FREE TAPATALK APP

henryco · 7th November 2011, 02:05 AM

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

I am stil waiting for proof that any prominent scientist with all his headbolts torqued right supports what Shoulders claims. The only things I have found that he published are in what appear to be utter nutjob publications.

Such a scientist as prominent it might be , will be discredited the day after ... and his carrier seriously compromized. However the ones who already have the Nobel prize can take the risk:
http://pesn.com/2011/06/23/9501856_N...t_cold_fusion/

GlennB · 7th November 2011, 02:58 AM

Originally Posted by henryco

-radiations
-Fast and effective dissipation of the content of the microsized mlbs in the surrounding 50 times bigger volume of air
-vaporisation of water

Originally Posted by henryco

Therefore eventually it heated the whole cloud to between 30 and 40°C, a hot cloud indeed as witnessed by many experiencers...

<sigh>

The "50 times bigger volume of air" is, as you state, air.

The 50,000 tons, 1x volume of molten concrete products at ~3000°C consists, however, of molten concrete products.

You cannot divide the higher temperature by 50 to get final temperature of the mix. The heat capacity (specific heat) of air by volume is ~ .001, while concrete is ~ 1.0 (iirc). Three orders of magnitude apart, so the final temperature of the mix will be much closer to 3000 than 30.

leftysergeant · 7th November 2011, 03:38 AM

Originally Posted by henryco

Such a scientist as prominent it might be , will be discredited the day after ... and his carrier seriously compromized. However the ones who already have the Nobel prize can take the risk:

Show me where he addresses Shoulders' work. Further, he just states that Rossi might be on to something but he has no clue how it works and it could still be utter crap.

sheeplesnshills · 7th November 2011, 04:55 AM

Originally Posted by henryco

Therefore eventually it heated the whole cloud to between 30 and 40°C, a hot cloud indeed as witnessed by many experiencers...

F

Wouldn't a huge fire over at least 10 floors also account for the "a hot cloud indeed as witnessed by many experiencers..."

henryco · 7th November 2011, 05:40 AM

Originally Posted by GlennB

<sigh>

The "50 times bigger volume of air" is, as you state, air.

The 50,000 tons, 1x volume of molten concrete products at ~3000°C consists, however, of molten concrete products.

You cannot divide the higher temperature by 50 to get final temperature of the mix. The heat capacity (specific heat) of air by volume is ~ .001, while concrete is ~ 1.0 (iirc). Three orders of magnitude apart, so the final temperature of the mix will be much closer to 3000 than 30.

You are right. It's Very basic. i'm sorry. i didnt think enough about it though i did such kind of computations recently to test the radiative emission of the Pioneer spacecrafts...
Moreover what i v just checked is that the power emitted radiatively or even by simple heat conductivity is only of the order of several milliJoule /s while the lifetime of an mlb in the micronsize range is only 10^-11 sec according to http://www.rexresearch.com/ev/ev.htm
and should not be much longer for 10 microns mlbs.
In such a short lifetime the fraction of heat that escapes the mlb is unsignificant relative to the total energy it contains at 3000K which is ~ 10^-5 Joules.

Therefore the heat is almost completely lost through the mechanism i explained before : as a result of an mlb loosing its charges (very fast process) the spherical discontinuity at its frontiers propagates in a centripetal way : the mlb collapses and as the pressure inside rises , all the particles inside will get sufficient energy to overcome the mlb potential barrier and escape in the environnment but doing so they loose all of their energy and escape much cooler than inside : almost all the heat (energy) is lost in that way.
Hence most of the calorific energy is converted to potential gravitational energy again...

Almost because apparently the mlb often finish their life in an explosion (probably the discontinuous potential disappears just as it appeared ) and the remaining hot material in the mlb is released in the environnment but this must be a very small fraction of the total material fused inside the mlb during its whole lifetime.

F

Dave Rogers · 7th November 2011, 05:48 AM

Originally Posted by henryco

Therefore the heat is almost completely lost through the mechanism i explained before : as a result of an mlb loosing its charges (very fast process) the spherical discontinuity at its frontiers propagates in a centripetal way : the mlb collapses and as the pressure inside rises , all the particles inside will get sufficient energy to overcome the mlb potential barrier and escape in the environnment but doing so they loose all of their energy and escape much cooler than inside : almost all the heat (energy) is lost in that way.
Hence most of the calorific energy is converted to potential gravitational energy again...

Dave

tsig · 7th November 2011, 06:34 AM

Originally Posted by henryco

You are right. It's Very basic. i'm sorry. i didnt think enough about it though i did such kind of computations recently to test the radiative emission of the Pioneer spacecrafts...
Moreover what i v just checked is that the power emitted radiatively or even by simple heat conductivity is only of the order of several milliJoule /s while the lifetime of an mlb in the micronsize range is only 10^-11 sec according to http://www.rexresearch.com/ev/ev.htm
and should not be much longer for 10 microns mlbs.
In such a short lifetime the fraction of heat that escapes the mlb is unsignificant relative to the total energy it contains at 3000K which is ~ 10^-5 Joules.

Therefore the heat is almost completely lost through the mechanism i explained before : as a result of an mlb loosing its charges (very fast process) the spherical discontinuity at its frontiers propagates in a centripetal way : the mlb collapses and as the pressure inside rises , all the particles inside will get sufficient energy to overcome the mlb potential barrier and escape in the environnment but doing so they loose all of their energy and escape much cooler than inside : almost all the heat (energy) is lost in that way.
Hence most of the calorific energy is converted to potential gravitational energy again...

Almost because apparently the mlb often finish their life in an explosion (probably the discontinuous potential disappears just as it appeared ) and the remaining hot material in the mlb is released in the environnment but this must be a very small fraction of the total material fused inside the mlb during its whole lifetime.

F

From the link:

"The EV is formed and propagates to the anode whenever the DC or pulse voltage rises to the point at which field emission begins a runaway switching process aided by metallic vapor from the cathode emission site.

Sounds like he's reinvented the vacuum tube.

henryco · 7th November 2011, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...7e21c53eb3.gif
Dave

I dont see what is so miraculous: after all you can just consider that particles inside the mlb are at a given potential while they are at another potential outside mlb , then, for them, escaping the mlb is just like an endothermic reaction where heat is transformed into potential energy. The evaporation of water could alternatively play the same role (absorb the heat) if there was enough water around...

Dave Rogers · 7th November 2011, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by henryco

I dont see what is so miraculous: after all you can just consider that particles inside the mlb are at a given potential while they are at another potential outside mlb , then, for them, escaping the mlb is just like an endothermic reaction where heat is transformed into potential energy.

You call yourself a physicist, yet you don't know the difference between gravitational potential energy and chemical energy?

Dave

henryco · 8th November 2011, 12:38 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

You call yourself a physicist, yet you don't know the difference between gravitational potential energy and chemical energy?

Dave

Why do you say that ?
For a physicist chemical energy is just a kind of electromagnetic potential energy.

Dave Rogers · 8th November 2011, 01:48 AM

Originally Posted by henryco

Why do you say that ?

Read your post again.

Originally Posted by henryco

Hence most of the calorific energy is converted to potential gravitational energy again...

Originally Posted by henryco

For a physicist chemical energy is just a kind of electromagnetic potential energy.

Which is distinctly different to a gravitational potential energy.

Dave

henryco · 9th November 2011, 08:40 PM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Read your post again.

Which is distinctly different to a gravitational potential energy.

Dave

Never said the contrary. But the difference is not one that would forbid heat to be converted into grav potential energy,just as it can be converted into EM pot energy. Moreover the grav potential energy i'm talking about is from discontinuities in the gravitational field: it's not the usual grav potential energy that you get when you are attracted by a Mass.

beachnut · 9th November 2011, 08:46 PM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...7e21c53eb3.gif
Dave

That explains the Dark Side of Gravity.

henryco · 9th November 2011, 09:04 PM

This article decribes mlbs 6 microns in diameter and lifetimes in between 10^-5 and 10-8 sec.
http://www.darksideofgravity.com/Ele...%20Rambaut.pdf
some lbs several cms in diameter have lifetimes several 10^-3 sec
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0101/0101089.pdf
lbs 0.5m in diameter from thunderstorms have typical lifetimes of several seconds

Dave Rogers · 10th November 2011, 01:11 AM

Originally Posted by henryco

Never said the contrary.

Yes, you did, by implication. You're trying to blur the distinction between gravitational potential energy and chemical potential energy.

Originally Posted by henryco

But the difference is not one that would forbid heat to be converted into grav potential energy,just as it can be converted into EM pot energy.

You didn't say it wasn't forbidden; you said that "most of the calorific energy is converted to potential gravitational energy again". Unlike Bill Clinton, you've used the word "is" quite unambiguously here.

Originally Posted by henryco

Moreover the grav potential energy i'm talking about is from discontinuities in the gravitational field: it's not the usual grav potential energy that you get when you are attracted by a Mass.

Let me guess. Has the conventional scientific establishment so far failed to acknowledge the existence of this alternative form of gravitational potential energy?

Dave

henryco · 10th November 2011, 01:58 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Let me guess. Has the conventional scientific establishment so far failed to acknowledge the existence of this alternative form of gravitational potential energy?

Dave

All laws of physics we know except only very few exceptions are formulated as differential equations which are actually conservation laws. The conservation of the energy is just one of them.

None of these laws , including the conservation of the energy, are postulates
or basic principles, these are all derived. And none of them is self evident.
In other words all of them might be wrong or have a limited validity.

For instance the conservation of energy and momentum follows (is derived) through the Noether theorem. The genuine starting principles are invariance principles under various space-time transformations (translations for instance).

So a serious approach in physics must be first to clearly formulate what are the invariance principles and how these must be formulated. In my approach for instance there are fundamental discrete space-time symmetries (time reversal, space reversal) and it is well know that there are two possible ways two mathematically treat them.

There is a binary option and my choice was just opposite to the usual ones: it leads to a reformulation of GR with fundamental discontinuities with dynamical effects, non local gravity, and since the conditions for the Noether theorem to apply are not anymore fulfilled (no field discontinuities is such a condition ) the local conservation of energy is not granted at some place where you have a discontinuity.

Is that miraculous ? not at all! just unusual.

Let me tell you what are actual miracles:

First a sentence that you will find in all QM textbooks: "then the wave function collapses" an incredible process, non local , undeterministic and clearly violating the local conservation of the energy.

Then a wellknown equation : E=h nu

an incredible discontinuous process that nobody could have anticipated

Both follow from nothing, these are not derived, in other words these are postulates, arbitrary ones people were just obliged to adopt to fit the observations and experiment results.

The problem is that if you would like to derive QM from principles that would have a more serious status than those strange postulates , you would be obliged to build a theoretical framework which admits nonlocality (this is what we must admit since the Bells equations was found to be violated) and discontinuities from its first principles. And this is what no one wants to do because people are so traumatized by QM that they just want to use it, not take it serious (copenhagen interpretation) .

My approach is not only irreproachable but is one of the very few which actually could avoid the genuine miracles of modern physics which everybody can find in all QM text books. These strange postulates if you could derive them from fundamental principles would not be miraculous anymore. This is possible in my framework and i started to investigate these issues with great successes even though i was not able to complete the program.

Now on the observational side, you have LENR: hundreds of experiments manifesting extraheat productions, isotopic anomalies and so on and all this is considered impossible according admitted physics. So something new is needed... and lbs are existing objects i predicted which can explain most of the observations including the most incredible ones...(caterpillars tracks, incredible accelerations).

miracles no, new physics yes!

F H-C

Dave Rogers · 10th November 2011, 02:12 AM

That's a yes, then.

Dave

Oystein · 10th November 2011, 02:30 AM

I guess the universe didn't change its laws solely for the benefit of 9/11 to happen. So henryco, if you are to re-write GR an QM, shouldn't this get the attention of more physics-minded and less conspiracy-theory-minded people in the Science subforum? Or is there a science thread for this already?

I believe we should sort out that theory without reference to 9/11 first - principles, postulates and predictions. Once we understand what that theory is, we might return to 9/11 and examine if this new physics was at play there.

henryco · 10th November 2011, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by Oystein

I guess the universe didn't change its laws solely for the benefit of 9/11 to happen. So henryco, if you are to re-write GR an QM, shouldn't this get the attention of more physics-minded and less conspiracy-theory-minded people in the Science subforum? Or is there a science thread for this already?

I believe we should sort out that theory without reference to 9/11 first - principles, postulates and predictions. Once we understand what that theory is, we might return to 9/11 and examine if this new physics was at play there.

why not ... actually my interest in 911 and also cold fusion is very recent.
For years i tried to attract attention of other physicists on my work (Dark Gravity), first in conferences and through publications, then after i realized that referees did not read my publications beyond the abstracts (but fortunately i succeeded to publish in IntJornModPhysA the most important ideas in a small article), i tried to discuss in french forums because it's much easier for me in french...but there for each of my posts, i had dozens of aggressiv posts by moderators ... and it was not possible to debate quietly in these conditions...

F

Zeuzzz · 10th November 2011, 10:34 PM

Originally Posted by henryco

i had dozens of aggressiv posts by moderators ... and it was not possible to debate quietly in these conditions...

Don't expect much better here my friend. Especially in this subforum, and especially if you have new scientific theories that contradict established models. If you take on criticism and accept mistakes then you'll be fine.

GlennB · 10th November 2011, 11:29 PM

Originally Posted by henryco

why not ... actually my interest in 911 and also cold fusion is very recent.
For years i tried to attract attention of other physicists on my work (Dark Gravity), first in conferences and through publications, then after i realized that referees did not read my publications beyond the abstracts (but fortunately i succeeded to publish in IntJornModPhysA the most important ideas in a small article), i tried to discuss in french forums because it's much easier for me in french...but there for each of my posts, i had dozens of aggressiv posts by moderators ... and it was not possible to debate quietly in these conditions...

F

It's probably best to take 'dark gravity' over to the Science forum and establish the validity of the principle before trying to use it to explain a second theory (CD of WTC) that most here reject anyway.

You lost our attention on the 9/11 side of things when you claimed that gravitation discontinuities soaked up vast amounts of thermal energy and kept it hidden away.

leftysergeant · 11th November 2011, 04:11 AM

Would somebody care to offer proof that there is a device capable of producing these mlbs and that it was present somewhere around the WTC on 9/11?

Then explain how it was able to produce enough mlbs to do the job on the towers without over-loading every circuit in NYC.

DGM · 11th November 2011, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by GlennB

You lost our attention on the 9/11 side of things when you claimed that gravitation discontinuities soaked up vast amounts of thermal energy and kept it hidden away.

Actually, he lost me with "special physics" (in his paper).

sheeplesnshills · 11th November 2011, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by DGM

Actually, he lost me with "special physics" (in his paper).

I suspect its "special" in the same way some kids are at school.

DGM · 11th November 2011, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

I suspect its "special" in the same way some kids are at school.

I'm not sure I'd go that far, My son is in "special Ed" and he knows "truthers" are nuts.

LSSBB · 11th November 2011, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by DGM

I'm not sure I'd go that far, My son is in "special Ed" and he knows "truthers" are nuts.

K-Mart Blue Light Special then?

beachnut · 11th November 2011, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Don't expect much better here my friend. Especially in this subforum, and especially if you have new scientific theories that contradict established models. If you take on criticism and accept mistakes then you'll be fine.

He has delusional nonsense, not new scientific theory. A fantasy. No substance, just baloney. This does not contradict established models (911 truth has no clue what models are, or how they are used), it is new nonsense.

At least his delusional nonsense is original, not a repeat of lies, plagiarized from other liars like most 911 truth followers do.

GlennB · 11th November 2011, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by beachnut

At least his delusional nonsense is original, not a repeat of lies, plagiarized from other liars like most 911 truth followers do.

Well put. He's certainly original, though I fear HAARP might be put forward as an energy source for these "mlbs". We shall see

leftysergeant · 12th November 2011, 05:52 AM

Okay, leaving out the absence of a power station big enough to run three or four cities the size of NYC, I am also not seeing any observeable effects of mlbs on the concrete. Even pressurizing small pockets of material would have an effect simmilar to an explosives charge, blasting floor slabs wide open and sending shards out through the dust clouds.

Aint there.

All the material exiting the building follows exactly the trajectories I would expect in a progressive collapse. All the gypsum dust comes out in nice roling poofs. All the concrete chunks follow exactly the sort of path that a gravity-driven event should predict without any special exceptions to the rules.

To make this Dark Gravity pig fly, somebody has to come up with indisputable proof that a device has been built which can produce mlbs.

I do not see it in Rossi's work.

I still have not found anything on the web to indicate that Shoulders is any more an actual scientist than is John Hutchison.

W.D.Clinger · 12th November 2011, 07:51 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Originally Posted by henryco

Hence most of the calorific energy is converted to potential gravitational energy again...

Originally Posted by henryco

For a physicist chemical energy is just a kind of electromagnetic potential energy.

Which is distinctly different to a gravitational potential energy.

Originally Posted by henryco

Moreover the grav potential energy i'm talking about is from discontinuities in the gravitational field: it's not the usual grav potential energy that you get when you are attracted by a Mass.

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Let me guess. Has the conventional scientific establishment so far failed to acknowledge the existence of this alternative form of gravitational potential energy?

Originally Posted by henryco

....my choice was just opposite to the usual ones: it leads to a reformulation of GR with fundamental discontinuities with dynamical effects, non local gravity, and since the conditions for the Noether theorem to apply are not anymore fulfilled (no field discontinuities is such a condition ) the local conservation of energy is not granted at some place where you have a discontinuity.

....miracles no, new physics yes!

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

That's a yes, then.

Originally Posted by henryco

For years i tried to attract attention of other physicists on my work (Dark Gravity), first in conferences and through publications, then after i realized that referees did not read my publications beyond the abstracts (but fortunately i succeeded to publish in IntJornModPhysA the most important ideas in a small article), i tried to discuss in french forums because it's much easier for me in french...but there for each of my posts, i had dozens of aggressiv posts by moderators ... and it was not possible to debate quietly in these conditions...

To summarize:

You have developed a new theory of gravity.
You hope other physicists will accept your theory as a replacement for Einstein's theory of general relativity.
Physicists are ignoring your theory.
One of the reasons physicists are ignoring your theory is that you weren't able to point to any experimental facts that your theory could explain better than general relativity.
But then you realized that conventional physics is inconsistent with vaporization of the WTC towers on 11 September 2001.
Your theory might be consistent with vaporization of the WTC towers.
You, like Dr Judy Wood and Dr Tracy Blevins, believe the WTC towers were vaporized (or, in their word, dustified).
So you regard vaporization of the WTC towers as confirmation of your theory of gravity.
But you haven't been able to convince the physicists who hang out in French forums.
The problem, you decided, is that the French physics forums are just too noisy,
so you brought your argument to JREF's 9/11 subforum
because you prefer its signal-to-noise ratio
and its participants' knowledge of physics
and you think you'll have better luck using English than your native language.

Sounds like a plan.

henryco · 12th November 2011, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

To summarize:

You have developed a new theory of gravity.
You hope other physicists will accept your theory as a replacement for Einstein's theory of general relativity.
Physicists are ignoring your theory.
One of the reasons physicists are ignoring your theory is that you weren't able to point to any experimental facts that your theory could explain better than general relativity.
But then you realized that conventional physics is inconsistent with vaporization of the WTC towers on 11 September 2001.
Your theory might be consistent with vaporization of the WTC towers.
You, like Dr Judy Wood and Dr Tracy Blevins, believe the WTC towers were vaporized (or, in their word, dustified).
So you regard vaporization of the WTC towers as confirmation of your theory of gravity.
But you haven't been able to convince the physicists who hang out in French forums.
The problem, you decided, is that the French physics forums are just too noisy,
so you brought your argument to JREF's 9/11 subforum
because you prefer its signal-to-noise ratio
and its participants' knowledge of physics
and you think you'll have better luck using English than your native language.

Sounds like a plan.

I have a dozen of predictions which conventional physics cannot explain among them tachyonic propagations (as the one recently reported by Opera), the Pioneer effect, and all kinds of "cold fusion effects" included thunder storm lighting balls, the WTC phenomenology is just an isolated example...and i have no free parameters.

Theorists are ignoring all kind of theoretical approaches that do not respect several criteria which are believed to be essential just for an intellectual construction to deserve to be considered scientific: for instance for alternative theories of gravity: they have to be free of tachyons, negative energy states , discontinuities ...
If a referee understands just by reading your abstract that you are not respecting these criteria he will not make the effort to understand your ideas.

Most experimentalists who dont understand sufficiently physics need theorists to tell them what they should think about any new theory on the market. Of course they know that this behaviour is dangerous but they are much too carrierist to change it.
So eventually it's just the opinion of a small number of gravity experts which matters, and as the referee system is feodal (referees anonymous with unlimited power ) ... it's hopeless

So my strategy was to make predictions and very short articles each time one of my predictions is confirmed (this is the case for the tachyonic neutrinos) and ,more important, wait until the present standard models of cosmology and particle physics die simply when all their predicted epicyclic dark staff will be found to be unexistent: dark matter, dark energy, SUSY, Higgs... etc

But there is even much more serious to prevent any new physics to be recognized.

Militaries dont mind about the criteria i gave above. They are just interested in the technological and weapon supremacy. So since they have much more money than the public research they can devellop an at least empirical knowledge of the new physics which will never emerge to the public sphere because it is completely classified: this the case for all physics related to cold fusion. Weapons based on new physics can be built to imitate natural phenomena : these are natural weapons that can be used to destroy the "ennemy" without being suspected for that: you can imitate a natural collapse of buildings (on 911), a natural earthquake, a natural collision with an asteroid that you actually deviated on purpose to your prefered target... etc

So it's not difficult to understand why militaries will try to keep secret all this physics as long as possible ... it's very easy: just discredit it mediatically then experimentalist will have so many difficulties to get money for their research programs if it's related to cold fusion, that you can be sure that it will progress very slowly in the public sphere and nobody serious will speak about it. These difficulties are added to the ones i described above.

As for the collapses of the towers, billions of micron sized explosions will not make the same sound (that anybody could identify at once) as a small number of usual high energy explosives.

The degree of dustification and destruction of the towers has no precedent : it's simply incredible! There is nothing known that can do that and what you need to reach such conclusion is just knowledge of what is possible according standard physics. Only when i realized that, did i make the correlation with my theoretical predictions and found that the mlbs are the perfect weapons : with a limited noise (pressure pulses) , heat released in the environnment, no radioactivity, no trace of unexpected chemical elements , you can destroy an extremely large volume of a structure. See my posts above and other demonstrations on my website just mentionned in my article.

When i i'm discussing on a forum, i of course announce that on my website so that my usual readers can go to the forum and read: then they can make up their own mind more easily because it's just not a monologue as in my website , they can see if my positions are strong enough in the confrontation with skeptics...it's important! Moreover because most of my website is in french, it could not be known , up to now, in the rest of the world. I have started to communicate in english and translate everything i can ..it's in the pipeline

That's why i came here...there's no other plan! or if there is one i'm not aware about it...

F

henryco · 12th November 2011, 10:54 AM

The best way as far as i know to produce mlbs is to have powerful electric discharges...and you know what , citing
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0101/0101089.pdf

"The physics of electric explosion of wires in water has been discussed in many papers, reviews, and
monographs [1-3], which is mainly due to the large interest to this phenomenon for numerous practical
applications. One of such tasks is shattering of concrete foundations. As a rule, devices for this purpose use
relatively low-voltage high-capacity batteries (U~ 5 kV) to obtain the required energy storage of order of
several tens of kJ. The characteristic discharge time for such batteries is about several hundreds microseconds.
Ordinarily, the electric discharges are produced in a narrow (d~20 mm) pit filled with a liquid and the discharge
is initiated by exploding wires. "

so i'm of course not able to describe the classified devices they used but probably much more powerful capacitors and many holes in the concrete were necessary at all floors to be destroyed...

henryco · 12th November 2011, 11:33 AM

The Rossi website published yesterday with some information concerning the patents

http://www.leonardo-ecat.com/fp/Tech...nts/index.html

Not ready to buy the MWatt plant ?

Zeuzzz · 12th November 2011, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by henryco

That's why i came here...there's no other plan! or if there is one i'm not aware about it...

F

Have you published to a journal for peer review? Try that.

twinstead · 12th November 2011, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by henryco

That's why i came here...there's no other plan! or if there is one i'm not aware about it...

F

How may physicists and forums have to "ignore" you before you start realizing that maybe they have a point?

beachnut · 12th November 2011, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by henryco

I...
The degree of dustification and destruction of the towers has no precedent : it's simply incredible! There is nothing known that can do that ...
F

It is amazing how wrong you are, and you claim to know physics.
E=mgh explains where the energy came from to destroy the WTC towers. The dust was mostly insulation and wallboard. The rock-wool was in the WTC already, you are spreading delusions.

It is funny how you make up the fantasy of your new dark gravity physics as a new method of making rock-wool.

You have not defined the new super weapon with math or physics. Wait, could that be it is top-secret? Top-secret SPAM posts. How can it be a secret weapon when you are spreading it around? Are you worried "they" are after you? I can see the NSA now laughing so hard they have to clean their screens.

Zeuzzz · 12th November 2011, 03:19 PM

What does your name represent beachnut?

beachnut · 12th November 2011, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

What does your name represent beachnut?

You need to step up your research, oh humble Zeuzzz.

Why are you off topic?
What do you really want to say to henryco about his theories?

henryco needs to present some math to explain his theories.

Originally Posted by henryco

... Weapons based on new physics can be built to imitate natural phenomena : these are natural weapons that can be used to destroy the "ennemy" without being suspected for that: you can imitate a natural collapse of buildings (on 911), a natural earthquake, a natural collision with an asteroid that you actually deviated on purpose to your prefered target... etc

...
F

Wow, fire, a secret weapon. Who knew?

Zeuzzz,
What do you think about the secret weapon henryco explains as being responsible for destroying the WTC?

Zeuzzz · 12th November 2011, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by beachnut

You need to step up your research, oh humble Zeuzzz.

I think I love you.

leftysergeant · 13th November 2011, 01:22 AM

Originally Posted by henryco

...so i'm of course not able to describe the classified devices they used but probably much more powerful capacitors and many holes in the concrete were necessary at all floors to be destroyed...

So you have miles upon miles of wires fed into tiny holes drilled into the concrete.

And this was done sureptitiously.

There is only one logical reaction to this proposition.

7th November 2011, 02:05 AM	#161
henryco Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 155	Originally Posted by leftysergeant I am stil waiting for proof that any prominent scientist with all his headbolts torqued right supports what Shoulders claims. The only things I have found that he published are in what appear to be utter nutjob publications. Such a scientist as prominent it might be , will be discredited the day after ... and his carrier seriously compromized. However the ones who already have the Nobel prize can take the risk: http://pesn.com/2011/06/23/9501856_N...t_cold_fusion/
henryco Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 155

7th November 2011, 03:38 AM	#163
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,614	Originally Posted by henryco Such a scientist as prominent it might be , will be discredited the day after ... and his carrier seriously compromized. However the ones who already have the Nobel prize can take the risk: Show me where he addresses Shoulders' work. Further, he just states that Rossi might be on to something but he has no clue how it works and it could still be utter crap.
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

7th November 2011, 05:40 AM	#165
henryco Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 155	Originally Posted by GlennB <sigh> The "50 times bigger volume of air" is, as you state, *air. The 50,000 tons, 1x volume of molten concrete products at ~3000°C consists, however, of molten concrete products. You cannot divide the higher temperature by 50 to get final temperature of the mix. The heat capacity (specific heat) of air by volume* is ~ .001, while concrete is ~ 1.0 (iirc). Three orders of magnitude apart, so the final temperature of the mix will be much closer to 3000 than 30. You are right. It's Very basic. i'm sorry. i didnt think enough about it though i did such kind of computations recently to test the radiative emission of the Pioneer spacecrafts... Moreover what i v just checked is that the power emitted radiatively or even by simple heat conductivity is only of the order of several milliJoule /s while the lifetime of an mlb in the micronsize range is only 10^-11 sec according to http://www.rexresearch.com/ev/ev.htm and should not be much longer for 10 microns mlbs. In such a short lifetime the fraction of heat that escapes the mlb is unsignificant relative to the total energy it contains at 3000K which is ~ 10^-5 Joules. Therefore the heat is almost completely lost through the mechanism i explained before : as a result of an mlb loosing its charges (very fast process) the spherical discontinuity at its frontiers propagates in a centripetal way : the mlb collapses and as the pressure inside rises , all the particles inside will get sufficient energy to overcome the mlb potential barrier and escape in the environnment but doing so they loose all of their energy and escape much cooler than inside : almost all the heat (energy) is lost in that way. Hence most of the calorific energy is converted to potential gravitational energy again... Almost because apparently the mlb often finish their life in an explosion (probably the discontinuous potential disappears just as it appeared ) and the remaining hot material in the mlb is released in the environnment but this must be a very small fraction of the total material fused inside the mlb during its whole lifetime. F
henryco Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 155

7th November 2011, 05:48 AM	#166
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,907	Originally Posted by henryco Therefore the heat is almost completely lost through the mechanism i explained before : as a result of an mlb loosing its charges (very fast process) the spherical discontinuity at its frontiers propagates in a centripetal way : the mlb collapses and as the pressure inside rises , all the particles inside will get sufficient energy to overcome the mlb potential barrier and escape in the environnment but doing so they loose all of their energy and escape much cooler than inside : almost all the heat (energy) is lost in that way. Hence most of the calorific energy is converted to potential gravitational energy again... Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member Last edited by Dave Rogers; 7th November 2011 at 05:50 AM.

7th November 2011, 03:27 PM	#168
henryco Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 155	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...7e21c53eb3.gif Dave I dont see what is so miraculous: after all you can just consider that particles inside the mlb are at a given potential while they are at another potential outside mlb , then, for them, escaping the mlb is just like an endothermic reaction where heat is transformed into potential energy. The evaporation of water could alternatively play the same role (absorb the heat) if there was enough water around...
henryco Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 155

7th November 2011, 02:58 AM	#162
GlennB Jellied eel and offal fancier Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arcadia Posts: 9,213	Originally Posted by henryco -radiations -Fast and effective dissipation of the content of the microsized mlbs in the surrounding 50 times bigger volume of air -vaporisation of water Originally Posted by henryco Therefore eventually it heated the whole cloud to between 30 and 40°C, a hot cloud indeed as witnessed by many experiencers... <sigh> The "50 times bigger volume of air" is, as you state, *air. The 50,000 tons, 1x volume of molten concrete products at ~3000°C consists, however, of molten concrete products. You cannot divide the higher temperature by 50 to get final temperature of the mix. The heat capacity (specific heat) of air by volume* is ~ .001, while concrete is ~ 1.0 (iirc). Three orders of magnitude apart, so the final temperature of the mix will be much closer to 3000 than 30.

7th November 2011, 04:55 AM	#164
sheeplesnshills Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 3,706	Originally Posted by henryco Therefore eventually it heated the whole cloud to between 30 and 40°C, a hot cloud indeed as witnessed by many experiencers... F Wouldn't a huge fire over at least 10 floors also account for the "a hot cloud indeed as witnessed by many experiencers..."

7th November 2011, 06:34 AM	#167
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 27,257	Originally Posted by henryco You are right. It's Very basic. i'm sorry. i didnt think enough about it though i did such kind of computations recently to test the radiative emission of the Pioneer spacecrafts... Moreover what i v just checked is that the power emitted radiatively or even by simple heat conductivity is only of the order of several milliJoule /s while the lifetime of an mlb in the micronsize range is only 10^-11 sec according to http://www.rexresearch.com/ev/ev.htm and should not be much longer for 10 microns mlbs. In such a short lifetime the fraction of heat that escapes the mlb is unsignificant relative to the total energy it contains at 3000K which is ~ 10^-5 Joules. Therefore the heat is almost completely lost through the mechanism i explained before : as a result of an mlb loosing its charges (very fast process) the spherical discontinuity at its frontiers propagates in a centripetal way : the mlb collapses and as the pressure inside rises , all the particles inside will get sufficient energy to overcome the mlb potential barrier and escape in the environnment but doing so they loose all of their energy and escape much cooler than inside : almost all the heat (energy) is lost in that way. Hence most of the calorific energy is converted to potential gravitational energy again... Almost because apparently the mlb often finish their life in an explosion (probably the discontinuous potential disappears just as it appeared ) and the remaining hot material in the mlb is released in the environnment but this must be a very small fraction of the total material fused inside the mlb during its whole lifetime. F From the link: "The EV is formed and propagates to the anode whenever the DC or pulse voltage rises to the point at which field emission begins a runaway switching process aided by metallic vapor from the cathode emission site. Sounds like he's reinvented the vacuum tube.

7th November 2011, 03:39 PM	#169
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,907	Originally Posted by henryco I dont see what is so miraculous: after all you can just consider that particles inside the mlb are at a given potential while they are at another potential outside mlb , then, for them, escaping the mlb is just like an endothermic reaction where heat is transformed into potential energy. You call yourself a physicist, yet you don't know the difference between gravitational potential energy and chemical energy? Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

8th November 2011, 12:38 AM	#170
henryco Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 155	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers You call yourself a physicist, yet you don't know the difference between gravitational potential energy and chemical energy? Dave Why do you say that ? For a physicist chemical energy is just a kind of electromagnetic potential energy.
henryco Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 155

8th November 2011, 01:48 AM	#171
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,907	Originally Posted by henryco Why do you say that ? Read your post again. Originally Posted by henryco Hence most of the calorific energy is converted to potential gravitational energy again... Originally Posted by henryco For a physicist chemical energy is just a kind of electromagnetic potential energy. Which is distinctly different to a gravitational potential energy. Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

9th November 2011, 08:40 PM	#172
henryco Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 155	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers Read your post again. Which is distinctly different to a gravitational potential energy. Dave Never said the contrary. But the difference is not one that would forbid heat to be converted into grav potential energy,just as it can be converted into EM pot energy. Moreover the grav potential energy i'm talking about is from discontinuities in the gravitational field: it's not the usual grav potential energy that you get when you are attracted by a Mass.
henryco Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 155

9th November 2011, 08:46 PM	#173
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,957	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...7e21c53eb3.gif Dave That explains the Dark Side of Gravity.

9th November 2011, 09:04 PM	#174
henryco Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 155	This article decribes mlbs 6 microns in diameter and lifetimes in between 10^-5 and 10-8 sec. http://www.darksideofgravity.com/Ele...%20Rambaut.pdf some lbs several cms in diameter have lifetimes several 10^-3 sec http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0101/0101089.pdf lbs 0.5m in diameter from thunderstorms have typical lifetimes of several seconds
henryco Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 155

10th November 2011, 01:11 AM	#175
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,907	Originally Posted by henryco Never said the contrary. Yes, you did, by implication. You're trying to blur the distinction between gravitational potential energy and chemical potential energy. Originally Posted by henryco But the difference is not one that would forbid heat to be converted into grav potential energy,just as it can be converted into EM pot energy. You didn't say it wasn't forbidden; you said that "most of the calorific energy is converted to potential gravitational energy again". Unlike Bill Clinton, you've used the word "is" quite unambiguously here. Originally Posted by henryco Moreover the grav potential energy i'm talking about is from discontinuities in the gravitational field: it's not the usual grav potential energy that you get when you are attracted by a Mass. Let me guess. Has the conventional scientific establishment so far failed to acknowledge the existence of this alternative form of gravitational potential energy? Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

10th November 2011, 01:58 AM	#176
henryco Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 155	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers Let me guess. Has the conventional scientific establishment so far failed to acknowledge the existence of this alternative form of gravitational potential energy? Dave All laws of physics we know except only very few exceptions are formulated as differential equations which are actually conservation laws. The conservation of the energy is just one of them. None of these laws , including the conservation of the energy, are postulates or basic principles, these are all derived. And none of them is self evident. In other words all of them might be wrong or have a limited validity. For instance the conservation of energy and momentum follows (is derived) through the Noether theorem. The genuine starting principles are invariance principles under various space-time transformations (translations for instance). So a serious approach in physics must be first to clearly formulate what are the invariance principles and how these must be formulated. In my approach for instance there are fundamental discrete space-time symmetries (time reversal, space reversal) and it is well know that there are two possible ways two mathematically treat them. There is a binary option and my choice was just opposite to the usual ones: it leads to a reformulation of GR with fundamental discontinuities with dynamical effects, non local gravity, and since the conditions for the Noether theorem to apply are not anymore fulfilled (no field discontinuities is such a condition ) the local conservation of energy is not granted at some place where you have a discontinuity. Is that miraculous ? not at all! just unusual. Let me tell you what are actual miracles: First a sentence that you will find in all QM textbooks: "then the wave function collapses" an incredible process, non local , undeterministic and clearly violating the local conservation of the energy. Then a wellknown equation : E=h nu an incredible discontinuous process that nobody could have anticipated Both follow from nothing, these are not derived, in other words these are postulates, arbitrary ones people were just obliged to adopt to fit the observations and experiment results. The problem is that if you would like to derive QM from principles that would have a more serious status than those strange postulates , you would be obliged to build a theoretical framework which admits nonlocality (this is what we must admit since the Bells equations was found to be violated) and discontinuities from its first principles. And this is what no one wants to do because people are so traumatized by QM that they just want to use it, not take it serious (copenhagen interpretation) . My approach is not only irreproachable but is one of the very few which actually could avoid the genuine miracles of modern physics which everybody can find in all QM text books. These strange postulates if you could derive them from fundamental principles would not be miraculous anymore. This is possible in my framework and i started to investigate these issues with great successes even though i was not able to complete the program. Now on the observational side, you have LENR: hundreds of experiments manifesting extraheat productions, isotopic anomalies and so on and all this is considered impossible according admitted physics. So something new is needed... and lbs are existing objects i predicted which can explain most of the observations including the most incredible ones...(caterpillars tracks, incredible accelerations). miracles no, new physics yes! F H-C
henryco Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 155

10th November 2011, 02:12 AM	#177
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,907	That's a yes, then. Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

10th November 2011, 02:30 AM	#178
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,930	I guess the universe didn't change its laws solely for the benefit of 9/11 to happen. So henryco, if you are to re-write GR an QM, shouldn't this get the attention of more physics-minded and less conspiracy-theory-minded people in the Science subforum? Or is there a science thread for this already? I believe we should sort out that theory without reference to 9/11 first - principles, postulates and predictions. Once we understand what that theory is, we might return to 9/11 and examine if this new physics was at play there.

10th November 2011, 10:52 AM	#179
henryco Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 155	Originally Posted by Oystein I guess the universe didn't change its laws solely for the benefit of 9/11 to happen. So henryco, if you are to re-write GR an QM, shouldn't this get the attention of more physics-minded and less conspiracy-theory-minded people in the Science subforum? Or is there a science thread for this already? I believe we should sort out that theory without reference to 9/11 first - principles, postulates and predictions. Once we understand what that theory is, we might return to 9/11 and examine if this new physics was at play there. why not ... actually my interest in 911 and also cold fusion is very recent. For years i tried to attract attention of other physicists on my work (Dark Gravity), first in conferences and through publications, then after i realized that referees did not read my publications beyond the abstracts (but fortunately i succeeded to publish in IntJornModPhysA the most important ideas in a small article), i tried to discuss in french forums because it's much easier for me in french...but there for each of my posts, i had dozens of aggressiv posts by moderators ... and it was not possible to debate quietly in these conditions... F
henryco Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 155

10th November 2011, 10:34 PM	#180
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by henryco i had dozens of aggressiv posts by moderators ... and it was not possible to debate quietly in these conditions... Don't expect much better here my friend. Especially in this subforum, and especially if you have new scientific theories that contradict established models. If you take on criticism and accept mistakes then you'll be fine.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

10th November 2011, 11:29 PM	#181
GlennB Jellied eel and offal fancier Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arcadia Posts: 9,213	Originally Posted by henryco why not ... actually my interest in 911 and also cold fusion is very recent. For years i tried to attract attention of other physicists on my work (Dark Gravity), first in conferences and through publications, then after i realized that referees did not read my publications beyond the abstracts (but fortunately i succeeded to publish in IntJornModPhysA the most important ideas in a small article), i tried to discuss in french forums because it's much easier for me in french...but there for each of my posts, i had dozens of aggressiv posts by moderators ... and it was not possible to debate quietly in these conditions... F It's probably best to take 'dark gravity' over to the Science forum and establish the validity of the principle before trying to use it to explain a second theory (CD of WTC) that most here reject anyway. You lost our attention on the 9/11 side of things when you claimed that gravitation discontinuities soaked up vast amounts of thermal energy and kept it hidden away.

11th November 2011, 04:11 AM	#182
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,614	Would somebody care to offer proof that there is a device capable of producing these mlbs and that it was present somewhere around the WTC on 9/11? Then explain how it was able to produce enough mlbs to do the job on the towers without over-loading every circuit in NYC.
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

11th November 2011, 11:53 AM	#183
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,535	Originally Posted by GlennB You lost our attention on the 9/11 side of things when you claimed that gravitation discontinuities soaked up vast amounts of thermal energy and kept it hidden away. Actually, he lost me with "special physics" (in his paper).
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

11th November 2011, 12:15 PM	#184
sheeplesnshills Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 3,706	Originally Posted by DGM Actually, he lost me with "special physics" (in his paper). I suspect its "special" in the same way some kids are at school.

11th November 2011, 12:30 PM	#185
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,535	Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills I suspect its "special" in the same way some kids are at school. I'm not sure I'd go that far, My son is in "special Ed" and he knows "truthers" are nuts.
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

11th November 2011, 12:36 PM	#186
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelor's Grove Cemetery Posts: 4,748	Originally Posted by DGM I'm not sure I'd go that far, My son is in "special Ed" and he knows "truthers" are nuts. K-Mart Blue Light Special then?
	__________________ "Things that never happened before happen all the time." (Scott Sagan, 1993) "Put down the Wite-Out and step away from the dictionary." (000063, 2012) "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." (John Kenneth Galbraith, 1971)

11th November 2011, 01:43 PM	#187
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,957	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Don't expect much better here my friend. Especially in this subforum, and especially if you have new scientific theories that contradict established models. If you take on criticism and accept mistakes then you'll be fine. He has delusional nonsense, not new scientific theory. A fantasy. No substance, just baloney. This does not contradict established models (911 truth has no clue what models are, or how they are used), it is new nonsense. At least his delusional nonsense is original, not a repeat of lies, plagiarized from other liars like most 911 truth followers do.

11th November 2011, 02:07 PM	#188
GlennB Jellied eel and offal fancier Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arcadia Posts: 9,213	Originally Posted by beachnut At least his delusional nonsense is original, not a repeat of lies, plagiarized from other liars like most 911 truth followers do. Well put. He's certainly original, though I fear HAARP might be put forward as an energy source for these "mlbs". We shall see

12th November 2011, 05:52 AM	#189
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,614	Okay, leaving out the absence of a power station big enough to run three or four cities the size of NYC, I am also not seeing any observeable effects of mlbs on the concrete. Even pressurizing small pockets of material would have an effect simmilar to an explosives charge, blasting floor slabs wide open and sending shards out through the dust clouds. Aint there. All the material exiting the building follows exactly the trajectories I would expect in a progressive collapse. All the gypsum dust comes out in nice roling poofs. All the concrete chunks follow exactly the sort of path that a gravity-driven event should predict without any special exceptions to the rules. To make this Dark Gravity pig fly, somebody has to come up with indisputable proof that a device has been built which can produce mlbs. I do not see it in Rossi's work. I still have not found anything on the web to indicate that Shoulders is any more an actual scientist than is John Hutchison.
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

12th November 2011, 07:51 AM	#190
W.D.Clinger Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 2,466	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers Originally Posted by henryco Hence most of the calorific energy is converted to potential gravitational energy again... Originally Posted by henryco For a physicist chemical energy is just a kind of electromagnetic potential energy. Which is distinctly different to a gravitational potential energy. Originally Posted by henryco Moreover the grav potential energy i'm talking about is from discontinuities in the gravitational field: it's not the usual grav potential energy that you get when you are attracted by a Mass. Originally Posted by Dave Rogers Let me guess. Has the conventional scientific establishment so far failed to acknowledge the existence of this alternative form of gravitational potential energy? Originally Posted by henryco ....my choice was just opposite to the usual ones: it leads to a reformulation of GR with fundamental discontinuities with dynamical effects, non local gravity, and since the conditions for the Noether theorem to apply are not anymore fulfilled (no field discontinuities is such a condition ) the local conservation of energy is not granted at some place where you have a discontinuity. ....miracles no, new physics yes! Originally Posted by Dave Rogers That's a yes, then. Originally Posted by henryco For years i tried to attract attention of other physicists on my work (Dark Gravity), first in conferences and through publications, then after i realized that referees did not read my publications beyond the abstracts (but fortunately i succeeded to publish in IntJornModPhysA the most important ideas in a small article), i tried to discuss in french forums because it's much easier for me in french...but there for each of my posts, i had dozens of aggressiv posts by moderators ... and it was not possible to debate quietly in these conditions... To summarize: You have developed a new theory of gravity. You hope other physicists will accept your theory as a replacement for Einstein's theory of general relativity. Physicists are ignoring your theory. One of the reasons physicists are ignoring your theory is that you weren't able to point to any experimental facts that your theory could explain better than general relativity. But then you realized that conventional physics is inconsistent with vaporization of the WTC towers on 11 September 2001. Your theory might be consistent with vaporization of the WTC towers. You, like Dr Judy Wood and Dr Tracy Blevins, believe the WTC towers were vaporized (or, in their word, dustified). So you regard vaporization of the WTC towers as confirmation of your theory of gravity. But you haven't been able to convince the physicists who hang out in French forums. The problem, you decided, is that the French physics forums are just too noisy, so you brought your argument to JREF's 9/11 subforum because you prefer its signal-to-noise ratio and its participants' knowledge of physics and you think you'll have better luck using English than your native language. Sounds like a plan.

12th November 2011, 10:41 AM	#191
henryco Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 155	Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger To summarize: You have developed a new theory of gravity. You hope other physicists will accept your theory as a replacement for Einstein's theory of general relativity. Physicists are ignoring your theory. One of the reasons physicists are ignoring your theory is that you weren't able to point to any experimental facts that your theory could explain better than general relativity. But then you realized that conventional physics is inconsistent with vaporization of the WTC towers on 11 September 2001. Your theory might be consistent with vaporization of the WTC towers. You, like Dr Judy Wood and Dr Tracy Blevins, believe the WTC towers were vaporized (or, in their word, dustified). So you regard vaporization of the WTC towers as confirmation of your theory of gravity. But you haven't been able to convince the physicists who hang out in French forums. The problem, you decided, is that the French physics forums are just too noisy, so you brought your argument to JREF's 9/11 subforum because you prefer its signal-to-noise ratio and its participants' knowledge of physics and you think you'll have better luck using English than your native language. Sounds like a plan. I have a dozen of predictions which conventional physics cannot explain among them tachyonic propagations (as the one recently reported by Opera), the Pioneer effect, and all kinds of "cold fusion effects" included thunder storm lighting balls, the WTC phenomenology is just an isolated example...and i have no free parameters. Theorists are ignoring all kind of theoretical approaches that do not respect several criteria which are believed to be essential just for an intellectual construction to deserve to be considered scientific: for instance for alternative theories of gravity: they have to be free of tachyons, negative energy states , discontinuities ... If a referee understands just by reading your abstract that you are not respecting these criteria he will not make the effort to understand your ideas. Most experimentalists who dont understand sufficiently physics need theorists to tell them what they should think about any new theory on the market. Of course they know that this behaviour is dangerous but they are much too carrierist to change it. So eventually it's just the opinion of a small number of gravity experts which matters, and as the referee system is feodal (referees anonymous with unlimited power ) ... it's hopeless So my strategy was to make predictions and very short articles each time one of my predictions is confirmed (this is the case for the tachyonic neutrinos) and ,more important, wait until the present standard models of cosmology and particle physics die simply when all their predicted epicyclic dark staff will be found to be unexistent: dark matter, dark energy, SUSY, Higgs... etc But there is even much more serious to prevent any new physics to be recognized. Militaries dont mind about the criteria i gave above. They are just interested in the technological and weapon supremacy. So since they have much more money than the public research they can devellop an at least empirical knowledge of the new physics which will never emerge to the public sphere because it is completely classified: this the case for all physics related to cold fusion. Weapons based on new physics can be built to imitate natural phenomena : these are natural weapons that can be used to destroy the "ennemy" without being suspected for that: you can imitate a natural collapse of buildings (on 911), a natural earthquake, a natural collision with an asteroid that you actually deviated on purpose to your prefered target... etc So it's not difficult to understand why militaries will try to keep secret all this physics as long as possible ... it's very easy: just discredit it mediatically then experimentalist will have so many difficulties to get money for their research programs if it's related to cold fusion, that you can be sure that it will progress very slowly in the public sphere and nobody serious will speak about it. These difficulties are added to the ones i described above. As for the collapses of the towers, billions of micron sized explosions will not make the same sound (that anybody could identify at once) as a small number of usual high energy explosives. The degree of dustification and destruction of the towers has no precedent : it's simply incredible! There is nothing known that can do that and what you need to reach such conclusion is just knowledge of what is possible according standard physics. Only when i realized that, did i make the correlation with my theoretical predictions and found that the mlbs are the perfect weapons : with a limited noise (pressure pulses) , heat released in the environnment, no radioactivity, no trace of unexpected chemical elements , you can destroy an extremely large volume of a structure. See my posts above and other demonstrations on my website just mentionned in my article. When i i'm discussing on a forum, i of course announce that on my website so that my usual readers can go to the forum and read: then they can make up their own mind more easily because it's just not a monologue as in my website , they can see if my positions are strong enough in the confrontation with skeptics...it's important! Moreover because most of my website is in french, it could not be known , up to now, in the rest of the world. I have started to communicate in english and translate everything i can ..it's in the pipeline That's why i came here...there's no other plan! or if there is one i'm not aware about it... F
henryco Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 155

12th November 2011, 10:54 AM	#192
henryco Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 155	The best way as far as i know to produce mlbs is to have powerful electric discharges...and you know what , citing http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0101/0101089.pdf "The physics of electric explosion of wires in water has been discussed in many papers, reviews, and monographs [1-3], which is mainly due to the large interest to this phenomenon for numerous practical applications. One of such tasks is shattering of concrete foundations. As a rule, devices for this purpose use relatively low-voltage high-capacity batteries (U~ 5 kV) to obtain the required energy storage of order of several tens of kJ. The characteristic discharge time for such batteries is about several hundreds microseconds. Ordinarily, the electric discharges are produced in a narrow (d~20 mm) pit filled with a liquid and the discharge is initiated by exploding wires. " so i'm of course not able to describe the classified devices they used but probably much more powerful capacitors and many holes in the concrete were necessary at all floors to be destroyed...
henryco Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 155

12th November 2011, 11:33 AM	#193
henryco Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 155	The Rossi website published yesterday with some information concerning the patents http://www.leonardo-ecat.com/fp/Tech...nts/index.html Not ready to buy the MWatt plant ?
henryco Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 155

12th November 2011, 11:39 AM	#194
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by henryco That's why i came here...there's no other plan! or if there is one i'm not aware about it... F Have you published to a journal for peer review? Try that.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

12th November 2011, 02:24 PM	#195
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,598	Originally Posted by henryco That's why i came here...there's no other plan! or if there is one i'm not aware about it... F How may physicists and forums have to "ignore" you before you start realizing that maybe they have a point?
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison