Gravity Research Update

I am not going to endlessly argue with you on this point. This is my final straw on an attempt to make even you understand.
Click to expand...

Thank you. Because in some people's view, taking a thread off-topic (which you appear to have done here) could be deemed similar to a "psychic vampiric attack".

:D

If you post your reply in another thread, perhaps I will respond.
RMT
 
Mr. Hudson, you are the one who started the "crackpot" post which took the thread off-topic.
Click to expand...

Why do you think it is off-topic to point out where Einstein's research does not meet with the norms of scientific investigation? Just because it is criticism does not mean it is off-topic!
/ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif
RMT
 
Criticism does throw a thread off-topic. When you started the "crackpot" post, it makes a person feel "low" because the poster had done a lot of work in explaining his/her experiments. That is a real "deal breaker" buddy.

what kind of a forum is this? its ridic! and you know it.

heck even I think you dont even believe in nature of balance. If you did, you wouldnt be spouting criticism anywhere on a SCI FI FORUM.
 
my my, arent you quite the ACTIVIST.
 
Pro,

You seem to have a problem living up to your pledges. Should I remind you what you, yourself, pledged a couple posts ago?

Criticism does throw a thread off-topic.
Click to expand...

Only when a 3rd party distorts it into something it is not. Einstein and I have our go-arounds. We each get under the other's skin here and there... but I don't believe we hate each other. At least I do not hate him, and I have (more than once) praised the value of his experimental bent.

You got a problem with it?

When you started the "crackpot" post, it makes a person feel "low"
Click to expand...

It may have made you feel "low" but it was not directed at you. I don't see Einstein continuing to whine about it.

That is a real "deal breaker" buddy.
Click to expand...

So is not living up to your word..."buddy".

and you know it.
Click to expand...

Now you presume to know what I know, and wish to state it for me? Will the arrogance ever end?

heck even I think you dont even believe in nature of balance. If you did, you wouldnt be spouting criticism anywhere on a SCI FI FORUM.
Click to expand...

Your judgments remind me of someone... someone I once knew.... Anyway, call my criticisms a "weakness". Or you could call it a professional asset. I "criticize" (grade) a lot of student work just as much as I "criticize" (review) a lot of professional work. It is not the bad thing you make it out to be.

And BTW, I highly doubt Einstein would categorize his work as "SCI FI". In fact, your branding his work in such a way might make him feel "low". /ttiforum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Why not start your own thread where we can do this till the cows come home? You seem to like it!
RMT
 
The cows left the area when they saw you coming. No wonder alot of people have left the TTI forum, all because of you when you became a mod.


Next time when you go to that stripper joint around the corner not far from where you live, you will need to stop drooling over christy, because christy got some mighty friends. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Otherwise than that, I am glad Einstein shared with us. I am thinking he wont do it anymore. Will you, Einstein?
 
Pro7

Otherwise than that, I am glad Einstein shared with us. I am thinking he wont do it anymore. Will you, Einstein?
Click to expand...

Sure I will. You just can't expect weekly updates. Sometimes I don't even post for months. I like to spend my time in my lab investigating anomalous phenomena.

Of course you might think that RMT has the upper hand in his analysis of my experimental efforts. He even went so far as to say that my use of an accelerometer sensor to gather data outside of the range it was designed to handle was bad science. I think he's baiting me. There just aren't enough trolls coming through these days for his entertainment pleasure. He is a formidable debater. But then I don't wear the name of Einstein just for show either. It was me that gave RMT the info that I am using my accelerometer sensor out of it's designed range. So you could say that it was me that was baiting RMT. And he took it hook, line, and sinker. Now I understand that RMT got slapped up side the head a few days ago by Pamela. Women do do things like that when you displease them. I wont do anything that drastic. You see everything he said about my accelerometer sensor is entirely true. I think he even mentioned one time that he helps design them. In fact I would stand right along side RMT and solidly swear on a stack of bibles that the sensor cannot display a frequency in the frequency range that I say I'm using it in. Just based on the way the sensor is designed. The proof mass inside the sensor does get in the way of its own inertia at the frequency I am using it at. I would almost bet that if the proof mass was exposed to a mechanical force strong enough to cause it to display the frequency and magnitude that I'm seeing on my scope, the damn thing would explode. So by all rights there should not be any data at all possible to be gathered at this frequency. But there is. And the sensor doesn't explode. And that makes it an anomaly. That's my cup of tea. I study anomalous phenomena. So while RMT swears up and down that this can't be, I'm more interested in finding out why it is. So naturally I gather data with it to see just what kind of data I get. Maybe there will be a clue in the data to suggest why or how the sensor can work this way. Aha, there is. The waves that the sensor picks up and displays on my scope are omnidirectional. No matter which way I orient the sensor, the wave amplitude remains the same. So if you think about how the sensor actually works, then it becomes apparent what might be happening. The peizoelectric material in the sensor generates a voltage each time the proof mass either pulls or pushes on it. But the proof mass is not attached in an omnidirectional pattern around the piezoelectric material. And also the proof mass just can't oscillate in this frequency range. So it can't be the proof mass causing the anomalous readings. Something is causing the piezoelectric material to expand and contract without the assistance of the proof mass. That is my logical analysis. So I don't think a proof mass would even be needed at all to detect these waves. This does make me wonder if maybe manufacturers make piezoelectric sensors without any proof mass at all. Maybe a pressure sensor. I don't know as much about these sensors as RMT. But maybe RMT could direct me toward a commercially available sensor with the proposed theoretical design. I would love to use a sensor that could actually give me some quantifiable data. Then it would be possible to correlate an actual mathematical description.
 
"Something is causing the piezoelectric material to expand and contract without the assistance of the proof mass. That is my logical analysis. So I don't think a proof mass would even be needed at all to detect these waves. This does make me wonder if maybe manufacturers make piezoelectric sensors without any proof mass at all."

What kind of material are used for the piezoelectric sensors that you're using? Quartz based? Reason I asked about that is because quartz based piezoelectric sensors can be faulty when expanding and contracting at a slow rate.
 
"Now I understand that RMT got slapped up side the head a few days ago by Pamela."

ROFL.. was that physical or just by words? lol.
 
Back
Top