Understanding the universe.

[Obelix 11]

Any time anyone claims to have invented perpetual motion, or an overunity machine, it's instructive to ask them how they managed to violate the First Law without the Universe noticing....

[petemcewan 27]

I've not addressed them because I haven't seen them - despite asking many times.

 

You have made statements. Bereft of proof they are easily dismissed.

I have made logical arguments, with supporting evidence. Bereft of refutation - they still stand.

 

If you provide an argument, cogently organised, I will read it. If all you are going to do is give me a huge pile of papers and expect me to read all of them and guess where you are making the argument, I've got other things to do I'm afraid.

 

So I'll ask again - have you any arguments to make? If it will be easier to email them I'll send you an address and you can sned exterpts. I can cope with TeX/LaTeX documents and most of the other formats if needed. I'll summarise the responses etc for the group.

 

---------- Post added 15-04-2016 at 17:24 ----------

 

 

I wasn't saying you were unaware of it - just that on such sites you can have papers uploaded that have never undergone peer review - never will - and apparently look like proper papers. They are of course, complete claptrap of the highest order.

 

Obelix,

 

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't accusing you of anything.

Yes, I agree , there's plenty of papers out there without peers review. However , I wouldn't go as far as saying,"they are of course , complete claptrap".

I'd have to read them all first.

[unbeliever 10]

Obelix,

 

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't accusing you of anything.

Yes, I agree , there's plenty of papers out there without peers review. However , I wouldn't go as far as saying,"they are of course , complete claptrap".

I'd have to read them all first.

 

A paper doesn't have to be proven right to pass peer review.

It does however have to be not complete nonsense. For example deliberately misquoting the GR equations.

 

If Crothers' only issue was that he couldn't prove his case, but he had a legitimate case, his publications would pass peer review.

The journals are full of dissenting opinion.

 

Ergo it is reasonable to assume that refusal to submit to peer review is compelling evidence of claptrap.

[petemcewan 27]

Mr P. Morris . Note. This is not me trying to show off. It has to be done.

 

 

Just to clear up some misunderstandings.

 

Over Unity is a misapplied term given to the work undertaken by Joe Flynn.

 

Unity is a term used in electrical engineering to expressed the phase relationship between voltage and current in an Alternating Current Network.

 

A highly inductive ac circuit has a phase relationship between voltage and current with causes the current to lag the voltage.The circuit is said to have a lagging power factor.

 

A circuit that is highly capacitive has a phase relationship between the voltage and current which causes the current to lead the voltage. The circuit is said to have a leading power factor.

 

A circuit that is purely resistive has a phase relationship between the voltage and the current that causes the current to be in phase with the voltage. The circuit is said to have unity power factor.

 

To calculate the true power in an ac circuit- and not the apparent power- the expression is Vrms X I rms X Cosine theta. Cos theta is an expression of the phase angle between the voltage and the current . It is known as the circuit power factor: leading, lagging or unity.

 

Power factor of a circuit can be expressed in terms of the ratio of Watts divided by Volt-ampers. When the volt-amperes are equal to to the Watts , then the circuit is said to have unity power factor.

 

When a circuit has a leading or lagging power factor. There is said to be power wasted in the network having to maintain the electromagnetic fields. This is called reactive power, VAr.

 

Unity power factor is what power engineers are always seeking to achieve.

 

It can be achieved by introducing into the network what is called a

leading component of current, “ Ic “ .

 

So ,lagging or leading or unity power factor has nothing to do with free energy.

 

The work of Joe Flynn and others is based on sound electromagnetic/magnetism theories.

 

The work on “parallel magnetic circuits” and “Flux Core Motors” is ongoing and has nothing to do with Free Energy or

S J Crothers. Eric Dolland is the free energy bod.

 

Free energy is something electrical engineers dismiss. Tying SJC into the Free Energy nonsense is mischievous .

 

---------- Post added 15-04-2016 at 18:22 ----------

 

unbeliever,

 

Have you any idea about what I've written ,Viz-a Viz "Unity Power Factor". ?

 

If the answer is yes . Then please explain " Volt-ampere reactive".

Edited April 16, 2016 by petemcewan

[unbeliever 10]

unbeliever,

 

Have you any idea about what I've written ,Viz-a Viz "Unity Power Factor". ?

 

If the answer is yes . Then please explain " Voltampere reactive".

 

I've not looked into the matter of the Crothers or his associates and free energy, nor have I commented on it.

 

Do you have any thoughts on my point that Crothers failure to subject his writings to peer review cannot be explained merely by the fact that his ideas do not fit with the scientific consensus.

Edited April 15, 2016 by unbeliever

[petemcewan 27]

Any time anyone claims to have invented perpetual motion, or an overunity machine, it's instructive to ask them how they managed to violate the First Law without the Universe noticing....

 

Yes I agree. I've explained for you what Unity is all about. It's an electrical engineering term.

[MAC33 10]

When you look at the Chicago skyline from the 60 miles across Michigan Lake......you can still see it.

 

It of course should be under 2400ft of the earths curvature.

 

The second hour I found to be particularly fascinating.

 

 

[petemcewan 27]

SJC

Peer Reviews,Global Journal of Science Frontier Research

Physics and Space Science

Volume 12 Issue 4 Version 1.0 June 2012

Type : Double Blind Peer Reviewed International Research Journal

Publisher: Global Journals Inc. (USA)

Online ISSN: 2249-4626 & Print ISSN: 0975-5896

General Relativity – A Theory in Crisis

By Stephen J. Crothers

Alpha Institute for Advanced Study

 

"Abstract - The black hole, gravitational waves, and the Big Bang cosmology have no valid basis

in science. It is demonstrated herein that Einstein’s field equations violate the usual conservation

of energy and momentum and are therefore in conflict with experiment on a deep level, so that

General Relativity is invalid. This fact alone proves the invalidity of the black hole, gravitational

waves, the Big Bang cosmology and Einstein’s conception of the gravitational field.

Keywords : General Relativity, field equations, black hole, Big Bang cosmology, gravitational

waves, conservation of energy and momentum, pseudo-tensor.

GJSFR-A Classification : FOR Code: 020105, 020106, 020109 ".

 

Well worth a read.

 

---------- Post added 16-04-2016 at 20:49 ----------

 

MAC33.

 

I've sailed to the top of the world -82 degrees North. and back again to 52 degrees North.

 

It was uphill going,and downhill coming back.I can swear the earth is round. LOL.

 

"Image result for spherical geometrywww.math.hmc.edu

Spherical geometry is the geometry of the two-dimensional surface of a sphere. It is an example of a geometry that is not Euclidean. Two practical applications of the principles of spherical geometry are to navigation and astronomy. In plane geometry, the basic concepts are points and (straight) lines."

 

I've used such geometry for navigating using a sextant. I eventually end

up where I was aiming at. If the earth was flat ,spherical geometry wouldn't

work in navigation.

 

When I was 80nm from Svalbard I could see mountains (inverted ) on

the horizon. It's optical atmospherics.

Edited April 16, 2016 by petemcewan

[altus 538]

SJC

Peer Reviews,Global Journal of Science Frontier Research

Physics and Space Science

Volume 12 Issue 4 Version 1.0 June 2012

Type : Double Blind Peer Reviewed International Research Journal

Publisher: Global Journals Inc. (USA)

Online ISSN: 2249-4626 & Print ISSN: 0975-5896

General Relativity – A Theory in Crisis

By Stephen J. Crothers

Alpha Institute for Advanced Study

 

Well worth a read.

 

Or maybe not:

Who is afraid of Peer review: Sting Operation of The Science: Some analysis of the metadata

 

Science has published a news article about the apparent lack of proper peer-review at many open access journals. The recent “sting” article in Science exposed certain real predatory journals (Not by J Beall’s definition) for publishing clearly erroneous scientific results in exchange for money. The author, contributing Science reporter John Bohannon, concocted a spoof paper with scientific problems, which ended up to be accepted in 157 out of 304 open access journals.

And look who is in the table of publishers that don't actually do peer reviews -

Table 4: List of journals/publishers, who Accepted the paper superficial/NO review (May be considered confirmed blacklisted journal/publisher)

 

outcome review publisher

accepted none Global Journals, Inc. (US)

[Obelix 11]

Yes I agree. I've explained for you what Unity is all about. It's an electrical engineering term.

 

I'm quite well aware of what it's about - I've been using it for only about thirty years after I finished my electronics degree. I was pointing out what the free energy crowd did when they hijacked the term to make their supposed free energy machines sound more respectable.

 

---------- Post added 17-04-2016 at 00:14 ----------

 

When you look at the Chicago skyline from the 60 miles across Michigan Lake......you can still see it.

 

It of course should be under 2400ft of the earths curvature.

 

Theres an effect called a Fata Morgana when it comes to bodies of water

[petemcewan 27]

Obelix,

I always thought Power Factor was a bit of a mystery to you light current men.

I agree about the hijacking. The "Free Energy " crowd (Eric Dolland,et-al ) are a million miles apart from

research into improving the efficiency of electrical machines .

 

---------- Post added 17-04-2016 at 01:44 ----------

 

Altus,

 

That's an interesting point you make. It clearly states, "peer review" and "double blind".

I'd really like to know what any one of the 157 journals had to say in response to the "sting".

 

However, I'm in favour of open access . Without it, science would be a "closed shop".

It's interesting to note ,that in the practice of scientific medicine ,that a large number of

medical research papers get classified as having no scientific worth at all.

[Annie Bynnol 612]

When you look at the Chicago skyline from the 60 miles across Michigan Lake......you can still see it.

 

It of course should be under 2400ft of the earths curvature.

 

 

As many people who live on the hills of Sheffield know it is easy to see the lights on the Trent and Ayre powers stations 30 miles away.

 

People have photographed York Minster and the towers of the Humber Bridge( the vertical towers are so tall they are further apart at the top than the bottom).

 

I can see with my naked eye the lights on Belmont transmitter on the Lincolnshire Wolds 55 miles away.

 

It is possible to estimate the circumference of the Earth by measuring the difference between actual and observed positions of objects at the same heights above the on a 4 mile level section of the New Junction Canal in South Yorkshire.

 

I can see the vapour trails of planes crossing the coast at Cromer 120 miles away.

 

Check this site and it will show you how easy it would be to see Chicago from 60 miles distant across the lake.

 

---------- Post added 17-04-2016 at 02:15 ----------

 

...It's interesting to note ,that in the practice of scientific medicine ,that a large number of

medical research papers get classified as having no scientific worth at all.

 

Several of these of these "medical research papers get classified as having no scientific worth at all" are regularly quoted on here concerning MMR and autism.

 

There are very obvious ways in which medical research can differ from the scientific method. eg Medical research established a statistical link between smoking and lung cancer long before science established the cause.

 

Medical research is often asked to predict cause and the science is done which may or may not support that prediction.

 

And we also know of people who falsely claimed to do medical research, used methods so flawed as to be totally discredited an barred from medical practice.

Others working in commercial and academic settings have also committed fraud. Others have made mistakes. Peer review is therefore essential and any Journal that allows 'science' through, claiming to be peer reviewed should rightly be challenged.