For Reactor & Einstein

[Copernicus2087]

Well, I think I should point out that I am not the one complaining, and neither is Darby. On the contrary, I am the one who is having a great time and I see this as valuable.

See, this is where we disagree.

I don't think that "having a great time" at the expense of someone else is valuable. Even if that someone is practically asking for it (and I agree that Einstein is asking for it).

And rather than trying to bolster his claim that "math is bunk", Einstein ignores the example and focuses only on my last statement. Clearly this is avoidance of the issue, rather than dealing with it head-on.

Which is exactly why this whole discussion is a complete waste of time.

However, on more than one occasion in the past few years, I have had students who (much like Einstein) thought they could solve aerospace engineering problems (be they homework or exam problems) with only words and no equations. Of course, they did not do very well on the exams. So when I encounter these types of students who think they can get their degrees and work in this field without being able to do quantitative work, I point them to some of these interactions I have had on this board with Einstein. These discussions work to mirror their own beliefs back to them and show them the futility of said beliefs. On more than one occasion a student came to me after reading Einstein's responses to my clear examples of the usefulness of math and said to me, in so many words, "I see your point. Can you help me understand the math and how to use it?"

That may be. But still, there really is no reason to continue beating this dead horse. You and Einstein are going around in circles for years, and I think this interaction already reached the limit of its usefulness long ago.

 

[Copernicus2087]

Then he must be selling the snake oil to you. I'm not buying it anymore. The man literally can not behave in a civilized manner in a simple discussion.

Of-course he can. The trouble is, Einstein, that you aren't really interested in a discussion. You've been pulling our fingers ever since you've got here, and the only bad thing you might be able to say about RMT is that he agrees to play your game.

Believe me, I've tried numerous times.

No you haven't.

It's never too late to try, though. And if you ever decide to give it a try, I gurantee you'll have my full support in case RMT or Darby or anyone else tries something funny on you.

 

[KerrTexas]

I think what is being missed here, is that people enjoy doing things differently. Some people like to do a hands-on approach, to be able to tinker with experiments, while other's may enjoy getting involved with the challenges of mathematical calculation's.

Maybe a combination of both.

I tried to build a sterling engine, using a solar system. The calculations told me in advance that my design would not work..did that stop me from trying ? No ! I built the thing anyway, because I liked the actual putting together of the device.

The math could have saved me alot of time and some money, but since I love to tinker...I built it anyway. And I did learn quite a bit in building the device, even though it didnt work.

I believe Einstein is alot like me, and enjoys the hand-on approach, and there certainly isn't anythng wrong with that approach.

Any math...oh well...might have brought in a more definitive 'scientific' approach, but "for me" isnt as much fun as the doing.

It is unfortunate that anyone would feel it necessary to slam anyone or have it perceived as such, as I believe that Rainman just wanted to help Einstein.

It just boils down to different strokes for different folks, and to let this unfortunate episode end here.

 

[Darby]

I gurantee you'll have my full support in case [snip]Darby or anyone else tries something funny on you.

Uh...what's that supposed to mean?

Einstein and I have our differences of opinion. But take a gander at the Anomalies TT forum. Whose seven year old, 67 page thread was made sticky several years ago so that it stays at the top of the thread cue and who made it a sticky thread?

Hmmm...that would be me. I even renamed it because there were two threads, both of which I made sticky, that were originally titled "The Experiment". I renamed one "The Experiment (Einstein)" and the other "The Experiment (Treversal)" so people can keep them straight.

I'll tell you where Einstein and I generally run afoul. A new member will ask a serious physics/physics math question. The new member gets a serious reply based on the known laws of physics and the underlying math. Einstein then inserts one of his personal physics theories or makes a blanket statement about bunk math as if it is fact.

Now, I fully understand that for a person to come to a time travel forum to ask serious physics/math questions is not the best plan for getting good answers. But it is what it is. A person who has no experience with physics could get a much better answer if they went to sci.physics.research (SPR) - but they wouldn't have the basic knowledge to even begin to understand the answer. Those people are physicists. Their forum isn't intended to answer basic questions for complete non-physicists. The new member can only rely on what s/he gets right here.

It's not helpful when someone has a serious physics/math question and ends up getting an answer that is nothing more than an unsupported opinion, isn't stated as such, and ends up confusing the new member. On his own thread, where he's clearly stated "this is my opinion" - which he has done on many threads - that's not an issue. No one should be confused.

 

[Einstein]

Copernicus2087

In reply to:
Then he must be selling the snake oil to you. I'm not buying it anymore. The man literally can not behave in a civilized manner in a simple discussion.



Of-course he can. The trouble is, Einstein, that you aren't really interested in a discussion. You've been pulling our fingers ever since you've got here, and the only bad thing you might be able to say about RMT is that he agrees to play your game.

Sorry, I believe this whole thread is an RMT game. By the way. I never did say math is bunk. That is RMT promulgated fiction. I believe I said math is good for describing and not so good for predicting. Of course I was referring to the quantum reality we live in. So if you have a way to use math to predict, then tell what I'll be eating for breakfast next Thursday. Oh, one more thing. Glad to see you came back.

 

[Einstein]

KerrTexas

I believe Einstein is alot like me, and enjoys the hand-on approach, and there certainly isn't anythng wrong with that approach.

I have noticed a similarity in our beliefs. I do like to fabricate stuff.

 

[Einstein]

Darby

Einstein and I have our differences of opinion. But take a gander at the Anomalies TT forum. Whose seven year old, 67 page thread was made sticky several years ago so that it stays at the top of the thread cue and who made it a sticky thread?

I never seem to mind having a discussion with you. I just wish I could get you more into the theory making aspect.

 

[RainmanTime]

I never did say math is bunk. That is RMT promulgated fiction. I believe I said math is good for describing and not so good for predicting.

Here is just one of Einstein's "greatest hits":

As for cross product? Mathematical dung.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_product#History

<font color="red"> Pivotal to (eventual) acceptance was the efficiency of the new approach, allowing Heaviside to reduce the equations of electromagnetism from Maxwell's original 20 to the four commonly seen today. [/COLOR]

1) Far from being "dung", the cross product made Maxwell's equations (also not "dung" and highly predictive) much more accessible, and useful.
2) The cross product is exceedingly good for predicting. Especially electromagnetic effects...like the Lorentz Force.

Another of his "greatest hits":

Learning the rules of operation for the reality we live in is my goal. Some of those rules have been incorporated into mathematics. But not all.

Many more than you are aware of... or would admit to. What seems to continually escape you is that I started this thread to offer something that would benefit you and reactor. Reactor was at least thankful. You will not even admit that you do not understand much of the math that could assist you greatly. Arrogance often leads one to reject things that will help them.

No math needed.

So sayeth the queen spider (SouthPark reference). Care to compare how long it will take you to quantify anything useful (and not already quantified) without the math?

You'll excuse me if I skip over replying to RMT. He as usual never has anything constructive to add to a discussion.

I started this whole discussion with something highly constructive and of immense value. The fact you refuse to learn does not diminish its value or constructive nature. It only speaks to you and your personality.

I did take a stab at developing the math for this too. The equations are around here in another thread somewhere.

You have never offered me any math here, nor have I seen you post any. Prove me wrong, if you have. Show me your math.

But in this form it is useless. Where is the visualization? Could you make or engineer a magnetic propulsion engine from just this equation?

Far from useless. First things first...a visualization:

http://www.walter-fendt.de/ph14e/lorentzforce.htm

And as far as what you can do with the Lorentz force? How about:

Cyclotrons and other circular path particle accelerators (Cern anyone?)
Homopolar generators
Magnetrons
Magnetoplasmadynamic thrusters
Mass spectrometers
Railguns

Just for starters...

It is becoming kind of obvious that mathematics has lost its true value as a viable tool in investigating what it is supposed to represent.

Not very obvious to the real scientists who are actually making breakthroughs. And if you were to learn and understand differential geometry (as one example) I am quite sure you would see the folly of your statement. But I know that right now you would never admit it. That is just your personality trait getting in the way.

Just knowing the rules behind the Lorentz force gives me a decided advantage over anyone using the math.

Really? Perhaps you would deign to share them? Do you mean an advantage over the people who developed the applications I listed above? Where is your patent for something better?

I'm taking it for granted that a force is totally immune from influence by another force acting in an orthogonal direction. To me that is a mathematical given.

Another of Einstein's greatest hits. He diminishes the value of math, and yet makes statements like this, but never offers his mathematical evidence to support them. Please show us how this is a "mathematical given", for all engineers know it is not... and many devices prove it is not.

Now if I could just get RMT to jump off the sinking calculus boat...

More diminishing mathematics he does not understand. And he complains that I cop and attitude back to him when he mouths off like this? Excuse me while I bust a gut.

Because I think it (math) is a crutch that some people give way too much reliance on. I manage to solve lots of problems that math could be used for with just the art of visualization.

Could you accurately predict the ascent and orbital trajectory of the space shuttle with nothing but visualization? Again, he makes a claim, but no example to back it up. As for "too much reliance on math"... you had better stop using your computer altogether, Einstein...because those people who rely too much on math designed it.

If math was a good predictive tool, then there would be no need for any further experimentation at all.

I'll let some of the others point out a few of the fallacies behind that statement.

I want to invent an antigravity engine. Take a look around. Don't see anyone figuring that out. Obviously to me, I'm going to have to choose some unorthodox methods to acquire that knowledge.

Only because you convince yourself that existing mathematics is ineffective well before you even are aware of said math, much less understand what it predicts.

So I believe the answers are right in front of us in basic experimental observations.

And you believe no one else has done such experiments, nor accurately described what is going on with math. That you actually believe this is demonstrated in your refusal to accept the proven equations that model (and predict performance of) a gyroscope. That is nothing but arrogance resulting from denied ignorance.

I also reasoned that the metal disk in the video above has more mass too. Because it would take more energy to pull it out of the trap it appears to be stuck in. Also in the video you'll notice that the disk appears to be frozen in position regardless of whether there is a push or pull force. Push or pull, plus or minus, two Lorentz forces?

More exhibition of (as Darby says) you "trying to pull our legs". How many times have I pointed out that it is highly suspicous that your hand is matching the natural frequency of the pendulum of the metal disk? And not once have you even acknowledged it. I believe this is so because you KNOW that this is exactly what you were doing, and you are attempting to claim otherwise. The evidence for this belief lies in the facts that:

1) You stopped the video immediately at the point where the disc dynamics no longer show a regular "sticky" motion.
2) You have never made another video with varying dynamic profiles of your hand with the magnet (see above for my suggestion that at STEP INPUT test would display a lot).
3) You refuse to even address that it is anything other than what you claim ("sticky space").

And now let's have a look at Einstein's attempts at deflection and not answering direct questions:

In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the point is... even if you are going to infer something as wild as "sticky space" from such non-instrumented experiements, it is very definitely "poor science" to try and do it with only one experimental data point.

Agreed?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think Faraday would probably spit in your face. Look what he had to work with. It's been my experience that if you want to prove something wrong, you can. I don't want to go down the wrong path. I want to go down the right path.

I asked a direct question, and he never addressed it. Others have asked why I put up with this behavior. Well, I put forward that behavior like this is what brings out the sarcastic ahole in me. I will give Einstein every bit of what he gives me when he ignores simple questions like this that he knows exposes his poor approach to experimentation.

Just to cut the boredom, some of my RC buddies will occasionally strap a motor and a couple of servos to a piece of cardboard and fly that. No math needed.

And this was another shallow retort from Einstein that I took as a challenge. It lead to me using one of his own website citations to show how valuable math is for predicting things, and for cutting down time to get to where you want to go. Of course he won't discuss it or admit it. Just more deflection and diversion. It was the same way when he refused to discuss sampling theory and why I explained he could not come to conclusions from accelerometer data when the accel was used outside its design bandwidth.

For Einstein it appears to be "don't bother me with facts... I am too busy breaking new ground in science."

I think you've just demonstrated to everyone how stupid and silly you look to everyone. A math grunt trying to take credit for something he isn't due.

Again with the claims (that I was taking credit for someone else's work) but no evidence to back his claim.

The man literally can not behave in a civilized manner in a simple discussion.

And you claim it is civilized to deflect and divert around issues that come up in a discussion because you don't like them? There are many people on this forum I can have a civil discussion with. In addition KerrTexas has met me in person several times, and knows exactly who I am and how much I care about people.

Hell, Einstein, the most ridiculous part of your own behavior is that you will not even recognize that I am trying to help you. People like Darby, and Copernicus, and KerrTexas know the power of mathematics, and realize that it would help you to just do a little learning. Instead you think that what I am offering is a waste of time. And that is the true irony, for by continuing in your trial and error (and thinking you are discovering things no one else has), you are truly the one wasting time.

I think I have sufficiently laid out my case.
RMT

 

[reactor1967]

Well upto differential equations. Man there is 98 videos for the calculas. Im trying to get the ones with the least amount of videos first. Moving on ......

Many more than you are aware of... or would admit to. What seems to continually escape you is that I started this thread to offer something that would benefit you and reactor. Reactor was at least thankful. You will not even admit that you do not understand much of the math that could assist you greatly. Arrogance often leads one to reject things that will help them.

I appreciate it. I was looking for stuff like this. Yes, I am thinkful and spending many hours downloading. And, I have to start reviewing these videos. Also, I have a lot of DVD's to burn. I am never adversed to learning. In fact I like it more than I do watching tv.

 

[reactor1967]

Darby


In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Einstein and I have our differences of opinion. But take a gander at the Anomalies TT forum. Whose seven year old, 67 page thread was made sticky several years ago so that it stays at the top of the thread cue and who made it a sticky thread?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I never seem to mind having a discussion with you. I just wish I could get you more into the theory making aspect.

Good luck with this. Then that would require him to take chances. Not going to happen.

 

[Einstein]

RMT

Hell, Einstein, the most ridiculous part of your own behavior is that you will not even recognize that I am trying to help you. People like Darby, and Copernicus, and KerrTexas know the power of mathematics, and realize that it would help you to just do a little learning. Instead you think that what I am offering is a waste of time. And that is the true irony, for by continuing in your trial and error (and thinking you are discovering things no one else has), you are truly the one wasting time.

Gee, all that mockery and destructive criticism that you dish out had me fooled. You know my post time is limited. I have no hope at all for responding to all the points you bring up. Trial and error gets results, and you know it, but wont admit it. If you would like me to respond, just pick one point and leave the mockery and criticism out. I do have lots of Lorentz force videos. Including the Lorentz force repulsion device I built (without math). Here is another one of the initial videos I took when I first started investigating the sticky space phenomena.

Sticky Space

I'm re-investigating this particular aspect of the Lorentz force because it is the other half of a true anti-gravity type propulsion engine. Time is running out for me today. If you would like to see my proposed concept for this type of engine, let me know. I'll have more time to post this weekend.

 

[RainmanTime]

Gee, all that mockery and destructive criticism that you dish out had me fooled.

Perhaps, then, you need to become aware of your own personality traits that bring these reactions out of me? I only give as good as I get.

Trial and error gets results, and you know it, but wont admit it.

Please show me anywhere I have ever claimed trial and error does not get results. But where I have been exceedingly consistent is in how trial and error can be avoided by modeling what mankind already knows before you resort to trial and error as a last result. And that is my real point: Trial and error should not be a going-in position, but rather a means of last resort. The reason is that trial and error tends to cause you to only look for what you are theorizing is true. So if you don't get the results you want, you throw them away as an "error" and try again.

My description of development of basic altitude hold control laws for an airplane was intended to give a concrete example of how using the power of physics and math (as currently understood) can totally avoid the need for trial and error... and save massive amounts of time.

If you would like me to respond, just pick one point and leave the mockery and criticism out.

I will do that up until the point that you stop answering straight-forward questions, attempt to divert the conversation away from same, or give "non-answers" in the form of wild, unproven theories. Let me give you an example before I pick one point, to see how well you, yourself, can behave. It relates to something I asked you about your "time wave" claim:

<font color="blue"> QUESTION: Are you aware of, and do you accept, the reasons why it is erroneous to come to conclusions about data collected from an instrument outside its defined operating bandwidth? [/COLOR]

This relates to something I was trying to point out about sampling theory. Can you address this simple and straightforward question? If so, we can proceed.

RMT

 

[ruthless]

But where I have been exceedingly consistent is in how trial and error can be avoided by modeling what mankind already knows before you resort to trial and error as a last result. And that is my real point: Trial and error should not be a going-in position, but rather a means of last resort. The reason is that trial and error tends to cause you to only look for what you are theorizing is true. So if you don't get the results you want, you throw them away as an "error" and try again.

wow...

now that is a very advanced thought. impressive.

on the other side of the scale is also an impressive achievement though. this is a very philosophical question that basically defines who we all are. do we go to school, go through years of learning, to make something once. or do we not go to school, and take that time to figure it out, hands on? there are many aspects to look at in this question. sometimes trial and error is fun. sometimes its a real pain to try to perfect something and you end up at your wits end. on the other hand, people of education can make beautiful things, perfect equasions, and that can be just as fun, or as annoying.

bottom line is, i think both of you should see and respect all sides. see the beauty in all good and wise mens decisions.


blah blah blah. ill shuddup now. :D

 

[RainmanTime]

Hi ruthless:

do we go to school, go through years of learning, to make something once. or do we not go to school, and take that time to figure it out, hands on?

Or how about both? (The AND gate!) /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif The motto we have at Cal Poly, Pomona where I teach is "learn by doing". It is the Polytechnic creed, and we do more hands-on aerospace engineering in our program than most. That is why I like teaching my ARO 101 class where students form teams to build, flight test, and do calculations on an R/C aircraft. Great hands-on experience to drive home the mathematical principles we are teaching them.

sometimes trial and error is fun.

You are absolutely right about that. I love tinkering too, and I have little doubt Einstein has fun running his experiments. I would too. In fact, one form of trial and error that I do use in my work is when I am stress-testing a control law design I came up with. I like to spend lots of time in our cockpit simulators just running different scenarios that I make up on the fly. The goal is to see if I can "break" the design algorithm...in other words, make it go outside its required guidance and control accuracy. The normal testing is intended to show under all sorts of expected flight conditions that it will fly as you need it to. The stress tests are to do lots of weird stuff you would not expect a pilot (or the external environment) to do to the airplane or its control system. Throw a bunch of random crap at it and see where (if any) it has its breaking points. When I find them, I either fix them (if they are bad) or just try to improve the design to make it more immune to the problem if they are not bad just sloppy. It is one of the funnest parts of my job because I am essentially flying some of the most expensive flight simulators in the world, having a blast, and doing the trial and error thing. It is when I feel most blessed for the job I have.

bottom line is, i think both of you should see and respect all sides. see the beauty in all good and wise mens decisions.

Agreed, and early on I had given Einstein kudos for his experimental bent. He still gets props for doing stuff in the lab. My point is that some of the stuff he does in the lab (sans math) and some of the alleged conclusions he comes to about what he thinks he is seeing (sans math or a knowledge of something someone has already quantified via math) are not getting him where he says he wants to go... they are wasting time. He could waste a lot less time if he followed some precepts that are mathematically shown to be true.

But anyway, I do believe you are right. Trial and error has its place.
RMT

 

[Einstein]

RMT

QUESTION: Are you aware of, and do you accept, the reasons why it is erroneous to come to conclusions about data collected from an instrument outside its defined operating bandwidth?

Yes I am aware. In fact it was from this very criteria that I decided to use another accelerometer sensor with a different bandwidth and sensor resonance frequencies. I did my homework on this problem and discovered how the sensor actually works. I do recall asking you if you knew about a sensor that would meet the criteria I required. But you never offered any advice on that. The data gathered from both sensors was identical. But there was a clue in the data that suggested something a little different than the measurement of a linear force was going on. It made no difference in what direction the sensor was oriented. The measured pulses always had the same amplitude no matter what orientation was chosen. An omnidirectional force suggested to me that possibly this was some type of pressure phenomena. Further study into how the voltage is generated from the sensor led me to more findings. The heart of the sensor is just a piece of machined quartz crystal. So I read and learned about properties of quartz crystals. Interesting stuff. A small electrical pulse is generated when subjecting the crystal to mechanical pressure, acceleration, electrical pressure, electric fields. But the pulse generated is only indicative of a change in force intensity. So a constant force will not generate an electrical signal. I'm familiar with peak and hold electrical circuits. So I could design a sensor that would behave the same way as an accelerometer behaves. But my application suggests just a pressure sensor would do. I came up with a very simple design. I soldered one leg of a 1MHz crystal ( Quartz crystal ) to an input lead to my oscilloscope. The sensor doesn't generate much voltage. And I could add an instrument amplifier to it. But first I had to see if my homemade sensor would actually work. Check it out!

Homemade sensor

I have the scope set on 5mv per division. So just by shaking it you can see the scope trace will actually move up and down with my hand motion. And of course an impact shock definitely generates much more response. I forgot to mention that I installed the sensor in a grounded metal container to filter out any external electrical wave interference. Sort of like a Faraday cage around my sensor. I just want the sensor to measure suspected gravity wave phenomena. So of course I had to see if my Tesla coil actually would cause any type of reading to be picked up. Yes, there is a wave pattern in the 3mv to 6mv range picked up by the shielded sensor. I have yet to add an instrument amplifier to it. My PC scope is only sensitive down to 50mv per division. But that scope never works with the Tesla coil on. This last year I took off from experimentation to think about the observed time wave phenomena. So I have new experimental directions to pursue to check out some of my theories on time.

 

[RainmanTime]

Yes I am aware.

So then no more unsubstantiated claimed of "time waves" then, right?

I do recall asking you if you knew about a sensor that would meet the criteria I required. But you never offered any advice on that.

I don't recall you ever asking, or telling me what your "criteria" were. What frequency of signals do you think you wish to measure? I can tell you one basic rule: As the bandwidth goes up linearly, the cost of devices to measure that BW goes up at least to the power of 2.

But there was a clue in the data that suggested something a little different than the measurement of a linear force was going on. It made no difference in what direction the sensor was oriented. The measured pulses always had the same amplitude no matter what orientation was chosen.

Why do you think it should be different in different directions? You stated you "did your homework" to discover how it actually works. But perhaps this might be the best time to apply math. For it sounds like you do not realize that an accelerometer cannot measure gravitational accelerations. It sounds like you want a very special device called a gravimeter. But the problem with this device is that it is highly sensitive to mechanical accelerations (the thing a normal accelerometer reads), thus introducing error in the measurment of local gravity.

But the pulse generated is only indicative of a change in force intensity. So a constant force will not generate an electrical signal.

Well, it would if the body continued to accelerate. What you seem to be forgetting is that, unless you are in the vaccuum of space, there are restorative (balancing) forces that will eventually counteract and nullify an applied force that causes something to begin moving. Such as gravity and aerodynamic drag.

So I could design a sensor that would behave the same way as an accelerometer behaves. But my application suggests just a pressure sensor would do. I came up with a very simple design. I soldered one leg of a 1MHz crystal ( Quartz crystal ) to an input lead to my oscilloscope. The sensor doesn't generate much voltage. And I could add an instrument amplifier to it. But first I had to see if my homemade sensor would actually work. Check it out!

Your video would not load for me... I waited 10 minutes and still nothing. But I am wondering why you feel the need to make your own accelerometer. It seems that what you have interpreted as a "failure" of the device to give you what you want is really nothing more than you misunderstanding what the device is really measuring.

It is not ONLY a crystal. There is a small reference mass (called a "proof mass") attached to a cantilever beam. The crystal measures strain in the beam that results from the mass deflecting the beam due to an external acceleration. Essentially, the device is using Newton's law to measure F/m as proportional to the strain in the beam. Due to the stress-strain relationship of a given material in the linear stress-strain region, the output of the crystal will yield the ratio of force to mass, or acceleration.

This last year I took off from experimentation to think about the observed time wave phenomena. So I have new experimental directions to pursue to check out some of my theories on time.

You observed no "time wave phenomena." I thought we had been through this? What you are witnessing is the natural oscillatory frequency of the proof mass and the cantilever beam inside the accelerometer.

RMT

 

[Einstein]

RMT

So then no more unsubstantiated claimed of "time waves" then, right?

I think you should agree that all my conclusions based on alternate interpretations of existing observations are unsubstantiated.

But there was a clue in the data that suggested something a little different than the measurement of a linear force was going on. It made no difference in what direction the sensor was oriented. The measured pulses always had the same amplitude no matter what orientation was chosen.



Why do you think it should be different in different directions? You stated you "did your homework" to discover how it actually works. But perhaps this might be the best time to apply math. For it sounds like you do not realize that an accelerometer cannot measure gravitational accelerations. It sounds like you want a very special device called a gravimeter. But the problem with this device is that it is highly sensitive to mechanical accelerations (the thing a normal accelerometer reads), thus introducing error in the measurment of local gravity.

To answer your first question, the accelerometer sensor I was using at the time was a x,y axis accelerometer. I was only using one axis. It was directional. Yet the orientation of this sensor made no difference. The pulse waves were always the same amplitude. But the orientation data suggests that I'm dealing with an omnidirectional wave. I am aware that the acceleration sensor can not measure gravity waves directly. But it can measure an increase or decrease in the affect gravity has on spacetime.

But the pulse generated is only indicative of a change in force intensity. So a constant force will not generate an electrical signal.



Well, it would if the body continued to accelerate. What you seem to be forgetting is that, unless you are in the vaccuum of space, there are restorative (balancing) forces that will eventually counteract and nullify an applied force that causes something to begin moving. Such as gravity and aerodynamic drag.

Now here, there is a difference between a quartz crystal and the accelerometer sensor I was using, that I don't think you are seeing. The quartz crystal only generates voltage when there is a change in force applied. Not with a constant force. The accelerometer sensor has some complex electronic circuitry tied in with its quartz crystal to produce a continuous voltage output.

Your video would not load for me... I waited 10 minutes and still nothing. But I am wondering why you feel the need to make your own accelerometer. It seems that what you have interpreted as a "failure" of the device to give you what you want is really nothing more than you misunderstanding what the device is really measuring.

My video was a 4MB file. The site I use sometimes does take a while to download. I just wanted to show you that a quartz crystal can generate voltage with changing accelerations. I wouldn't classify my quartz crystal sensor as an accelerometer. It's more akin to a pressure sensor. But it is only capable of measuring changes in pressure, not constant pressure. And the added benefit that it is a very inexpensive solution to the bandwidth problem of my accelerometer. I can always choose another crystal with a different frequency if there is ever a question of internal resonance going on. I am aware that accelerometers have a proof mass. That proof mass gives the accelerometer its directional property. But also severely limits the bandwidth of the device. My simpler design may actually give me the data I'm looking for.

You observed no "time wave phenomena." I thought we had been through this? What you are witnessing is the natural oscillatory frequency of the proof mass and the cantilever beam inside the accelerometer.

There are lots of time interaction observations on the scope data in the "Gravity Research" thread. But the time wave I was talking about was causing my frequency generator to slowly change its frequency from zero to around 500KHz. All by itself with no input from me or the controls. I tried turning off my frequency generator to see if that would cause the effect to dissipate. That didn't work. The time wave was still there when I turned the equipment back on. So I turned everything off and came back the next day. Everything had returned to normal with no evidence of what had caused it.

I just want to volunteer some information here. I am no longer in the belief that my accelerometer sensor was actually measuring gravity waves. Basically because the quartz crystal within the sensor is very sensitive to electric waves. From the information I gathered on quartz crystals I learned that the crystal can't tell the difference between electrical pressure or mechanical pressure. So the whole time I suspect I was actually just measuring a huge electrical field at resonant frequencies of the big metal circular ring I was using.

Occasionally when connecting my equipment to various sized metal objects I would hear a ringing sound with the frequency generator output connected to the metal object. Every object has its own unique resonant sound. I just wondered if there is any math you might know about to determine what that resonant sound might be if one were given the dimensions and composition of the object?

 

[RainmanTime]

Einstein,

I think you should agree that all my conclusions based on alternate interpretations of existing observations are unsubstantiated.

Oh I definitely agree with that. But the problem I am having is when you use alternate interpretations in your verbiage as if they are a "given". That is annoying, at best, and disingenuous, at worst. For example when you say:

I am aware that the acceleration sensor can not measure gravity waves directly.

This is where your insistence upon using non-standard (and non-proven) terminology in your discussions causes great confusion. I can only assume you insist upon using these so that you sound like you are doing advanced work. In reality, you are just muddying the water. The proof is that the term "gravity wave" is not indicative of how you are trying to use it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave

<font color="red"> In fluid dynamics, gravity waves are waves generated in a fluid medium or at the interface between two media (e.g. the atmosphere or ocean) which has the restoring force of gravity or buoyancy.

When a fluid element is displaced on an interface or internally to a region with a different density, gravity tries to restore the parcel toward equilibrium resulting in an oscillation about the equilibrium state or wave orbit. Gravity waves on an air-sea interface are called surface gravity waves or surface waves while internal gravity waves are called internal waves. Ocean waves generated by wind are examples of gravity waves, and tsunamis and ocean tides are others.[/COLOR]

So you see, the term "gravity wave" is more related to waves created in a medium that responds to the force of gravity (i.e. has mass). Your use of this term is incorrect. It would be best if you just dropped the "wave" part because it is specious, at best, and it does nothing to further our conversation. What you are really referring to is the field effect we call gravity. Moreover, do not think that replacing "gravity wave" by "gravitational wave" in your above description will make it any more correct. For even a gravitational wave is not what we are discussing here... we are simply discussing the gravity field effect upon an object of mass within the field.

Onward...

To answer your first question, the accelerometer sensor I was using at the time was a x,y axis accelerometer. I was only using one axis. It was directional. Yet the orientation of this sensor made no difference. The pulse waves were always the same amplitude.

This is the best evidence yet to suggest that what you are observing is an artifact of the resonant frequency of the sensor itself, and not any sort of external disturbance acting upon the sensor. Perhaps you need to do a better job of describing what you mean by "pulse waves". Was this related to a magnetic field disturbance you were generating with your Tesla coil?

I am aware that the acceleration sensor can not measure gravity waves directly. But it can measure an increase or decrease in the affect gravity has on spacetime.

Why do you say that? I do not agree. All an acceleration sensor can detect is actual motion of itself. This because the signal is derived from the motion of the proof mass and the strain it generates which is read by the sensor. Again, I think your choice of wording makes it sound factual, but it is nothing of the sort. If what you were saying were true any NASA probe that flys by a planet or moon would have the capability to map the gravitational field anomalies of the celestial body as it passed. An accelerometer cannot do that.

Now here, there is a difference between a quartz crystal and the accelerometer sensor I was using, that I don't think you are seeing. The quartz crystal only generates voltage when there is a change in force applied. Not with a constant force. The accelerometer sensor has some complex electronic circuitry tied in with its quartz crystal to produce a continuous voltage output.

It may be that I am not seeing the difference, but it may be I know exactly what you are saying. Clearly, the crystal is making use of the Piezoelectric Effect. And as you can read at the link, the physics are such that you do get a voltage output that is in proportion to the force, because it is measuring strain within the crystal. It simply sounds to me like the circuit for crystal you are using is set up to work in a differential mode. But this is mere speculation going off your words... which is why I prefer the precision of diagrams and the math that go with them.

When you say the accelerometer sensor "produces a continuous voltage output", how are you measuring the applied force to know that it is constant such that you can correlate it to the constant voltage? In other words, what truth source are you using to be able to come to your conclusions?

I just wanted to show you that a quartz crystal can generate voltage with changing accelerations. I wouldn't classify my quartz crystal sensor as an accelerometer. It's more akin to a pressure sensor. But it is only capable of measuring changes in pressure, not constant pressure.

It is, at its most basic, a strain sensor. That is the principal of the piezoelectric effect. And as I mentioned above, I believe it is simply configured in a differential mode because if what you are describing is true, this does not reflect the typical relationship of voltage-to-strain that is given by the piezoelectric effect.

And the added benefit that it is a very inexpensive solution to the bandwidth problem of my accelerometer.

Why do you conclude that? All electrical circuits possess phase lag which limits the useful bandwidth. Furthermore, there is still a mechanical process going on that creates the output voltage. THAT is the real source of phase lag which limits bandwidth. Anything mechanical is going to have a much smaller useful bandwidth over something that is purely electrical simply because inertia is that property which causes phase lag in mechanical processes.

For all the times you tell me "you are not seeing what I am seeing", I am trying to be nice and point out that what you are seeing may not be what you think you are seeing. I believe your knowledge about physical systems is limited and it allows you to come to conclusions which a broader knowledge would prohibit. The physics of phase lag in mechanical systems is specifically the issue I think that you are oversimplifying. It is clear to me that you have not taken the more advanced physics or controls courses which drill this topic home. This is not intended to be a "dig" or an insult. I believe I am merely stating the truth. The remedy is more education in higher level physics, because it seems very apparant that you are coming to conclusions based on your very basic observations without the aid of more advanced knowledge of physics which could explain some of the details behind what you are seeing. This would then serve to prevent you coming to premature conclusions.

I will answer the rest later... got to get back to the lab.
RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

Picking up where I left off...

There are lots of time interaction observations on the scope data in the "Gravity Research" thread. But the time wave I was talking about was causing my frequency generator to slowly change its frequency from zero to around 500KHz. All by itself with no input from me or the controls. I tried turning off my frequency generator to see if that would cause the effect to dissipate. That didn't work. The time wave was still there when I turned the equipment back on. So I turned everything off and came back the next day. Everything had returned to normal with no evidence of what had caused it.

Really? No evidence whatsoever? So you do not think a cold-soak of a piece of electronic equipment with what must be a high voltage power supply is any evidence? I think it is. Question: Have you ever heard of Frequency Drift?

<font color="red"> In electrical engineering, and particularly in telecommunications, frequency drift is an unintended and generally arbitrary offset of an oscillator from its nominal frequency. This can be caused by changes in temperature, which can alter the piezoelectric effect in a quartz crystal, or by problems with a voltage regulator which controls the bias voltage to the oscillator. [/COLOR]

Someone with as much apparant intelligence as you, Einstein, should have known about this. Or even if you did not, thermal effects should have been forefront in your mind (given how much you work/play with electronics) such that you would at least go looking for this effect online. IMHO, we are now moving from a phenomenon of "simple misunderstanding" by you, into plain old laziness. But the very best thing about it, is that I have now solved the mystery for you, and you can stop referring to frequency drift as a "time wave"... right?

Occasionally when connecting my equipment to various sized metal objects I would hear a ringing sound with the frequency generator output connected to the metal object. Every object has its own unique resonant sound. I just wondered if there is any math you might know about to determine what that resonant sound might be if one were given the dimensions and composition of the object?

Most certainly. That would be the mathematics of time-frequency and frequency-time conversion... the LaPlace Transform. This is the math that governs anything oscillatory. It is the math I use in predicting and understanding the resonance of closed-loop control systems coupled to flexible aircraft. But I have some news that you may find disappointing: It is not as simple as you would like it to be. Simple equations can predict resonant effects like standing waves in a tube and when they reach resonance. But to be able to predict resonance of objects made of varying materials, with varying shapes, immersed in varying environments, and subjected to varying forcing fields... that takes modeling of all these complexities with a simulation. Yes, it can be done. But no, it is not going to be as simple and "intuitive" as I know you would like things to be (or rather seem to think that things are in nature).

Now I would be willing to bet that you will come back and accuse me of being snide or rude to you. But if you think that "bursting your bubble" is snide or rude, there is not much I can do about that. I am merely relating to you the truth. And the truth is out there for you to discover and understand, but it is rarely easy especially when seeking to discover the truth about the things you choose to study. There is no easy way out, I am afraid.

RMT

 

[Darby]

Ray,

I know that Einstein believes what he believes. There's no changing that. But in the field of science there is always the idea that when one comes up with a "new perspective" and foments a new theory that new theory has to be tested against what is already known to be true through experiment and observation.

Einstein sees the results that he sees on his scope and interprets it in a general sense - it's gravitational waves. The very next question that he should be asking himself is what else does this new "theory" suggest and do we see what is suggested in the real world?

If gravity is what he suggests rather than what the real Einstein stated, that it is a curvature of spacetime, what other phenomona does his theory suggest and where is the evidence that the suggested phenomena exists? That's the expansion that he has to prove...not what he "sees" but what his observations suggest as his theory is generalized. We know that, in the end, there is but one theory of physical reality. That is the Unified Field Theory or some-such theory of reality. Where is the generalized proof based on his observations? Does his theory explain the precession of the line of apsides of Mercury? Does it explain the displacement of the starry background near the limb of the sun during a full Solar eclipse? The explanation has to be other than mere hand-waving. It has to be stated in succinct form taking into account his theory, the real Einsteins's theory and Newton's theory of gravity. The evidence gathered over the past 200+ years clearly indicates that Newton was "correct" and that Einstein was more correct, given that Newton's theory of gravity is a limiting situation where either or both the velocity or gravitational field are in the limit where they approach zero rather than 1 (where c &amp; G are are given as unity...1 ).

And to put the gravity "thing" into perspective we can't forget this: I weigh in at 100 kg - 220 lbs. For me to weigh that much on the surface of the Earth it takes the entire gravitational mass of the planet - all 597,630,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg of mass of planet Earth - for the gravitational force to make me weigh in at that amount. That he uses the electrical energy of a 110v wall socket to produce even an infinitely small but measurable change in the gravitational force is so remote that stating that 10m under the surface of the Moon it is entirely covered by a 1 cm layer of cream cheese is much more likely. I'll state that again: for me to weigh in at 100 kg on the surface of the planet it takes the combined gravitational field of every individual particle on the planet, whose combined mass is 5.9736×10^24 kg, to produce that result.

Without equivication, where's the rest of the theory that fully explains those facts in detail such that a physicist or anyone else with even a barebones technical background can understand it and agree with the results?