Einstein,
I not only insist mathematics be avoided. I demand it!
Fatuous. So F=ma is just plain "not useful" to you, huh?
How many people have been misled into believing the answers can be found in mathematics? Did you mislead any? I was mislead. I'm just a bit pissed off about that.
A ha. Now we see the emotional underpinnings that lie beneath your rejection of mathematics and its relation to science. Clearly, Einstein has NOT used logic to wade thru his emotions about this subject to get at what is really going on. Perhaps you WERE mislead about the proper applicaiton of math to physical problems. There is little I can do about that, but there is a LOT you can do about that. Just like in any language (closed system) we can create statements that are either nonsense or simply false. Are you surprised (mislead?) that the same is true of mathematics? Your view of mathematics as it relates to the utility of the physical sciences is terribly biased because of you MISUNDERSTANDING of its appropriate applications. No doubt this came from a person who enveloped their lives in math (a pure math major), rather than someone who uses and applies math to real world problems (engineers and physicists).
Are you going to tell me that V=IR and P=I^2R are misleading? How about the Biot-Savart Law? If you think that is misleading then you do not know the mathematical history behind much of the electronics you play with in your lab.
For now I just have to accept that my explorations must fall outside the realm of mathematics.
And in accepting that you commit your first, and most fatuous mistake. While you have never even attempted to mathematically model your setup, to see if part of what you observe COULD POSSIBLY be explained with existing science, you immediately ASSUME that what you are observing MUST be outside the realms of not only math, but existing science. I am not attemping to insult you when I say this, Einstein, but only being truthful: This is PRECISELY how crackpots "convince" themselves they what they are doing is SO revolutionary, that no one could have POSSIBLY seen it or described it before....so they don't even bother to investigate (or understand) the math and existing theory based therein.
As far as I can tell, I do not think you have ever bothered to develop a 3-D math model of the electric and magnetic fields generated by your apparatus. This is too bad, because this first step could lead to many more realizations in your mind than you seem to think. I tell you, developing such a model is PRECISELY HOW REAL SCIENCE IS DONE. Want an example? Look up the names James Woodward (professor at Cal State Fullerton) and Paul March (engineer at Jacobs Engineering, a contractor to NASA in Houston). These gentlemen are investigating (using REAL science) a device they call the Mach-Lorentz Thruster. In fact, I would bet if you wrote to Paul March he is SO WELL VERSED in E-field and B-field modeling he could probably explain some of the things you observe out of his knowledge without a model. But the work he does with Woodward on the MLT is specifically to model the E-field and B-field generated by the thruster so they can separate fact (a real thrust force) from fiction (spurious faux-forces generated by the electronics setups). Until you start modeling (with existing math/physics models) what you are doing, so you can identify what you know from what you don't know, you are the equivalent of a blind man looking for a contact lens on the ground.
I just use simple logic. I'm using an acceleration sensor. The sensor measures mechanical and gravitational acceleration.
And in your logic there is an embedded assumption that I have briefly explained to you before. You are assuming a LINEAR RESPONSE of the accelerometer. To put it mathematically, you are assuming a steady-state approximation for how the accelerometer generates its acceleration signal:
accel = k*force
There is NO time in this assumption. The reality is that the accelerometer (just like any physical system) has a COMPLEX time and frequency domain response (and by this I mean precisely "x+iy" complex numbers). The assumed equation above is the "first order response". I can tell you from using accelerometers in flight control systems that there are at LEAST TWO MORE ORDERS OF "s" (The Laplacian Operator) required to accurately model the time and frequency domain response of an accelerometer. In fact, the manufacturers of highly precise accels that we use actually give us the 3rd order transfer function for their hardware so we can MODEL the hardware effects MATHEMATICALLY in our aircraft simulations. This allows us to distinguish "real aircraft motion" from spurious artifacts generated by the inherent physics of the accelerometer and its electronics.
I've ruled out mechanical acceleration as a source of the waves displayed on my oscilloscope. So all that's left is gravitational acceleration. I even went to considerable lengths to rule out the possiblity that the waves could be ultrasound. The waves pass through everything unimpeded. I tried a different sensor with a different resonant frequency. Since that was a suggestion of yours. I even replaced my existing sensor. None of the sensors pickup gravity wave oscillations at their resonant frequencies. But they all pickup gravity wave oscillations at specific frequency locations over the small available portion of the EM spectrum that I have investigated.
You can SAY you've "ruled out" and you can THINK you have ruled them out, but until you have faithfully modeled the higher order dynamics of your physical and electrical situation, you cannot actually validate that you have ruled them out. Do you think the USAF would accept explanations such as yours for an airplane that was being delivered to them that was exhibiting anomalous behavior? Don't you think reasonable people (who understand the true application and value of math in modeling the real world) would demand at least a medium fidelity model showing what you expect should be going on vs. what is actually going on?
I believe you also have told us that the frequencies are outside the operational band of the accelerometer, right? If this is so then the reality is that these acceleromters are NOT TUNED to provide truth signals at those frequencies. The reason that a manufacturer states a valid frequency range for the outputs is because THEY KNOW HIGHER ORDER DYNAMICS CAN AND DO CORRUPT THE TRUTH OF THE SENSOR's OUTPUTS when operated outside the operational frequency. No acclerometer manufacturer is going to EVER guarantee that any "signal" you are seeing from their device as being "real" if you are using it outside its valid frequency response band. Period.
I can go on and on explaining why you are fooling yourself, Einstein. And it stems from your use of (linear) logic instead of digging in and modeling the complex dynamics of your physical and E/M apparatus. But rather than continue (although I will if you wish to continue) I would suggest you contact Paul March, as he could at least point you in the direction of a software package or two that will help you begin to model the E/M effects of your apparatus in 3-D. Once you do that you might wish to develop transfer function representations of your apparatus so that you can actually MODEL the higher order effects (s^2, s^3, s^4 and so on).
RMT
