is a time differential. It is the same both ways.
Why do you think that light never exceeds 186,000 mps even if your spaceship is traveling at a million miles per hour in the same direction of the light beam? It does so because the light is a trail not a beam. The confusion lies with the none linear movement of time referenced with the linear function of Photons, which is a confusing issue because time is not a visible entity and light is.

kenssurplus

Re: Abstract workshop challenge: Travel to the stars in no time at all
Lynx,

I am very reluctant to join the conversation.  But as this topic was one of my most favorite to think about many years ago, I will throw in some ideas.

If we are constrained by using more energy than the earth could possibly muster to travel with your conditions conventionally, how about we try unconventional methods?

If we build a ball and step inside, obviously with a supply of air and necessities, the rate of time flow outside vs inside is equal unless something is done to change that.  If we use some of the processes explored here :

12 Experiments on Change of the Direction and the Rate of Time:   Dr. Vadim A. Chernobrov

Then by means of speeding up, slowing down, stopping, or even reversing the flow of time, one could end up anywhere that time had any influence by simply triangulating rate and density of time, distance and direction your destination has traveled, distance and direction your starting location has traveled, using temporary leapfrog sites to slingshot-alter the course to intercept your destination,  taking into consideration any time compression effects such as nearby black holes, stars, and other celestial bodies, along with any expansion of the fabric of space, factoring in the general speed up (or slowdown) of time universally,  you should end up somewhere fun anyway even if you did miss your target. :D O:-)

Cycle

Re: Abstract workshop challenge: Travel to the stars in no time at all
« Reply #53,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from nav on July 20th, 2018, 08:22 AM
Cycle, that statement is about as stupid as professor Hawking's statement that the singularity that preceded the big bang was the size of a pea.
Now you're arguing against quantum mechanics, physics, astrophysics and pretty much everything science knows about the universe, Nav. Stop being ridiculous and just admit you're wrong.
Quote from https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-fast-are-we-moving-through-space-985bf470378d
From this effect in the Big Bang’s leftover glow, we can find that the Solar System moves relative to the CMB at 368 ± 2 km/s, and that when you throw in the motion of the local group, you get that all of it — the Sun, the Milky Way, Andromeda and all the others — are moving at 627 ± 22 km/s relative to the CMB.
Quote from nav on July 20th, 2018, 08:22 AM
Once again you fail to grasp even the fundamental rules of relativity, which you yourself being educated in Physics as you say should understand. But all you are, is a master of the cut and paste functions of your computer and don't have the sense to be able to tie your shoe laces probably.
You sound butthurt. That's not good. :P
Quote from nav on July 20th, 2018, 08:22 AM
No one knows how fast the Earth is truly moving through space, we know the velocity relevant to the sun, we know the velocity of the twist of the Galaxy and we know how fast the Galaxies are moving apart locally.
And we know how fast we're moving through space itself by measuring the anisotropy of the CMB. So yeah, we do know how fast we're moving through space. You're wrong yet again, Nav. Now you'll get even more butthurt. :P
Quote from nav on July 20th, 2018, 08:22 AM
There are calculations available to give an estimated mean velocity but only locally. The far field becomes a problem because we don't know if our sector of visible Universe is twisting on a larger scale, we don't know the true size of the Universe which is a massive factor. Because we don't know the exact size of the Universe then any velocity calculations can only be taken relative to the data which we already know locally. For all we know we could already be traveling at close to C or we could be traveling 10x C, there is no way of knowing.No, you're off you're rocker again, it was done live on European TV, Youtube it.I never mentioned outbound Electrons, I mentioned an 'absorbing Electron'
And free electrons cannot absorb photons. If they could, energy and momentum could not be simultaneously conserved. So yet again, you're wrong... and you refuse to admit you're wrong... as you attempt to lecture someone far more knowledgable about quantum mechanics... and as you're proven wrong time and time again, you get more and more butthurt. Now you're up to ad hominems and insults... what's next, Nav? :P
Quote from nav on July 20th, 2018, 08:22 AM
OK we are not getting know where with this because all you are doing is copying massive chunks of Wiki onto the forum.
Forget Wiki for a minute and let me see if I can make the real Cycle think for himself, think objectively that is. So I'm going to ask you a very simple question, you don't need a fifteen page long reply with 700 mathematical equations, you just need a quick reply in one sentence. Here goes:- We all know by now that during Quantum entanglement, two sub atomic particles which are paired or entangled which ever way you wish to explain it, each particle replicates certain characteristics of it's paired particle. We also know that putting distance between the two paired particles has no effect and the pairing continues. Most people on the forum know about the strong force and the weak force concerning gravity and what that entails but could you describe the medium in which the two paired particles communicate? Remember, just a few words.
Simple. The quantumly-entangled particles don't communicate. Your lack of knowledge of the subject leads you to believe they do, but they don't. I told you last time you were schooled on this topic about the No-Communication Theorem, Nav... why haven't you educated yourself?

Are there any more topics about which you wish to display your inaptitude, Nav? :P
Re: Abstract workshop challenge: Travel to the stars in no time at all
« Reply #54,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from nav on July 20th, 2018, 01:53 PM
C is the differential between matter that moves through time and matter that does not. C is not a velocity as such but rather a comparison and if you take Einstein down to his exact wording and read his white paper correctly then people would understand this. C is a time differential even if you misinterpret what Einstein said it still is a time differential. It is the same both ways.
Why do you think that light never exceeds 186,000 mps even if your spaceship is traveling at a million miles per hour in the same direction of the light beam? It does so because the light is a trail not a beam. The confusion lies with the none linear movement of time referenced with the linear function of Photons, which is a confusing issue because time is not a visible entity and light is.
No, c is not a "time differential". I look forward to seeing your equations as proof.

The plane-wave speed of light in vacuum is not "a comparison" or a ratio... it is a universal physical constant.

Your confusion lies in the fact that you've completely misunderstood the rigorously mathematically derived and empirically observed effect of time dilation, Nav.

You've also confused c (the speed of light) and v (the velocity of a fundamental particle), which can be expressed as a ratio (v/c).

Since you seem to be so very confused, I won't attempt to confuse you further by mentioning phase velocity, group velocity and front velocity... you'd be forced to blather out more silliness about which you'd promptly be proven wrong, you'd get even more butthurt, you'd stomp your feet in frustration and bleat out more insults... no, I'll be the bigger man and just not bring up phase velocity, group velocity and front velocity so as not to confuse you any further. You can thank me after you've calmed down a bit and you're thinking more clearly. :-D

Are there any more topics about which you wish to display your inaptitude, Nav? :P
Re: Abstract workshop challenge: Travel to the stars in no time at all
Quote from nav on July 20th, 2018, 12:41 PM
One last thing: What or who is stopping us traveling among the stars?
-The people that have tried to determine the size of the Universe with a finite number. The Universe is only as big as you let it be, control the binary system of the atomic structure and you control the Universe.
Nicely word-souped, Nav. :P

Our cosmological particle horizon as determined by the Planck satellite data is ~45.34 billion light years in radius, Nav. But I look forward to your proof that one can somehow control a single atom and thus traverse the universe. I'm always up for a good fictional story. Will there be unicorns in your story, Nav? :D
Re: Abstract workshop challenge: Travel to the stars in no time at all
« Reply #56,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from nav on July 20th, 2018, 12:09 PM
Your question is, who was right, Schrödinger or Einstein, myself or Cycle?
Of course, you do realize that merely by determining the frequency of the emitted photon (notwithstanding that a free electron can neither absorb nor emit photons, but we'll dismiss that as yet another example of your inaptitude), and the frequency of the captured photon then comparing the two, the person could absolutely determine his speed relative to the universe merely by comparing his speed relative to the emitter (which, in your example, he's in the frame of the emitter), assuming the universe itself is not expanding or moving... which, given your example of an infinite universe, would be indeterminate anyway.

If he had three such emitter/receiver setups (x, y and z coordinates), he could determine with exceeding accuracy his exact velocity (speed and direction) relative to the universe.

Relativistic Doppler Shift is a thing, after all.

Matt Watts

Re: Abstract workshop challenge: Travel to the stars in no time at all
As stated by W.B. Smith, there is only ONE absolute in the entire universe.  That absolute is spin.  A particle, an object, a beam, whatever can rotate about any axis and when it returns to its starting position, that is one revolution.  Everything else, time, distance, speed, acceleration, everything, must be derived from spin.  If it is not, then it must be relative to some other object, which as Nav has highlighted makes it an unknown.

Our concept of time only has a partial connection with spin based on entropy and is therefore also relative, not absolute.  There lies the problem when using time as any sort of reference, it's only relative to something else.  So you can guess what that means when we speak of the speed of light, mass of matter, coulombs, amps, voltage, you name it, it's relative to something else that is also an unknown.

You want to fly to the stars?

Might be a good idea to figure out where in the he11 you are first before you attempt to move in any direction.

Lynx

Re: Abstract workshop challenge: Travel to the stars in no time at all
Quote from nav on July 20th, 2018, 12:09 PM
Now, you're really getting to grips with this but it gets a little more complex and by this time Einstein and Schrödinger were really tearing lumps out of each other concerning all of this.
Basically Schrödinger was saying that Einstein was an idiot. The reason he said this is because he couldn't get through to Einstein that introducing a measuring device or a human being into a paradox actually changes the outcome of the paradox just like the double slit experiment does. He also made it quite clear that all the mathematical equations that you introduce to explain the visible Universe were not actually Universal equations but were 'human equations' used to define the shape and size of the Universe and that all Einstein was actually doing was trying to mathematically calculate an infinite law into a finite understandable number but all that Schrödinger ever did was to remind Einstein that when all life disappears from the Universe those equations are not worth a carrot.
We move on.
Question 5, the final question.
The Photon has no rest mass which makes it different from the Electron, Einstein actually did come up with a brilliant piece of work and this part is overlooked but I can assure you he wrote it. He concluded that in space when a Photon is emitted from an Electron the defining difference between the two particles is that only matter is affected by time. Because Photon's have no rest mass or are not 'heavy' then time has no effect on them and they are left behind.
This is why a Photon has no acceleration curve, when you drop a brick from a moving train, if it hits the ground and sticks like glue, the apparent velocity of the train is the differential between the two and seeing as the train is already at a steady velocity then there need be no acceleration curve for the parting of companies. Photons do the exact same, the are emitted from an Electron and the Electron carries on through time while the Photon remains, which makes the speed of time 186,000 miles per second relative ONLY to the dearly departed Photon.
Quite agreeable don't you think but here is the last question.
Cycle and I are much like Einstein and Schrödinger, Cycle is trying to explain the Universe through some kind of finite formula which he invented himself or borrowed from Wiki, as for myself i'm like Schrödinger, I see things objectively and think into the deep side of things and believe that the Universe is not as we see it but something of an unknown that is unquantied just like the marbles because once you take life from the Universe then what do you have left?
Your question is, who was right, Schrödinger or Einstein, myself or Cycle?
Given that we're still stuck here I'd say we really don't know the very intricate details about these things we call energy, matter, photons, time, space, dimensions, gravity, etc.
All Man made concepts which together with their Man defined physical properties really can't be said to be true given the very poor outcome of it all, I.E top scientists around the World are still trying to use matter and/or energy to gain mometum for a spaceship which never will let us reach the stars, atleast not the ones being longer than about 100 light years away from here at best.
So by question all the, by human beings, defined physical facts there are we'd stand a far better chance for some real change and with that I mean, amongst other things, to be able to reach stars in this galaxy of ours in virtually no time at all, something which will be absolutely necessary for humanity to do before we annihilate ourselves.
The thing is to know what and how to pose questions on these things, so for the time being I'd like to say question everything, turn and twist them/it around silly in the hopes of finally getting someone to ask questions which are more like stating new interesting theoretical anomalies rather than leaving everything unanswered.
That way I'd like to say I wish more people were asking questions the Schrödinger way as soon as new discoveries are made instead of blindly holyfying them to become new absolute truths which only serves the tragic task of keeping us here on this small planet a little bit longer.
Re: Abstract workshop challenge: Travel to the stars in no time at all
Quote from nav on July 20th, 2018, 12:41 PM
One last thing: What or who is stopping us traveling among the stars?
-The people that have tried to determine the size of the Universe with a finite number. The Universe is only as big as you let it be, control the binary system of the atomic structure and you control the Universe.
Couldn't agree more :thumbsup:
Re: Abstract workshop challenge: Travel to the stars in no time at all
Quote from nav on July 20th, 2018, 01:53 PM
C is the differential between matter that moves through time and matter that does not. C is not a velocity as such but rather a comparison and if you take Einstein down to his exact wording and read his white paper correctly then people would understand this. C is a time differential even if you misinterpret what Einstein said it still is a time differential. It is the same both ways.
Why do you think that light never exceeds 186,000 mps even if your spaceship is traveling at a million miles per hour in the same direction of the light beam? It does so because the light is a trail not a beam. The confusion lies with the none linear movement of time referenced with the linear function of Photons, which is a confusing issue because time is not a visible entity and light is.
Thank you for this, most interesting.
Please keep more like this coming Nav, it's important.
Re: Abstract workshop challenge: Travel to the stars in no time at all
Quote from kenssurplus on July 20th, 2018, 02:54 PM
Lynx,

I am very reluctant to join the conversation.  But as this topic was one of my most favorite to think about many years ago, I will throw in some ideas.

If we are constrained by using more energy than the earth could possibly muster to travel with your conditions conventionally, how about we try unconventional methods?

If we build a ball and step inside, obviously with a supply of air and necessities, the rate of time flow outside vs inside is equal unless something is done to change that.  If we use some of the processes explored here :

12 Experiments on Change of the Direction and the Rate of Time:   Dr. Vadim A. Chernobrov

Then by means of speeding up, slowing down, stopping, or even reversing the flow of time, one could end up anywhere that time had any influence by simply triangulating rate and density of time, distance and direction your destination has traveled, distance and direction your starting location has traveled, using temporary leapfrog sites to slingshot-alter the course to intercept your destination,  taking into consideration any time compression effects such as nearby black holes, stars, and other celestial bodies, along with any expansion of the fabric of space, factoring in the general speed up (or slowdown) of time universally,  you should end up somewhere fun anyway even if you did miss your target. :D O:-)
Many thanks :thumbsup:
Re: Abstract workshop challenge: Travel to the stars in no time at all
Quote from Matt Watts on July 20th, 2018, 05:24 PM
As stated by W.B. Smith, there is only ONE absolute in the entire universe.  That absolute is spin.  A particle, an object, a beam, whatever can rotate about any axis and when it returns to its starting position, that is one revolution.  Everything else, time, distance, speed, acceleration, everything, must be derived from spin.  If it is not, then it must be relative to some other object, which as Nav has highlighted makes it an unknown.

Our concept of time only has a partial connection with spin based on entropy and is therefore also relative, not absolute.  There lies the problem when using time as any sort of reference, it's only relative to something else.  So you can guess what that means when we speak of the speed of light, mass of matter, coulombs, amps, voltage, you name it, it's relative to something else that is also an unknown.

You want to fly to the stars?

Might be a good idea to figure out where in the he11 you are first before you attempt to move in any direction.
I'd like to agree with you here, that everything is based on a spin, as a matter of fact, for the time being I'd like to set it in stone and use it in still to come new questions on this subject of travelling to the stars.
As for an example I could say that spinning would mimic waves as the whatever is travelling through space and only when the is at "standstill" the could be said to be "nothing but" spinning.

Cycle

Re: Abstract workshop challenge: Travel to the stars in no time at all
« Reply #63,  »Last edited by Cycle
You might want to read this, while especially noting the names Akimov and Shipov, who are authors in the PDF file you linked to:
Quote from Cycle on April 5th, 2018, 08:59 PM
Quote from Piero on March 30th, 2018, 01:51 PM
Veyi instructive speech  of Trevor Osborne ( :edit: actually David Yurth)

https://youtu.be/dUv35CPi-mQ
Wow, this video was comical to watch. Honestly, I can't tell you how many times I guffawed out loud at the blatant half-truths, twisted timelines, conflations and outright untruths David Yurth told.

This video is a perfect example of why one should do one's own research lest one be led down the path to metaphysicalism. Just because something has been stated, that doesn't make it true. Question everything.

Any time someone mentions Descartes (as the video does in its opening paragraph), they're implying Descartes's Method of Cartesian Doubt, which are valid on their face, but generally are used by pseudoscience advocates to bolster their ideas... a form of co-opting the precursor to the scientific method and attempting to insinuate that the pseudoscientist is using the scientific method. They are not.

A plea to Descartes and his method of hyperbolic doubt is a plea to the fallibility of sensory input... in other words, the video is asking you to suspend what you know, suspend common sense, and just believe what you're being told. That's not a good start.

There is a reason we use the scientific method to mathematically model the universe... because it prevents veering off into the brambles of metaphysicalism and pseudoscience, as this video does.

The mere fact that we can mathematically model the universe (to ever-increasing levels of accuracy) shows that the universe cannot be "conscious", as Yurth is attempting to claim... consciousness implies free will, the universe simply doing whatever it wants to do... which could not be mathematically modeled.

At time 10:29, the patent he mentions isn't by Ted McGrath, it's by Terrence McGrath.

That patent has nothing to do with what the video is claiming... the words "torsion", "y-bias" nor even "bias" aren't mentioned even once in the patent. The patent is for a QFT 6D supersymmetric model of the atom, combining the Standard Model and General Relativity to provide information in real time and space on bonding, force interactions and atomic substructures within the atom (ie: it extends General Relativity to the atomic scale), in which the atom is quantized with discrete potentiated 4-D spaces that are the result of four-wave intersections.

Yurth is attempting to co-opt actual science and conflate it to his "torsion wave" and "y-bias" pseudoscience.
----------
At time 11:30, David Yurth states that the Standard Model provides no causal explanation for the manifestation of invariant mass. This is blatantly untrue. I've discussed same on this very forum. The origin of invariant mass is a product of the Higgs field setting up standing waves of energy, which are still 'pinging' back and forth off the Higgs field at the speed of light, but which are fixed to our frame of reference (the primary difference between matter and energy being the frame of reference). We've known for a long time that we can convert matter to energy, and the recent three-photon experiment shows we can also convert massless energy to invariant-mass matter. It merely requires figuring out how to establish the standing waves from energy, and we're figuring that out.
----------
At time 12:20, David Yurth states that the Standard Model provides no causal explanation for the manifestation of magnetism. Again, blatantly untrue. I've discussed same extensively on this very forum. I trust you can look that up for yourself. Further, he demonstrates his misunderstanding of magnetism by stating that {paraphrased} "only 6 elements of the Periodic Table exhibit magnetism". Again, untrue. All invariant-mass matter exhibits magnetism (usually diamagnetism, although certain atomic arrangements override the underlying diamagnetism with ferromagnetism), as I've discussed several times on this very forum. Magnetism is, after all, one of the underlying reasons that invariant-mass matter persists... without it, invariant-mass matter could not exist.
----------
At time 13:30, David Yurth states that Humphrey Maris "is splitting electrons", which he claims is something the Standard Model doesn't support... yes and no. Quantum Field Theory predicts this. Refer back to the above comment on the three-photon experiment, and the ramifications of invariant-mass matter being comprised thoroughly of energy in the form of standing waves... all they've done is split off some of the energy of which electrons are comprised, partially "deconstructing" the electron back into its energetic components. Maris and his team have written a paper which brings their results in complete accord with quantum theory.
----------
At time 13:55, David Yurth states that the Standard Model denies that what he calls "subquarks" can exist... again, blatantly untrue. They're called preons. They were conceived of in 1974, and have had no emperical substantation whatsoever to date (likely due to quark confinement), which is why they're not mentioned much in relation to the Standard Model. Fundamental building blocks of nature are indivisible bits of matter that are ungenerated and indestructible. Quarks are not truly indestructible, since some can decay into other quarks. Thus, on fundamental grounds, quarks are not themselves fundamental building blocks but must be composed of other, fundamental quantities, what are known as preons.

This goes back to QFT... nothing is really "fundamental" and "indivisible" except for a single quanta of energy. Quanta of energy combine into standing waves which make up invariant-mass matter.
----------
At time 14:30, David Yurth claims that Murray Gell-Mann was the "MIT resident senior physicist". Gell-Mann went to MIT as a student to earn a PhD in physics in 1951, then did his postdoctoral at the Institute for Advanced Study (in Princeton, NJ) in 1951, then was a visiting research professor at the University of Illinois (in Urbana–Champaign) from 1952 to 1953. He was a visiting associate professor at Columbia University and an associate professor at the University of Chicago in 1954–55 before moving to the California Institute of Technology, where he taught from 1955 until he retired in 1993 to work at his Santa Fe Institute, which he founded in 1984. He continues to work there to this day. David Yurth was corrected at time 16:05 by one of his audience members, who then hand-waved away the mistake without further questions about any of the other "facts" being promulgated. Notice the literal nail-biting by David Yurth upon being challenged.
----------
At time 14:39, he claims Murray Gell-Mann received a Nobel Prize in 1986 for his "verification of 3 kinds of quarks"... Gell-Mann was awarded a Nobel Prize in physics in 1969 "for his contributions and discoveries concerning the classification of elementary particles and their interactions".
https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1969/index.html

Further (in reference to his time 13:55 and onward statements), there are several papers published by FermiLab staff concerning what David Yurth calls "subquarks", dating as far back as the 1970s. He's relying upon people being too lazy and/or uninformed to do their own research, I suppose.
----------
At time 17:03, David Yurth claims that Ilya Prigogine received a Nobel Prize "in the late 80s to early 90s" for his paper titled "Dissipative Structures"... in reality, Prigogine received the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1977 "for his contributions to non-equilibrium thermodynamics, particularly the theory of dissipative structures". Prigogine discovered that importation and dissipation of energy into open chemical systems could reverse the maximization of entropy rule imposed by the second law of thermodynamics. David Yurth goes on to state that Prigogine couldn't answer how it was that at the same time that we see cosmological regions exhibiting annihilation, we also see the building of cosmological structure. This was David Yurth's way of arguing against cosmic expansion, and in so doing, he argues against self-organization at any level, and thus against the whole of reality (examples of self-organization can be found in crystallization, thermal convection of fluids, chemical oscillation, animal swarming, and artificial and biological neural networks). Except in his Nobel lecture, Prigogine explains how thermodynamic systems far from equilibrium can have drastically different behavior from systems close to equilibrium. Near equilibrium, the local equilibrium hypothesis applies and typical thermodynamic quantities such as free energy and entropy can be defined locally. One can assume linear relations between the generalized flux and forces of the system. After efforts to extend such results to systems far from equilibrium, it was found that they do not hold in this regime and opposite results were obtained. So David Yurth has used a study which shows exactly what David Yurth claims it doesn't show, and attempts to prove his point with it, either through disingenuity or simply not having read and understood the paper in question.
https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1977/
----------
At 18:25, David Yurth states that "Per Bak worked at Berkhaven {phonetically spelled from his pronunciation} National Laboratory until they expelled him for heresy"... Per Bak (working at Brookhaven National Laboratory) was the progenitor of the Bak–Tang–Wiesenfeld model for sand pile self-organization based upon the critical-state least-action principle. He was merely putting to mathematics the natural action of a pile of sand grains. In his book, he writes:
Quote
I joined a small group of condensed-matter theorists as a postdoctoral fellow in 1974-1976, coming from Denmark, where I had graduated from the Technical University.

After the first Brookhaven years, I returned to the University of Copenhagen. Among many other subjects, I became interested in the physics of simple systems with chaotic behavior.
So he began working on self-organizing chaotic behavior of simple systems after he left the temporary postdoctoral position at Brookhaven, and he was working on self-organizing chaotic behavior of simple systems at the University of Copenhagen before he went back to Brookhaven in a permanent position...
Quote
In 1983 I gladly accepted a permanent position in the group. Our group at Brookhaven is a shoestring operation compared with the large machine groups, with only two senior scientists, a couple of postdoctoral research associates, and a number of short- and long-term visitors.
Ah, so Per Bak wasn't "expelled for heresy" as David Yurth claims... in fact he was offered a permanent position at Brookhaven after having worked there prior, and in fact his work was accepted and rigorously studied by many scientists around the world (he is one of the world's most-cited physicists, after all, and self-organized criticality has become an established part of many scientific disciplines). In 1996, his excellent work earned him a professorship in theoretical physics at the Neils Bohr Institute in his home town of Copenhagen, which is why he left Brookhaven National Laboratory of his own accord.

But you'll note that in arguing for Bak's work, David Yurth is arguing against his claim that the universe could not have spontaneously self-organized (see Ilya Prigogine above). So he's contradicting himself.
----------
At time 27:25, David Yurth states that E. T. Whittaker wrote a paper in 1903 which is no longer available on the internet, insinuating that it's been erased from history for nefarious purposes.

Oh look, here it is:
https://londmathsoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1112/plms/s2-1.1.367
And here:

Proponents of "torsion waves" claim that Whittaker showed that all EM fields and waves can be decomposed into two scalar potential functions. But this way of describing EM is not Lorentz covariant and doesn't even treat all the spatial dimensions the same. Further, it's difficult to incorporate these scalar fields into a Lagrangian (covariant or not). What Whittaker actually shows is that you can write the six total components in terms of derivatives of only two scalar fields. He only reformulated Maxwell's equations. It's the same as saying that the electrostatic field can be derived from a single scalar field, electric potential.
----------
At time 28:35, David Yurth states "within months after Whittaker published his paper in Physics Review, Albert Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for Brownian movement".

Whittaker published his paper in 1903 in Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, not in Physics Review. The Physics Review journal was created in 1970 by Peter Adams.

Einstein received the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics "for his services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect", not for Brownian motion.

In 1903, Einstein was still working at the Patent Office in Bern, and he had just begun the year prior to formulate his Special Theory of Relativity, which he would publish in 1905. His General Theory of Relativity would come along later, in 1916.
----------
As for Yurth's claim that if we could just increase frequency to "5 nanoseconds" (that translates to 200 MHz), we could drive energy flow without any electron flow, and his claim that no one knows this except himself... our computer CPUs operate at upwards of 4 GHz, which would be 0.25 nanoseconds... so according to him, there should be no electron flow in a CPU. No electron flow means no resistance... so throw away your CPU heatsink, you don't need it anymore.

V = v sin(w) t
where:  V is total voltage; v is maximum voltage; w = 2 pi f; f is frequency; t is time;

So:  V/v = sin(2 pi f)t  - AND -  2 pi f t = arcsin(V / v)

Therefore:  f = arcsin(V / v) / 6.284 t

That's the well-known relationship between voltage and frequency.

Of course, raising frequency increases the skin effect of conductors, decreasing their ampacity... so there's that.

And of course, high-frequency requires impedance matching to prevent reflected waves from back-propagating... so there's that, too.

And does it even need to be said that at high frequencies, the wave (because at these frequencies, conductors act more as wave guides rather than conductors) can couple with the air, propagating a signal and wasting energy?

I could go on throughout the entire video, showing that he heaps half-truth upon blatant falsehood upon conflated relationship upon twisted timeline upon out-of-context factoid like some pseudo-labcoated Gumpian character, but you get the idea.

If he can't even get basic facts correct, why should anyone expect his science to be any more correct?

Let's address his science for a bit (PDF attached by Matt Watts (http://open-source-energy.org/?action=dlattach;topic=3224.0;attach=17916)).

First, what happened to Donald Ayres as co-author, given that this paper is merely a rehash of his 2005 paper? It's bad form to remove contributing authors, it speaks toward some form of dishonesty and attempt at credit-stealing.

Second, in the opening paragraph, he states:
Quote
To be adequate, any universally applicable physical model must also accommodate the contemporaneous interaction between Descartes' 'physical stuff' and 'spirit stuff' with equal cogency and grace.
"Spirit stuff"? Metaphysicalism, therefore not science.

And in his last-page summation:
Quote
Consciousness is speciated and individuated in the same way, according to the same organizing principles, as Time, matter, light and all other aspects of Descartes' 'physical stuff' found in L4.
Oh really? Then why aren't all living things equally "conscious"? I think that I shall never see, a tree as conscious as little ol' me... is he implying that plants are "conscious"? Because he does imply at the end of this paper that the universe itself is conscious.

This entire paper is misappropriated science taken out of context for the express purpose of claiming that metaphysicalism can be tied into actual science.

You'll note that Yurth finds himself unable to get his papers peer-reviewed and published in mainstream journals, nor even able to get them onto a pre-print server... he is instead forced to go to open-access servers for publication. That says something important that everyone should pay attention to... namely that his 'science' is so laughable that it doesn't even merit consideration for mainstream publication because peer-reviewing it would be a waste of time.

Yurth states:
Quote
Defenders of the model insist, and the standard model proclaims, that four primary field effects pre-dated the Big Bang event and caused the eventual outcome to dynamically evolve over some indefinite period of time to become the observable Cosmos."
Wrong. At the point of singularity, energy levels were so high that all fundamental forces were symmetrical. Only after cosmic expansion had begun, allowing the universe to cool via expansion and therefore energy levels to fall, did the fundamental forces symmetry break. I've discussed this at length on this forum.

He goes on to state:
Quote
Indeed, it is a dictum of the Big Bang model that the four primary a priori field effects which controlled its evolution are the only naturally occurring field effects that operate universally in the cosmos.
Simply untrue... we know of the Strong, Weak, EM (you'll note the electromagnetic fundamental force hasn't symmetry-broken as the other forces did, because universal energy level is not low enough for it to do so... although we can force it to symmetry-break by cooling... that's what superconductivity is, after all, merely the EM fundamental force symmetry-breaking) and gravity simply because we can measure them. That in no way precludes the existence of other fundamental forces. We simply haven't been able to detect them yet.

It should be said that time is now considered a fundamental force, and another potential fundamental force (dubbed the protophobic force) was detected in May 2016. This new and as-yet unproven force exclusively interacts between electrons and neutrons within a very small range, mediated by what are dubbed protophobic bosons, thus making it extremely difficult to detect. But it would explain most of the remaining anomalies.
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.071803

Further, researchers are able to increase energy levels sufficiently to recombine the EM and the weak fundamental forces into the Electroweak force which prevailed in the earliest moments of the universe, lending empirical credence to the theory of symmetry breaking of the fundamental forces. Not to mention that we can force EM symmetry-breaking as mentioned above.

On page 2, he argues against the Principle of Locality (but what he's really arguing against is relativistic causality so he can claim his "torsion waves" travel at a billion times the speed of light), which states that for an action at one point to have an influence at another point, something in the space between the points, such as a field, must mediate the action. What does he replace fields with? Magic?

He claims that the Standard Model cannot account for scalar non-local effects... except the Aharonov-Bohm Effect is a scalar non-local effect, and quantum mechanics easily explains it... or didn't he realize that quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, quantum electrodynamics, stochastic electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics extend General Relativity into the respective arenas of particle theory, field theory, electromagnetism and subatomic particle theory while taking into account all the phenomena he rails about?
Quote from Yakir Aharonov, Daniel Rohrlich, Quantum Paradoxes: Quantum Theory for the Perplexed (2005) p. 87.
Consider the scalar Aharonov-Bohm effect... the change in the electrons' interference pattern is a nonlocal effect of the electric field in the capacitor. This nonlocal effect is action at a distance! The electric field, acting at a distance on the electrons, yields a measurable effect (the change in the electrons' interference pattern). So quantum nonlocality does permit action at a distance. There is a constraint similar to the one we guessed. It is called (relativistic) causality. The principle of causality states that there is no way to send a message faster than light. We do not expect nonrelativistic quantum mechanics to obey this principle, because in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics there is no maximum speed. However... Nonlocal quantum correlations obey causality, because they are useless for sending messages. The Aharonov-Bohm effect, too, obeys causality: ...the change in the electrons' interference pattern - lies within the future light cone of the field. In each example we find that quantum nonlocality obeys causality.
So Yurth's entire premise has been shown to be fallacious... quantum mechanics et. al. does account for nonlocal effects, except that they must obey relativistic causality. In Yurth's universe, causality is broken, which begs the question:

If Yurth claims his "torsion waves" can violate causality, then why hasn't he used that to become the richest and most powerful person in history? Why hasn't he warned people of impending danger, either in the past or the future, given that "torsion waves" would allow him to communicate forward and backward through time? Why hasn't he looked forward in time to solve all scientific questions still remaining? If he could actually communicate through time via his "torsion waves", we'd see him publishing a plethora of papers on a wide variety of topics, each one rigorously proven via mathematics... yet we see only his "y-bias" and "torsion wave" papers, none of which are taken seriously by science... strange, that.

Yurth goes on to claim:
Quote
As a matter of practicality, the authors have opted to define Consciousness in terms which attempt to embrace both scientific and metaphysical conceits. For the purposes of this discussion, consciousness is defined as "...an underlying, primary field comprised of undifferentiated information which is characterized by infinite potential, operating in a manner which is self-referential in all-where/all-time at all scales.
So he's claiming that the universe itself is conscious. That's not woo-woo. Not at all. The universe is not conscious... it merely obeys rules (the same rules which we can so accurately mathematically model) which some attempt to anthropomorphize. If the universe were conscious, it would have free will, meaning it could act counter to those rules, meaning we could not mathematically model it.

You might want to do a bit more research on David Yurth...

The URL included in the description of the video you linked to:
davidgyurth.com

That's a dead site, by the way... no content. Pulled down some time after 21 Oct 2016. And doing a search for any content of that site (even Google-archived):
"* site:davidgyurth.com"
gives zero results. In one of his videos, he mentioned he was having "problems" (but didn't elaborate)... so they must have been pretty catastrophic problems to pull his site and cleanse it from the search engines.

The Wayback Machine gives results:
https://web.archive.org/web/20161021121453/http://davidgyurth.com:80/

https://savicorp.com/dynoplug/45-4x4-dynoplug-kit-d-2016white.html
That looks an awful lot like a combination of a Pulstar plug's electrical guts with Robert Krupa's Firestorm plug-tip setup, only recessed into the plug. Yeah, I've done quite a lot of research on spark plugs... Pulstar rocks, but you'd best have a good ignition coil and wires.

https://whois.icann.org/en/lookup?name=davidgyurth.com
Centerville UT

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/894265/Inventor-gets-year-in-jail-for-scam.html
Quote
David Gordon Yurth, 56, could be out of jail within three months if he gets a job to help repay his victims. Yurth was sentenced to three zero- to 5-year prison terms to run consecutively, but those were suspended and he was given a year in jail.

He was sentenced Jan. 31 as part of a plea bargain for three counts of attempted securities fraud, all third-degree felonies. He originally had been charged with several more crimes, including racketeering and securities fraud. Yurth sold stock in P.V.I. Telecom Inc. in Salt Lake County.
That was back on 08 Feb 2002... so perhaps he was caught scamming again?

http://torsionfraud.narod.ru/akimov_shipov_torsion_field/Torsion_Fields_David_Yurth.htm
Quote
http://www.webring.org/l/rd?ring=skeptic;id=112;url=http%3A%2F%2Ftorsionfraud%2Enarod%2Eru%2F
Quote
Foreign enterprises are being swindled! - warns the Russian Academy of Sciences. A group of Russian swindlers are seeking investors for their pseudoscientific projects based on what they call "torsion field" and "torsion technologies". The pseudoscientists promise to quickly build "torsion flying saucers", "torsion communications", and "torsion weapons".

Chairman of the Commission Against Falsification of Scientific Research, RAS Academician, Dr. Edward P. Kruglyakov: "From time to time Akimov gets caught in fraud. For example, in 1996 he stated, "The first flying saucer will soon be tested at Korolev Rocket and Space Corporation ENERGIA. Its principle of propulsion is completely new - there is no use of a reactive force. If the tests are successful there is a real prospect of a conversion of all transportation, automobiles, trains, etc. to a new principle without the use of internal combustion engines" ("Chisty Mir [A Clean World Newspaper]", N4, 1996).

And here is a comment of V.P. Legostayev, the First Vice President and First Deputy Chief Designer of ENERGIA: "ENERGIA has not been working on, is not working on, and does not expect to be working on the development of 'flying saucers' based on a torsion field generator".

Why am I describing this adventure in so much detail? The problem is, although there is not a single supporter of A.E. Akimov in the Physics Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences and although the Physics Section of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences has harshly condemned the activity of A.E. Akimov and his henchman G.I. Shipov in the Physical Sciences Branch of the RAS, the torsion fraud is seizing newer and newer bridgeheads. Under the supervision of Mr. Akimov several closed stock companies have been formed which in recent years have gathered a harvest not only inside the country but also in the international arena." (From Report made by Academician E.P.Kruglyakov at the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences Meeting, May 27, 2003.)
Apparently the 'scientists' involved were faking their data to continue to get government funding... and were caught by several other scientists. They were fired and their labs closed.

He states that human consciousness can cause particle path to alter, then goes on to state that particle path can be traced... which is it? Either human consciousness can cause particle path to alter (metaphysicalism), or it can't (determinism)... every scientific study of the topic to date nulls the metaphysicalism hypothesis. The most recent empirical results confirm determinism (reference the newest double-slit experiment, discussed in my prior posts).

Trevor Osborne's response?
Quote
You need to understand the metaphysics of how this works, very simple in essence but paradoxically extremely complex too.
Oh, the red flags in that statement... first, he states that if people could only understand the convoluted metaphysics, they'd be set... but metaphysics is inherently not understandable... it's a hodge-podge mishmash of whatever 'sciencey-sounding' stuff its proponents want it to be, often contradicting itself (as we see here). Then he repeats the "simple but complex" meme seen in so many charlatanic hobby theories. Remember Ken Wheeler's "simplex but not simple" statements as his attempt at hand-waving away any challenges to his oddscience hobby theory, now thoroughly debunked?

You'll note that metaphysics has no basis in science... it's a throwback to the days of mysticism, a fallacious attempt at explaining the universe in a non-mathematical way because math equals work... you have to use your brain to do math, whereas with metaphysicalism, you just have to spout whatever intuitively "feels" right (while co-opting and conflating whatever real science you can get away with), no matter how pseudo-science or anti-science it actually is.

David G. Yurth is the principal inventor and co-founder of Nova Institute of Technology. In that capacity, he's stated the following on page 80 of the following PDF:
Quote
Zirconium, in its pristine state, is essentially transparent to neutron emissions. This means that the neutrons emitted by the encapsulated fuel rods pass through the zirconium unabated.

The reason the fuel rods have to be taken out of circulation and replaced with new ones is not because the fuel material gets used up, in the conventional sense. Instead, the transparency of the zirconium to neutron emissions eventually becomes hampered. This happens because the continuous bombardment of the zirconium by high-velocity neutrons atomically alters the crystalline structure of the fuel rods themselves. Eventually, instead of allowing the neutrons to pass unimpeded through the containment rod materials, the fuel rods themselves become very unstable and dangerous.
Ummm... no.

This should be his area of expertise. He's purportedly worked on a project which would remediate nuclear waste (as Director of Science and Technology for Nuclear Remediation Technologies, Inc.), and he wrote about nuclear processes in his latest book. Fortunately, nuclear physics just so happens to be my area of expertise.

The neutrons are not "emitted by the encapsulated fuel rods" (mainly because the fuel is not in the rods), they're emitted by the fuel modules surrounding the zirconium-clad control rods (zirconium clad to protect the control rod material from corrosion). The fuel modules are stationary, the control rods can be driven into or out of channels in the fuel modules. The control rods are designed to absorb thermal neutron flux and thus control the fission reaction. If what he said were true, then fast neutrons would be hitting the zirconium cladding from the inside, definitely leading to embrittlement in short order... but thermalized neutrons are hitting the control rods from the outside, reflected from the neutron-thermalizing light water and virgin polyethylene shielding surrounding the fuel modules. That's why they call them "thermal-neutron light-water moderated reactors", after all. Fast neutrons don't contribute to the fission process, only thermal neutrons do. And zirconium is nearly transparent to thermal neutrons.

The reason the fuel modules need to be replaced is due to the fact that the fuel can no longer sustain sufficient fission reactions to overcome the xenon poisoning (which builds up in all nuclear reactors over time, and which absorbs neutrons). Thus the reactor can no longer sustain criticality when xenon poisoning builds up if the fuel is depleted... in direct contradiction to what Yurth asserted.

The zirconium cladding on the control rods will not "become very unstable and dangerous" due to neutron embrittlement as he claims. Zirconium is unique as it's the only metal that is nearly transparent to thermal neutron flux... it has a very low cross-section of absorption of thermal neutrons. It will eventually undergo fast-neutron embrittlement, but it takes decades, long past the useful life of a reactor. I worked on the oldest (at the time) operating nuclear power plant in the world... in use for 35 years without refueling or control rod replacement. At the end, the fuel was so depleted that xenon poisoning caused the reactor to only sustain criticality for a very short time (slightly more than an hour) before it went sub-critical again, even with the control rods fully withdrawn... it was that depleted. We'd wrung just about every usable joule of heat out of the U-235 fuel. The reactor had no zirconium-cladding control rod neutron-embrittlement problems.

But zirconium is vulnerable to hydride embrittlement... usually a result of overheating the core and dissociating the water.

http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/43/063/43063110.pdf
Quote
When hydrogen concentration exceeds the terminal solid solubility, the excess hydrogen precipitates as zirconium hydride (ZrH2) platelets or needles. Zirconium alloy components can fail by hydride cracking if they contain large flaws and are highly stressed. Zirconium alloys are susceptible to a mechanism for crack initiation and propagation termed delayed hydride cracking (DHC).
So the zirconium cladding on the control rods can develop micro-cracks as a result of hydride embrittlement, which propagate into larger cracks. This can cause the control rod to get stuck as it's raised or lowered. This means you lose control of the fission process because you lose control of the physical mechanism by which fission is controlled. This problem is largely mitigated by the 'skewed-divergent' arrangement of the control rods... even if one control rod sticks, you won't have any regions in the fuel modules which can sustain criticality once the rest of the control rods are driven in.

Yurth has conflated Bohr's Principle of Complementarity to metaphysicalism.

Bohr's Principle of Complementarity states that objects have certain pairs of complementary properties which cannot all be observed or measured simultaneously, such as:
Energy and duration
Entanglement and coherence
Position and momentum
Spin on different axes
Value of a field and its localized change in value
Wave and particle-related properties

The torsion tensor is a quantity in general relativity, and played a role in Einstein–Cartan theory (a flawed classical theory of gravity which has been overshadowed by other alternatives like the Brans–Dicke theory because torsion tensor adds no predictive benefit, while its equations are practically intractable. Since the Einstein–Cartan theory is purely classical, it also does not fully address the issue of quantum gravity, nor that of gravitoelectromagnetism. In the Einstein–Cartan theory, the Dirac equation becomes nonlinear and therefore the superposition principle used in usual quantization techniques would not work.).

Yurth attempts to extrapolate the Principle of Complementarity to also state that wherever we find local/linear effects, we must also find non-linear/nonlocal effects.

Thus the proponents of this conflation of scientific principles to metaphysicalism claim that "torsion waves" (a misapproriated scientific term, put to use for pseudoscientific claims) can move through space at a billion times the speed of light (a physical impossibility) meaning they propagate in the future and past (another physical impossibility) so tapping into them would facilitate retrocognition (seeing into the past, another physical impossibility) or precognition (seeing into the future, another physical impossibility). Causality would be irreparably broken.

How do they claim this happens?

Well, they claim their "torsion waves" can be transmitted through space similar to electromagnetic waves, but that they do not carry mass or energy... only information (yet another physical impossibility), and at speeds of up to a billion times the speed of light (yet another physical impossibility).

At the same time they claim that what mediates their "torsion waves" are neutrinos – which have mass and energy... and neutrinos have been proven to not exceed the speed of light.

"It's very simple in essence but paradoxically extremely complex too."... a hand-wavey way of saying "It's bunkum, but believe it in spite of your cognitive dissonance.".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_field_(pseudoscience)
Quote
Despite the fact that several contradictions have been identified in the basic postulates of these theories (as have several statements that are considered nonsensical by reputable science), torsion field theory has been embraced by some as an explanation for claims of homeopathic cures, telepathy, telekinesis, levitation, clairvoyance, ESP, and other paranormal phenomena. The harnessing of torsion fields has been claimed to make everything possible from miracle cure devices (including devices that cure alcohol addiction) to working perpetual motion machines, stargates, UFO propulsion analogs, and weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).
Why are they pushing "torsion wave" communication and "y-bias" (apparently a new term for "torsion waves") to explain the universe? Because they have a conspiracy theory that the governments of the world are only implementing 5G cellular service so they can "cook" every living thing on the planet. I kid you not.

Gary Vesperman is a fellow "torsion wave" proponent, and he edited Yurth's book.
Quote
But, yes, they are going to, in my opinion, commit the worst genocide this planet has ever known, not just people, but animals and plants. They are probably going to cause more destruction than a global war...
The proponents of "torsion wave" communication attempt to conflate it with scalar waves (postulated to exist), which is a conflation of a scalar field (which actually exists... ie: the Higgs field is a scalar field... which is why the Higgs boson has spin 0... scalar fields do not give rise to intrinsic angular momentum). This means "torsion waves" are bunkum.

Oh look, more hand-waving dismissal:
http://rexresearch.com/zamshatorsion/TFInterstellComm.pdf
Quote
According to A.Akimov and G.Shipov torsion field is generated by spin or rotation! Instead that, scalar waves are product of sum of two identical electromagnetic waves shifted to 180 degrees against each other! So we maybe are talking about different things!? But we will not argue about this here.
No, no... don't argue about the fact that "torsion wave" proponents, in their zealous quest to justify their belief in demonstrably falsified pseudoscience in the form of a laboratory funding scam, are now conflating "torsion waves" to scalar waves to scientifically-proven scalar fields (empirically proven for the first time on 04 July 2012 at LHC)... we don't want to make waves, do we?

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.147701 (debunked here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.01730.pdf... they weren't using "torsion waves", they merely made acoustically-driven and EM-driven active antennas and thus increased the EM footprint of the antennas, which I've discussed prior).

That's a whole boatload of pseudoscience, so I don't know if you should put much stock in what this guy (nor any of his acolytes) claims.

It's yet another example of a group of pseudoscience people co-opting science, changing definitions, twisting history, bashing actual science and attempting to make fantastical claims in hopes that those claims will carry the same credibility as an actual scientific theory or hypothesis.

Haven't we had enough of that already in Ken Wheeler's "there is only one particle, the mass particle, which can change from neutron-form to proton-form and back seemingly without cause, in the process changing size and invariant mass by several orders of magnitude... and oh, by the way, electrons don't exist, but I still use them in my hobby theory when it suits my purpose... and every scientist who ever existed was wrong! Only I am right! Buy my book or you're too simple to understand the simplex nature of the universe!" bunk?

I mean, really... pyramid power? torsion waves reading 'biophotons' from DNA to see a person's aura? universal consciousness? miracle cures? remote viewing? clairvoyance? consciousness affecting matter? the pineal gland using 'torsion waves' to open the "third eye" to allow inter-dimensional communication? telekinesis? energetic invariant-mass subluminal neutrinos carrying "only information but not energy or mass" a billion times faster than light? All of these are ascribed to the "torsion waves" pseudoscience crackpottery.

Scientifically-oriented scalar wave (electrogravitic) communication advocates inductively couple the EM field to the gravity field via the mass-to-charge ratio by changing the charged particle count. The ratio of electrostatic to gravitational forces between the charged particles is proportional to the product of their charge-to-mass ratios. This creates an extremely weak gravitational wave. You'd have to pump a lot of energy in just to get the slightest gravitational wave... the coupling coefficient is very weak between EM and gravity unless the charged particle is moving near the speed of light, which it won't be doing in an antenna. Besides which, the latest LIGO findings show gravitational waves travel at c. This means superluminal scalar wave communication is bunkum. What electrogravitic scalar wave communication is good for is extremely focused directional beams of gravitational waves that are undetectable to traditional radio equipment and can go through any Faradic shielding.

I'd recommend sticking to the confines of scientific reality. What we're attempting to do can be done (has been done) within those confines without going off into the brambles of metaphysicalism... and subscribing to that genre of pseudo-science fantasy will have a deleterious effect upon any working device we make and attempt to explain via that metaphysicalism.

When we arrive at a solution, we do want to be taken seriously, after all.

nav

Re: Abstract workshop challenge: Travel to the stars in no time at all
Quote
And we know how fast we're moving through space itself by measuring the anisotropy of the CMB. So yeah, we do know how fast we're moving through space. You're wrong yet again, Nav. Now you'll get even more butthurt. :P
Thought the big bang theory would rear it's ugly head.
Mathematics don't explain anything, they are just numbers and when life ceases to exist in the Universe then you will just have the Universe and the math will be gone. The Universe what ever shape or form it really is does not understand a human beings finite equations to describe it.
Quote
No, c is not a "time differential". I look forward to seeing your equations as proof.

The plane-wave speed of light in vacuum is not "a comparison" or a ratio... it is a universal physical constant.

Your confusion lies in the fact that you've completely misunderstood the rigorously mathematically derived and empirically observed effect of time dilation, Nav.

You've also confused c (the speed of light) and v (the velocity of a fundamental particle), which can be expressed as a ratio (v/c).

Since you seem to be so very confused, I won't attempt to confuse you further by mentioning phase velocity, group velocity and front velocity... you'd be forced to blather out more silliness about which you'd promptly be proven wrong, you'd get even more butthurt, you'd stomp your feet in frustration and bleat out more insults... no, I'll be the bigger man and just not bring up phase velocity, group velocity and front velocity so as not to confuse you any further. You can thank me after you've calmed down a bit and you're thinking more clearly. :-D

Are there any more topics about which you wish to display your inaptitude, Nav? :P
Think about what you've just said. If any two objects are moving apart at a steady velocity whether it be two marbles or a Photon and an Electron it is a unique event.
Your interpretation of the Universe using classical mathematics sounds professional, well versed and concrete, however all of these calculations are based on a human beings interpretation of events through your nervous system. What if your own nervous system is wrong?
As for the 'pea'. the singularity before the big bang. In a situation where there are no human beings to determine size, mass,  temperature, density or otherwise because the Universe has yet to be born, how can you place a finite number in an unknown?
Love the maths, as much use as a chocolate fire screen but hey - life goes on.
Re: Abstract workshop challenge: Travel to the stars in no time at all
Quote
Of course, you do realize that merely by determining the frequency of the emitted photon (notwithstanding that a free electron can neither absorb nor emit photons, but we'll dismiss that as yet another example of your inaptitude), and the frequency of the captured photon then comparing the two, the person could absolutely determine his speed relative to the universe merely by comparing his speed relative to the emitter (which, in your example, he's in the frame of the emitter), assuming the universe itself is not expanding or moving... which, given your example of an infinite universe, would be indeterminate anyway.

If he had three such emitter/receiver setups (x, y and z coordinates), he could determine with exceeding accuracy his exact velocity (speed and direction) relative to the universe.

Relativistic Doppler Shift is a thing, after all.
OK, now you have my attention and I'll go along with your mathematical model of the Universe for a while. Let's discuss this statement above.
We can determine shifting Galaxies in comparison to ourselves through the Doppler effect where the frequency of light is either compressed or elongated depending whether we are move towards the Galaxy or away from it. Lynx and I discussed this in our analogy of a spaceship and an absorber, wording was a bit obscure as I should have called it a detector.
So we sit in our observatory and we measure the frequency of all the light entering our telescopes and build up an entire mathematical model of what we see, taking into consideration of factors such as the Hubble constant and the CMB.
The telescope we use has limitations, it gathers light from distant objects for us to Quantify. Do you agree that all of those calculations we made are based purely on the ability of the telescope?

Cycle

Re: Abstract workshop challenge: Travel to the stars in no time at all
« Reply #66,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from nav on July 21st, 2018, 02:34 AM
Mathematics don't explain anything, they are just numbers
Therein lies your problem, Nav. Mathematics explains very nearly everything, but you find yourself unable to understand the mathematics. What mathematics doesn't explain is generally indeterminate, or we simply haven't developed the mathematics to explain it yet.
Quote from nav on July 21st, 2018, 02:34 AM
Your interpretation of the Universe using classical mathematics sounds professional, well versed and concrete, however all of these calculations are based on a human beings interpretation of events through your nervous system. What if your own nervous system is wrong?
There is no "interpretation" in mathematics, Nav, the result is either correct or it is not correct. The answer either exactly fits reality... or it does not and therefore the theory or hypothesis described by the mathematics is incomplete and the mathematics needs to be revised. Given that reality is objective, and given that mathematics is objective, it's a great arrangement. It's called the scientific method, Nav, you might want to give it a try.

Your strawman thus collapses before you're able to prop it up so you can knock it down and declare 'victory'.
Quote from nav on July 21st, 2018, 02:34 AM
As for the 'pea'. the singularity before the big bang. In a situation where there are no human beings to determine size, mass,  temperature, density or otherwise because the Universe has yet to be born, how can you place a finite number in an unknown?
Love the maths, as much use as a chocolate fire screen but hey - life goes on.
Pick a nit and keep on picking that nit to avoid the reality of your having been proven to be wrong about pretty much everything, eh, Nav? :)

Quote from https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/24/how-big-was-the-universe-at-the-moment-of-its-creation
But if we're talking about the observable Universe, and we know we're only able to access somewhere between the last 10-30 and 10-35 seconds of inflation before the Big Bang happens, then we know the observable Universe is between 17 centimeters (for the 10-35 second version) and 168 meters (for the 10-30 second version) in size at the start of the hot, dense state we call the Big Bang.
Of course, the cosmic expansion phase prior to the Big Bang we have no way of knowing much about, but we can use science to extrapolate. We do know that, rather than being dominated by matter and radiation, it was dominated by quantum vacuum energy, and it underwent a phase change due to expansion, which was the impetus of what we call the Big Bang (expansion rates for a quantum vacuum energy-dominated and matter and radiation-dominated universe are different). Hence there likely wasn't a "singularity" prior to the Big Bang, the universe simply was successively smaller (by a 'fractional positive m/n, n odd' power function) further back in time. That's why, Nav, we know there was an inflationary period prior to the Big Bang.

Now physicists are coming around to the idea that the universe has existed forever... it merely expands, contracts and rebounds infinitely. I've discussed the same on this forum in the past.
Quote from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269314009381
It was shown recently that replacing classical geodesics with quantal (Bohmian) trajectories gives rise to a quantum corrected Raychaudhuri equation (QRE). In this article we derive the second order Friedmann equations from the QRE, and show that this also contains a couple of quantum correction terms, the first of which can be interpreted as cosmological constant (and gives a correct estimate of its observed value), while the second as a radiation term in the early universe, which gets rid of the big-bang singularity and predicts an infinite age of our universe.
So you're arguing about something for which you have limited knowledge, using the old definition for the Big Bang... yet another display of your inaptitude.

So yet again, you deny all of known science so you can prattle on about your fairy-tale 'science'. :D
Re: Abstract workshop challenge: Travel to the stars in no time at all
« Reply #67,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from nav on July 21st, 2018, 03:05 AM
OK, now you have my attention and I'll go along with your mathematical model of the Universe for a while. Let's discuss this statement above.
Oh yes, let's. :)

We'll begin with a series of questions to probe your (mis)understanding of the physics behind what makes the universe operate the way it does, Nav.

Trigger warning: You're going to be required to display your math skills on some of these questions.

Now Nav... is there an absolute and universal constant for the speed of plane-wave light in vacuum (c0), known to an exact value? State that value in SI units.

nav

Re: Abstract workshop challenge: Travel to the stars in no time at all
Quote
Pick a nit and keep on picking that nit to avoid the reality of your having been proven to be wrong about pretty much everything, eh, Nav? :)
Keep picking on that nit? I was pointing out an obvious mistake my a respected physicist. Proof that even the most respected of people are fallible.
You didn't answer my question. Are the calculations you make only as good as your telescope can see?
Because if you can't see the whole picture how can you make accurate calculations? Would be like trying to calculate the weight of a cake when you only have a crumb to work with. Just obvious flaws in classical mathematics concerning the Universe.
You didn't answer my question regarding the accuracy of your own nervous system either, it is YOU that avoids the most important questions.
I'll ask you again, how are you 100% certain that your five senses are giving you an accurate description of the Universe. Are you sure there are not any important factors that your nervous system is incapable of discovering?
I don't claim to have all the answers to creation and the Universe, if I did i'd have won the noble peace prize by now. But what I do know is that mathematics cannot explain all of it, mathematics only encapsulate a human beings understanding of it and put finite numbers on what we see.
Cycle, generally speaking, i'm not into mathematics but i'll go along with your maths quiz just for the hell of it and i'll promise that i'll not google the answers.
Plain wave light? I think its 300,000km/s or there abouts.

Cycle

Re: Abstract workshop challenge: Travel to the stars in no time at all
« Reply #69,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from nav on July 21st, 2018, 10:54 AM
Keep picking on that nit? I was pointing out an obvious mistake my a respected physicist. Proof that even the most respected of people are fallible.
You didn't answer my question. Are the calculations you make only as good as your telescope can see?
We have many, many corroborating measurements over many, many years, all of which agree. Each new measurement adds to the weight of scientific evidence that our mathematics is correct to at least one part in one billion, which is why quantum mechanics is known as the most exact science humans have ever developed.
Quote from nav on July 21st, 2018, 10:54 AM
Because if you can't see the whole picture how can you make accurate calculations? Would be like trying to calculate the weight of a cake when you only have a crumb to work with. Just obvious flaws in classical mathematics concerning the Universe.
So rather than going with the mathematical equations with an accuracy in the parts per billion, you throw it all out for some fairy-tale universe which is sentient, can make matter a person isn't looking at disappear then make it reappear an instant before the person looks at it, which can communicate instantly over vast distances, etc.

That's not very scientific of you, Nav.
Quote from nav on July 21st, 2018, 10:54 AM
You didn't answer my question regarding the accuracy of your own nervous system either, it is YOU that avoids the most important questions.
I'll ask you again, how are you 100% certain that your five senses are giving you an accurate description of the Universe. Are you sure there are not any important factors that your nervous system is incapable of discovering?
You're still madly propping up straw men in the hopes they don't collapse before you can knock them down, Nav. We don't use our senses to view the universe, we use equipment with such accuracy that we can determine with a mathematical accuracy of better than one part in a billion how the universe behaves. Do you think we're using our eyes to look at galaxies billions of light-years away, Nav?
Quote from nav on July 21st, 2018, 10:54 AM
I don't claim to have all the answers to creation and the Universe
No, you just tear down all of known science and replace it with a fairy-tale which is demonstrably false. :)
Quote from nav on July 21st, 2018, 10:54 AM
, if I did i'd have won the noble peace prize by now.
No. You'd have won a Nobel prize in physics. That you haven't speaks volumes, wouldn't you say? And that's while you're tearing down the work of those who have won Nobel prizes in physics, while claiming that your fairy-tale sentient universe is 'the answer'.
Quote from nav on July 21st, 2018, 10:54 AM
But what I do know is that mathematics cannot explain all of it, mathematics only encapsulate a human beings understanding of it and put finite numbers on what we see.
Cycle, generally speaking, i'm not into mathematics but i'll go along with your maths quiz just for the hell of it and i'll promise that i'll not google the answers.
Plain wave light? I think its 300,000km/s or there abouts.
There is no "there abouts" in science, Nav. That's part and parcel of your problem, you want to blather out whatever you think feels like it's intuitively 'right' or "there abouts".

Use Google, because it's quite obvious that we can't rely upon your fairy-tale 'science'.

State the exact speed of plane-wave light in vacuum, in SI units.

nav

Re: Abstract workshop challenge: Travel to the stars in no time at all
Quote
You're still madly propping up straw men in the hopes they don't collapse before you can knock them down, Nav. We don't use our senses to view the universe, we use equipment with such accuracy that we can determine with a mathematical accuracy of better than one part in a billion how the universe behaves. Do you think we're using our eyes to look at galaxies billions of light-years away, Nav?
But all the scientific instruments ever built are there to serve you and your nervous system, not anything or anyone on the outside of it. To claim that our five senses are the be all and end all is delusional, not only is it delusional it is gamble.
Quote
No. You'd have won a Nobel prize in physics. That you haven't speaks volumes, wouldn't you say? And that's while you're tearing down the work of those who have won Nobel prizes in physics, while claiming that your fairy-tale sentient universe is 'the answer'.
I'm not tearing down anything. Where's your nobel prize? PMSL
Quote
There is no "there abouts" in science, Nav. State the exact speed of plane-wave light in vacuum, in SI units.
I know it's not exactly 300,000km/s, I believe it is just under something like 299,800km/s. If you are asking me for an exact number then I can't continue with the questions because i'm not a human memory stick. get a grip man.

Cycle

Re: Abstract workshop challenge: Travel to the stars in no time at all
« Reply #71,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from nav on July 21st, 2018, 11:33 AM
But all the scientific instruments ever built are there to serve you and your nervous system, not anything or anyone on the outside of it.
So to you, the number '1' is somehow different if it's used by different equipment? Is that what you're stating?

Because the equipment used collects and collates data into digital format. This allows us to compare and contrast that data against our mathematics, perform statistical analysis, and compare it to prior empirically obtained data.

Our senses play very little part in evaluating the universe, Nav. You're still madly propping up that strawman, but it keeps collapsing just before you can kick it down and declare 'victory'. :D
Quote from nav on July 21st, 2018, 11:33 AM
To claim that our five senses are the be all and end all is delusional, not only is it delusional it is gamble.I'm not tearing own anything. Where's your nobel prize?
I'm not the one claiming to have invented an entirely new science which states that the universe is sentient, that when you don't look at something it doesn't exist, that the universe knows where you're going to look and instantly reconstructs the matter there an instant prior to you looking at it (while preserving the state of all that matter... the universe must have a huge memory bank to keep track of all that data, and a massive energy source to reconstruct all that matter. :laughing:), that the universe can instantaneously communicate over vast distances, etc.

It's you who's doing that... while you attempt to denigrate the historical greats of science, men and women far more intelligent than you, with far more education than you, with far more experience than you, with far more common sense than you.

No, I'm not the one attempting to declare a fairy-tale universe... I subscribe to science. :)
Quote from nav on July 21st, 2018, 11:33 AM
PMSLI know it's not exactly 300,000km/s, I believe it is just under something like 299,800km/s. If you are asking me for an exact number then I can't continue with the questions because i'm not a human memory stick. get a grip man.

State the exact speed of plane-wave light in vacuum, in SI units.

If you can't even do something as simple as that, you have no standing to criticize the long-established and rigorously mathematically corroborated science you've been attempting to tear down, let alone propose an entirely fabricated fairy-tale universe which has been proven to be demonstrably false.

nav

Re: Abstract workshop challenge: Travel to the stars in no time at all
Quote
So to you, the number '1' is somehow different if it's used by different equipment? Is that what you're stating?

Because the equipment used collects and collates data into digital format. This allows us to compare and contrast that data against our mathematics, perform statistical analysis, and compare it to prior empirically obtained data.

Our senses play very little part in evaluating the universe, Nav. You're still madly propping up that strawman, but it keeps collapsing just before you can kick it down and declare 'victory'. :D
There is no 'victory' Cycle. This is not a point scoring exercise where you and I gain credibility based on our ability to ridicule one another or prove each other right or wrong. I'm waging my understanding of the Universe against yours, you use mathematics and i'm saying mathematics is flawed. The reason i'm saying they are flawed is because all the calculations are based on instruments built by your nervous system to make your nervous system feel happy. There exists no means of measuring the Universe that doesn't include your five senses, if your senses are making 5hit up or not presenting the evidence correctly then you are screwed. Don't say your senses can't make 5hit up because every night when you go to bed and dream, they make lots of 5hit up.
Quote
I'm not the one claiming to have invented an entirely new science which states that the universe is sentient, that when you don't look at something it doesn't exist, that the universe knows where you're going to look and instantly reconstructs the matter there an instant prior to you looking at it, that the universe can instantaneously communicate over vast distances, etc. It's you who's doing that... while you attempt to denigrate the historical greats of science, men and women far more intelligent than you, with far more education than you, with far more experience than you, with far more common sense than you.
Never said that. I said that the Universe is in superposition, all of it. I said that the Universe is economical, why play a film when no one is watching? I said that the entire Universe exists as a wave function that cannot manifest into matter without a nervous system. If you want my real explanation of how it works i'll tell you, as long as you understand that it is a thesis, not right or wrong, just a thesis. Mathematical explanations are also a thesis when we start talking about creation and the like, true - mathematics on Earth are real, Newtonian mechanics are real, we build bridges by them, Einstein and Maxwell have contributed mathematics that are real here on Earth and we build nuclear devices out of that knowledge. Lots of physicists and mathematicians dating back to Aristotle and Pythagoras have been correct and we build the world we live in around them as well as others. I'm not tearing down human achievement, we've actually done quite well out of it.
I just don't subscribe to mathematicians calculating the Universe without the full set of cards and coming out with garbage such as dark matter and dark energy when the calculations go pear shaped.
If you think i'm googling the speed of light through a vacuum then your wrong, i've givn you my answer to the best of my ability and if its wong then its wrong. I'm 5hit at math anyway.

Cycle

Re: Abstract workshop challenge: Travel to the stars in no time at all
« Reply #73,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from nav on July 21st, 2018, 12:20 PM
There is no 'victory' Cycle. This is not a point scoring exercise where you and I gain credibility based on our ability to ridicule one another or prove each other right or wrong. I'm waging my understanding of the Universe against yours, you use mathematics and i'm saying mathematics is flawed. The reason i'm saying they are flawed is because all the calculations are based on instruments build by your nervous system to make your nervous system feel happy.
No, the equipment is designed to most-efficiently collect data. The state of our nervous system doesn't enter into the equation. That straw man of yours has yet again crumpled to the ground before you got a chance to kick it down and declare 'victory'. :P
Quote from nav on July 21st, 2018, 12:20 PM
There exists no means of measuring the Universe that doesn't include your five senses,
Yes, there is. That you persist in claiming otherwise is the reason why you've been led into the brambles of mysticism and pseudoscience crackpottery.
Quote from nav on July 21st, 2018, 12:20 PM
if your senses are making 5hit up or not presenting the evidence correctly them you are screwed. Don't say your senses can't make 5hit up because every night when you go to bed and dream, they make lots of 5hit up.Never said that. I said that the Universe is in superposition, all of it.
Define "superposition", Nav, or admit you're merely throwing out key words and tricky phrases as means of attempting to appear to know what you're talking about.
Quote from nav on July 21st, 2018, 12:20 PM
I said that the Universe is economical, why play a film when no one is watching? I said that the entire Universe exists as a wave function that cannot manifest into matter without a nervous system.
And you're wrong. You're essentially claiming the universe is sentient, and knows when and where someone is looking, so that it can instantaneously create the matter the person is looking at, preserving the state of that matter from the last time it was looked at while taking into account any evolution of state over the time that matter wasn't looked at. That's not totally insane, not at all.

So if no one is looking at the moon, there are no tides because the moon doesn't exist... right, Nav? :rofl2:

If no one is looking at the sun, our planet flies off into space because the sun's gravity no longer exists because the sun doesn't exist... right, Nav? Save us, Nav! Keep staring at the sun! :rofl2:

Humans are made of matter, Nav, as are all intelligent beings currently known. How did matter come into existence without intelligent beings, who consist of matter, being there to cause that matter to come into existence, per your fairy-tale?

Are you going to yet again claim the universe itself is intelligent, and went back through time to create humans so that matter could exist, Nav? :rofl:
Quote from nav on July 21st, 2018, 12:20 PM
If you want my real explanation of how it works i'll tell you, as long as you understand that is is a thesis, not right or wrong, just a thesis. Mathematical explanations are also a thesis when we start talking about creation and the like, true - mathematics on Earth are real, Newtonian mechanics are real, we build bridges by them, Einstein and Maxwell have contributed mathematics that are real here on Earth and we build nuclear devices out of that knowledge. Lots of physicists and mathematicians dating back to Aristotle and Pythagoras have been correct and we build the world we live in around them as well as others. I'm not tearing down human achievement, we've actually done quite well out of it.
I just don't subscribe to mathematicians calculating the Universe without the full set of cards and coming out with garbage such as dark matter and dark energy when the calculations go pear shaped.
If you think i'm googling the speed of light through a vacuum then your wrong, i've givn you my answer to the best of my ability and if its wong then its wrong. I'm 5hit at math anyway.
Then you have no way of determining whether you're right or wrong, given that you refuse to engage in the mathematics which would prove you right or wrong, Nav.

In fact, we didn't even get to the mathematics part... I'm merely asking you to state the exact value of a well-known universal constant in SI units.

So your fundamental misunderstanding of how the universe works goes far deeper than merely mathematics, it goes down into misunderstanding the physical constants which have been empirically obtained and mathematically corroborated. That's a profound misunderstanding. I suggest you start correcting that lack of knowledge on your part... unless you want to admit you're more comfortable being mired in mysticism and prefer not to actually know about reality... in which case, why are you here on this forum?

nav

Re: Abstract workshop challenge: Travel to the stars in no time at all
Quote
No, the equipment is designed to most-efficiently collect data. The state of our nervous system doesn't enter into the equation. That straw man of yours has yet again crumpled to the ground before you got a chance to kick it down and declare 'victory'. :
My God it's like being stuck on a turnpike.
The equipment is an extension of your nervous system. I think I know what your problem is Cycle. You don't understand what your nervous system is. For the record: Your nervous system which includes all your five senses gathers data from an UNKNOWN SOURCE which it receives through those senses and inputs it into your brain. Human beings have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what form the Universe takes outside of those senses. The Universe could have no shape, no light, no sound, no smells or anything. In fact it could be just a stream of pure data or a binary sequence. Everything we build to measure the Universe is built as an extension of the nervous system.
Quote
Yes, there is. That you persist in claiming otherwise is the reason why you've been led into the brambles of mysticism and pseudoscience crackpottery.
So we build radio telescopes to receive data that we THEN CONVERT into one of our five senses PMSL, you really are funny sometimes. As long as it makes you happy Cycle.
Quote
And you're wrong. How did humans come into existence in the universe if humans didn't exist in the universe so that the universe could exist, Nav? That's a conundrum from the last time you were schooled on this topic which you've not addressed.
Because fundamentally we don't understand the function of time Universally. We see the creation of the Universe as a linear event with a start and a finish but the Quantum world see's no such thing. The creation of life, the creation of the Universe and you and I typing frantically for browny points are all events which happen simultanously within the Quantum field. There is no time, there is only 'now'.
Quote
So your fundamental misunderstanding of how the universe works goes far deeper than merely mathematics, it goes down into misunderstanding the physical constants which have been empirically obtained and mathematically corroborated. That's a profound misunderstanding. I suggest you start correcting that lack of knowledge on your part... unless you want to admit you're more comfortable being mired in mysticism and prefer not to actually know about reality... in which case, why are you here on this forum?
No, I have no interest in mathematics where this is concerned. If I want to build a garage and measure up sizes, it's great. If i'm trying to imagine or understand Quantum weirdness then there comes a point where it's no longer of any use.
Now, go get ya comics. :P :P :P :P