Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 144

Thread: Doubts About "Modern Physics"

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    Tensor: PSR 1916+13 a binary pulsar. Just as there may be one or more planets created in a supernova explosion (according to the Reciprocal System of theory), there may be one or more white dwarfs or pulsars.
    T1 Present your evidence for creation of planets in a supernova.

    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    Usually, of course, a supernova explosion will result in a binary star system. White dwarfs result from a supernova explosion in which the stellar thermal limit is reached (Type I or A);
    T2 Wait a minute. You just said that a supernova explosion will produce one or more PLANETS and there may be one or more white dwarfs or pulsars. Now you are saying that usually a supernova explosion will result in a binary star system?

    T3 What is a type I supernova?

    T4 What is a type A supernova?

    T5 How does a supernova explosion produce a binary star system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    pulsars are produced from a supernova explosion in which the stellar age limit is reached (Type II or B);
    T6 What is a stellar age limit?

    T7 What is a type II supernova?

    T8 What is a type B supernova?

    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    see The Universe of Motion for details.
    No, present it here. I'd be happy with the details, with a link to a specific page with support for the details.

    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    Pulsars have a translational speed which white dwarfs don't.
    T9 They do? Care to explain Sirius B then?

    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    They are miniature quasars,
    T10 Then why are the element spectrums different?

    T11 Why do quasars have such large redshift components?

    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    and like most quasars, they will eventually leave our half of the universe
    T12 And your support for this is, what?

    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    and move to the other, inverse half, where space and time are interchanged.
    T13 Where exactly does this happen?

    And, again, you are dodging the question. I asked for the showing RST calculations showing the prediction for the slowing of the inspiral of the two pulsars that make up PSR 1916+13. This graph shows the prediction of General Relativity(the line), the observations are the red dots.

    T14 Now, present the calculation from RST, and the curve from those calculations and how the observations match that curve.

    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    As for "10 decimal places", see the RST calculations for interatomic distance--something that Quantum Mechanics cannot do (it cannot even do calculations of He.) Also QM does not even, after a 100 years, have a workable theory of ferromagnets--but the Reciprocal System does! (See one of my papers above.)
    Again, you are dodging the question. I'll even specify which value for you. The magnetic moment of the electron. It's been measured to be 1.001 159 652 180 73(28) Quantum Field Theory calculation 1.001 159 652 18(37). The number in parenthesis are the uncertainties.

    T15 So, provide the RTS calculations that show the RTS calculation that match the measured value of the magnetic moment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    The neutrons that we know of are not stable; the nuclear theory of the atom assumes they become stable in the "nucleus." The protons we know of repel one another, but somehow, in the nuclear theory of the atom, there is an ad hoc demon that keeps them together. Assumption after assumption is piled on, completely contrary to our actual experience. U supposedly has 92 electrons and 92 protons. Really? In the Reciprocal System, U has rotational spin numbers 4-4-6.
    Yada, yada, yada, yada. More wordy non-answers to my questions.

    T16 What's the problem, can't RTS and you provide the calculations I asked for?

    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    I'll take a simpler, more accurate theory every time.
    Funny you should say this, since can't seem to provide the calculations that show that RTS is more accurate, when it comes to the magnetic moment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    Ah, the old "cloud" theory; we don't know where the hypothetical electrons are, so therefore they must be smudged out (somehow). This is such obvious nonsense (violates the logic of A = A)--is the electron a wave or a particle? Is the photon a wave or a particle? Conventional theory is very confused; the answers are in the Reciprocal System.
    Actually, it's very logical and understandable. At least it's understandable and logical to me, and I don't even have a degree in physics. It's RTS that can't seem to provide the calculations that I ask for. Which obviously means, it can't, meaning, it doesn't work. I'll also point out that by not answering the questions and going off on an expository bent, you now have even more questions to answer.

    And, finally:

    T17 I asked for a specific example where experiment disagree with current theory. The first time back on the first of January, in post #9. Your continued non-answer is again noted and is becoming rather revealing.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,164
    I've been posting on BAUT since 2004. This is the first time
    that I'm going to unsubscribe from a thread I have posted in.
    I've passed my limit on stupid.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis


    (Just noting (without adding another off-topic post to the thread) that this post earned a "warning" level infraction.)
    Last edited by pzkpfw; 2012-Jan-10 at 12:33 AM. Reason: Add note.
    http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

    "I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
    were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

    "The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
    point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,154
    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    As for "10 decimal places", see the RST calculations for interatomic distance--something that Quantum Mechanics cannot do (it cannot even do calculations of He.)
    Funnily enough just because the maths for something is hard doesn't mean it is wrong. We can make perfectly useful approximations and get useful answers. This approach is and has been used to 'test' hypothetical materials and identify new stronger versions of them. Look: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/projects/ - a whole page of QM based simulation projects! Amazing that apparently we cannot do this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    Also QM does not even, after a 100 years, have a workable theory of ferromagnets--but the Reciprocal System does! (See one of my papers above.)
    Without QM there is no magnetism - you need the Pauli principle, spin and charge. Grep the Bohr–van Leeuwen theorem for why classical materials are not magnets. Look up domain theory for the QM reasoning behind magnetism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    The neutrons that we know of are not stable; the nuclear theory of the atom assumes they become stable in the "nucleus." The protons we know of repel one another, but somehow, in the nuclear theory of the atom, there is an ad hoc demon that keeps them together. Assumption after assumption is piled on, completely contrary to our actual experience. U supposedly has 92 electrons and 92 protons. Really? In the Reciprocal System, U has rotational spin numbers 4-4-6. I'll take a simpler, more accurate theory every time.
    Leaving aside more accurate as so far I have seen no evidence for this other than claims... You going to ignore the fact that the strong force (or in the case of nuclei the residual strong force IIRC) works to predict a lot of other stuff, like the debris from energetic collisions? In the nuclear theory of the atom there is no ad hoc theory that holds them together . There is a force that acts between quarks. This force manifests at atomic scales as a pion mediated nuclear binding force. Our actual experience shows that this model has a genuine predictive power. Also, your reasoning is rather weak here. We know that magnets attract each other. By your reasoning every magnet everywhere should be in one giant clump.

    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    Ah, the old "cloud" theory; we don't know where the hypothetical electrons are, so therefore they must be smudged out (somehow). This is such obvious nonsense (violates the logic of A = A)--is the electron a wave or a particle? Is the photon a wave or a particle? Conventional theory is very confused; the answers are in the Reciprocal System.
    It is mathematically consistent and makes useful predictions we test every day. Electron clouds have been imaged using STM systems. Conventional theory is not confused, you are trying to apply macroscopic pseudo-Platonic forms to quantum objects. Why do you think this would work? It is rather like someone who has never seen a curved line trying to explain away a circle.

    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    If a charged electron and a charged proton are close together, their charges will neutralize. This happens regardless of the disparity in their masses. My papers provide numerous worked examples of RST and the comparison with theory.
    Can you please answer the question? What do you mean by neutralise? As in form a bound, neutral system (aka hydrogen atom)? Or as in annihilate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    Here’s an experiment that Rutherford failed to do and thus set in motion the many mistakes of the nuclear theory of the atom and the electrical theory, including the problem with capacitors. Rutherford used charged helium atoms (alpha particles) from Po-210 to bombard a gold foil, and he observed the scattering. From these results he concluded that there must be a central nucleus of the atom, consisting of protons, repelling the alpha particles. What he should have done next was to neutralize the alpha particles and run the experiment again. The Reciprocal System predicts the same scattering—because in this theory the atoms are not normally charged, and the repulsion is due to a different, non-electrical cause. The conventional theory would or should predict something quite different.
    Helium atom scattering (material sciences technique) says hi and guess what - the scattering patterns are different. Before you point it out the energies are different - thanks to it being hard to accelerate neutral He atoms. Does reciprocal theory predict this too?

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    C’me on, man, the energy is proportional to the mean height, as in mgh
    Just noticed this, I think I see how you've gotten yourself so turned around...you grabbed an equation from somewhere and didn't stop to think about how it fit the problem. The potential energy of an object (in a uniform gravitational field, relative to some reference location) is proportional to the mass, its height above that reference location, and gravitational acceleration. However, we're talking fluid in a vat...to more fully define the problem, a vat with vertical sides (nothing else is of any use for this). Mass is a function of fluid depth.

    U = m*g*h, but m = h*a*rho where a is the horizontal cross sectional area of the vat and rho is the fluid density, so:
    U = h*a*rho*g*h = a*rho*g*h^2

    Still going to claim that the energy's not proportional to the square of height?

    Even just using U = m*g*h, you start out with one vat full and end up with two vats with the same mass of fluid at half the height, and thus half the potential energy. Exactly the same as with the capacitors. You apparently failed to account for the fact that as a half-drained tank has half the mass of liquid of a full tank.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,512
    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    I have a whole Database of Reciprocal System calculations of the properties of matter.
    It doesn't matter of you have one equation or a whole database, if the results are wrong (as you claimed earlier) then you just have entire database of wrong.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,410
    Transpower, while you're assembling answers to the questions that have already been posed to you, please also consider the following:

    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    The voltage across the capacitor is not linear; in a very simple DC circuit with a constant voltage source V, the voltage across the capacitor is V x (1 - exp(-t x (V/RC) x conv_RCV)) for the Reciprocal System (where conv_RCV is a conversion factor = .2024), and V x (1 - exp(-t/(RC)) for the conventional theory. In the Reciprocal System theory the "charging" and "discharging" of a capacitor therefore occur much more quickly than calculated by the conventional theory.
    So, from the above, we see that RST predicts the same basic exponential shape that conventional physics does, but RST predicts a voltage-dependent time constant of RC/(V*conv_RCV), as opposed to conventional physics' value of just RC. With the particular value of conv_RCV you cited (0.2 or thereabouts), we see that, as you claimed, RST yields the same behavior as conventional physics does, as long as V=5 volts or so. At a voltage of, say 1 volt, RST predicts an exponential with a time constant that is 5x greater (a much slower rise and fall). Similarly, if the voltage is changed to 25 volts, the exponential should be 5x faster. That leads to:

    GK5: Given the way science works, do you agree that if experiment disagrees with RST's predictions, your claims about how a capacitor behaves are then falsified?

    The above question is intended to see if you subscribe to the scientific method. If, instead, there is no experiment that would cause you to yield, then your position is essentially anti-scientific (or at least a-scientific), and there is then no point in continuing this thread.

    A related question is:

    GK6: Would you be interested in my showing you step-response plots of a capacitor charging with a voltage of about one volt? Hint: These plots are bad news for your assertions, but are entirely in accord with conventional physics.
    Last edited by Geo Kaplan; 2012-Jan-10 at 10:48 PM. Reason: fixed typo in equation

  7. #67
    GK5 and GK6: Observation and experiment can, of course, falsify a theory. From observations, we already know that capacitors charge and discharge faster than conventional theory would have one believe. I say voltage = energy/electron in the capacitor. You say voltage^2 = energy/electron. And yes, as you say, the time constants are different between the two theories. If you're going to do some capacitor experiments, you might as well attempt to measure the alleged radiation loss in the two capacitor problem!

    And here's another capacitor experiment to try: "The additional units of space (electrons) forced into the time (equivalent space) interval between the plates increase the total space content. This can be demonstrated experimentally if we introduce a dielectric liquid between the plates as the increase in the amount of space decreases the internal pressure, the force per unit area due to the weight of the liquid. For this purpose we may consider a system in which two parallel plates are partially immersed in a tank of oil and so arranged that the three sections into which the tank is divided by the plates are open to each other only at the bottom of the tank. If we now connect the plates to a battery with an effective voltage, the liquid level rises in the section between the plates. From the foregoing explanation it is evident that the voltage difference has reduced the pressure in the oil. The oil level has then risen to the point where the weight of the oil above the free surface balances the negative increment due to the voltage differential." (Dewey B. Larson, Basic Properties of Matter, p. 171). Conventional theory would predict no rise in the oil and that the plates would be charged.

    I have written 7 papers about a modified Rutherford experiment in which the alpha-particles are neutralized before striking the gold foil; the collection of these papers is available at http://transpower.wordpress.com.

    T1-T16: The answers you seek are in Larson's Universe of Motion--the principal astrophysical work on the Reciprocal System. I wrote a review of this work on Amazon.com. If you have a question about a specific page I'd be happy to answer it, but please understand that I'm busy with numerous scientific and engineering projects and I cannot keep repeating what's already available in the published work.

    CJamesHuff: the potential energy at the end of the process = m x g x (2 x ending_mean_height) = potential energy at beginning of the process (m x g x beginning_mean_height). Beginning_mean_height = 2 x ending_mean_height. QED.
    Last edited by Jim; 2012-Jan-12 at 01:19 PM. Reason: killed live link

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,410
    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    GK5 and GK6: Observation and experiment can, of course, falsify a theory.
    Good answer. I hope you sincerely believe what you just wrote. I am worried, however, because then you assert the following falsehood:

    From observations, we already know that capacitors charge and discharge faster than conventional theory would have one believe.
    Please cite the independent set of data on which you base this claim. I challenge you to a very simple experiment: Take a square-wave generator, set its amplitude to a range of values from well below 5V, to well above 5V, and drive a capacitor through a resistance. Set the frequency of the generator to a low enough value that the resulting transient response approaches its asymptotic values to whatever accuracy you desire. Show that the time constant varies with voltage as you predict.

    I note also that this is the second time that you assert that the charge and discharge are faster, as if that is a necessary conclusion of RST. However, if you examine your own formula (as well as what I wrote about it), it is only faster if your voltage is in excess of 5V. If it is below 5V, your equations say that the response is slower. So, which is it? The equation, or what you said about it? And if the latter, why does the equation say something different?

    I say voltage = energy/electron in the capacitor. You say voltage^2 = energy/electron. And yes, as you say, the time constants are different between the two theories.
    Yes, and as I pointed out, your claim is trivial to test. I have tested it, and your claim is found very wrong. It also happens that the lab work of many undergraduates may be found online, so there is plenty of independent, evidentiary support in favor of conventional physics. By agreement with your first answer at the very top, RST is falsified.

    If you're going to do some capacitor experiments, you might as well attempt to measure the alleged radiation loss in the two capacitor problem!
    That's a complete non-sequitur.

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    GK5 and GK6: Observation and experiment can, of course, falsify a theory. From observations, we already know that capacitors charge and discharge faster than conventional theory would have one believe.
    We don't know this. Quite the opposite, given the enormous variety of electronic circuitry that relies on the mainstream calculations for the time constant being correct.


    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    I say voltage = energy/electron in the capacitor. You say voltage^2 = energy/electron. And yes, as you say, the time constants are different between the two theories. If you're going to do some capacitor experiments, you might as well attempt to measure the alleged radiation loss in the two capacitor problem!
    Why? Measuring the time constants is sufficient to show that your theory is wrong.


    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    And here's another capacitor experiment to try: "The additional units of space (electrons) forced into the time (equivalent space) interval between the plates increase the total space content. This can be demonstrated experimentally if we introduce a dielectric liquid between the plates as the increase in the amount of space decreases the internal pressure, the force per unit area due to the weight of the liquid. For this purpose we may consider a system in which two parallel plates are partially immersed in a tank of oil and so arranged that the three sections into which the tank is divided by the plates are open to each other only at the bottom of the tank. If we now connect the plates to a battery with an effective voltage, the liquid level rises in the section between the plates. From the foregoing explanation it is evident that the voltage difference has reduced the pressure in the oil. The oil level has then risen to the point where the weight of the oil above the free surface balances the negative increment due to the voltage differential." (Dewey B. Larson, Basic Properties of Matter, p. 171). Conventional theory would predict no rise in the oil and that the plates would be charged.
    Conventional theory predicts that oil having a permittivity greater than that of free space (or air) would be drawn into the gap between the plates, quite similar in fact to ferrofluid being drawn into a gap between magnets. Once again, you simply turn out to be wrong in your understanding of what the mainstream theory actually predicts.


    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    CJamesHuff: the potential energy at the end of the process = m x g x (2 x ending_mean_height) = potential energy at beginning of the process (m x g x beginning_mean_height). Beginning_mean_height = 2 x ending_mean_height. QED.
    Potential energy as a function of mass, gravitational acceleration, and height is m*g*h, not m*g*(2*h). If you were trying to account for the liquid being divided among two tanks, you must also account for the fact that each tank has only half the mass of liquid as the original full tank. Computed that way, the total potential energy after the tanks come to equilibrium is: 2*(m/2*g*h/2), which works out to the same answer...half the initial potential energy.

    And of course, you can run the fluid through a turbine and do work as the initially full tank drains into the initially empty tank. If the final potential energy were the same as the original potential energy, where did this extra energy come from?

    Also, your refusal to address the open questions is noted but not excused. You are still required to address them.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    T1-T16: The answers you seek are in Larson's Universe of Motion--the principal astrophysical work on the Reciprocal System. I wrote a review of this work on Amazon.com.
    Sorry, I don't buy pseudoscience.

    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    If you have a question about a specific page I'd be happy to answer it, but please understand that I'm busy with numerous scientific and engineering projects and I cannot keep repeating what's already available in the published work.
    But you haven't repeated anything. You haven't answered any of my questions, here. I don't consider my questions answered, by requiring me to purchase a book. Feel free to contact a moderator, if you feel this is wrong.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Clear Lake City, TX
    Posts
    9,042
    ... but please understand that I'm busy with numerous scientific and engineering projects and I cannot keep repeating what's already available in the published work.
    If you're too busy to answer questions about your idea, perhaps this thread should be closed now. Your decision.
    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
    Isaac Asimov

    Moderation will be in purple.
    Rules for Posting to This Board

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Clear Lake City, TX
    Posts
    9,042
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    But you haven't repeated anything. You haven't answered any of my questions, here. I don't consider my questions answered, by requiring me to purchase a book. Feel free to contact a moderator, if you feel this is wrong.
    Transpower, I'll save you the time. This is not wrong. You will present your case here. You will not require Members to look elsewhere for an answer. You most certainly will not tell them to "buy the book."

    (Parenthetically, if I had an idea that would alter our concept of... everything, I'd be thrilled to discuss it in whatever detail the audience wanted... and probably more detail than they wanted. I'd enjoy being asked probing questions and if my first answer didn't satisfy or convince them, I'd find another way to answer and be willing to keep trying until I found one that did.)
    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
    Isaac Asimov

    Moderation will be in purple.
    Rules for Posting to This Board

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,410
    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    T1-T16: The answers you seek are in Larson's Universe of Motion--the principal astrophysical work on the Reciprocal System. I wrote a review of this work on Amazon.com. If you have a question about a specific page I'd be happy to answer it, but please understand that I'm busy with numerous scientific and engineering projects and I cannot keep repeating what's already available in the published work.
    Pursuant to the mods' admonitions, it's important to emphasize that you were the one who opened the thread. If you aren't willing or able to answer our questions -- many of them quite simple -- then why did you bother? You originally agreed to answer our questions here, in thread, but you have reneged on that agreement. Are you slinking away from the field of battle because our arguments have thoroughly falsified your claims? Or is it that your purpose has always been simply to increase traffic to your site?

    I note for the record that you have answered only one (GK5) of the six questions I have posed. When might I expect an answer to these outstanding questions? And when might we see answers to the many questions from tensor, cjameshuff et al that are still pending as well?

    GK7: I am particularly interested in your demonstrably false claim that "we know that capacitors charge faster than predicted by conventional theory." Where is the data for this erroneous assertion?

    GK8: Do you acknowledge that your own equation predicts that the charging can be faster or slower than predicted by conventional physics, depending on whether the voltage is greater than, or less than, 5V, respectively?

    Gk9: This is a repeat of GK6, which you claimed to have answered, but did not (as is obvious). Would you be interested in seeing experimental data showing the charging/discharging behavior of a capacitor at single-volt levels? Someone who claims to subscribe to the scientific method should be willing, if not eager, to look at data, especially if it comes from a source (undergrads fooling around in the lab, in this case) with no dog in the fight.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,512
    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    From observations, we already know that capacitors charge and discharge faster than conventional theory would have one believe.
    Citation needed.

    I have spent decades designing electronic systems and have never observed this.

    I am used to having to point out that the GPS systems we design use various relativistic corrections in their calculations. I haven't previously had to point out that the high performance computers used across the Internet would not work if capacitance did not behave as expected. High clock frequency processors would crash. SRAMs and DRAMs would not work as planned. You would not be reading this. Pretty much all circuit design would fail. (As noted, none of this stuff runs at 5V.)

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,410
    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    I joined this forum, in part, to respond to an individual going by the handle "papagino." In http://www.bautforum.com/archive/index.php/t-85118.html, he made the statement that one of my physics papers, "Theory of the Capacitor," is "pathetic." I skimmed through his comments, but could find no substantiation for this pejorative.

    I've been a Ph.D. scientist and engineer in industry for over 30 years and have written numerous papers, books, and software packages.
    You've brought up your scientific credentials and paper count more than once in this thread, so you evidently believe that these are relevant and important. May I ask what your dissertation topic was (your online bio says that you "attended" Columbia Pacific University, but there doesn't seem to be an online connection to publications), and where one might find copies of your thesis and any publications that might have flowed from it? You don't have to answer, but your assertions about your mastery of ... well, everything makes me curious about your background. Thanks in advance, regardless.

  16. #76
    GeoKaplan: My dissertation is available for purchase from Amazon (or by interlibrary loan); a summary of it is "The Solution to the Gas Turbine Temperature Problem" published in the July 1980 issue of the International Journal of Energy Conversion and Management; I will happily compare my doctoral dissertation with yours anytime: it has 459 pages and 800 equations. I had enough credits for two doctorates. My physics publications are all over the Web, available for free.

    The time for a capacitor to charge or discharge is dependent on the voltage. The higher the voltage, the less the time, and the lower the voltage the longer the time. The equation is right; when I say that the capacitor charges and discharges faster, I'm obviously thinking of V > 5. The example calculation for the DC RC circuit has V = 100 volts. Trying to tell me that the charging/discharging time of a capacitor is independent of the voltage is like telling me the time to move a fluid from one tank to another is independent of pressure head.

    CJamesHuff: give up now, you cannot even follow junior high physics.

    I conclude that I have successfully rebuffed all attempts at disproving my "Theory of the Capacitor" paper, and so the moderator may close this thread if he likes.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,410
    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    The time for a capacitor to charge or discharge is dependent on the voltage. The higher the voltage, the less the time, and the lower the voltage the longer the time. The equation is right; when I say that the capacitor charges and discharges faster, I'm obviously thinking of V > 5. The example calculation for the DC RC circuit has V = 100 volts. Trying to tell me that the charging/discharging time of a capacitor is independent of the voltage is like telling me the time to move a fluid from one tank to another is independent of pressure head.
    By your logic, heavier objects obviously fall faster, too. Except that they don't, now, do they? They fall harder, not faster. In the capacitor case, a higher voltage makes them charge more quickly to a given voltage, but the same amount of time is taken to charge to a given percentage. That's what conventional physics predicts, that's what real capacitors do.

    I see that your education did not teach you much about the scientific method -- experiment trumps beliefs. Period. You are attempting to adjust reality to conform to your beliefs, and you want everyone else to accept your empty pronouncements "just because." Anyone may run the actual experiment, and as I and others have pointed out, billions of such experiments are effectively run each second, and all of these are in accord with conventional physics. RST is wrong. You are wrong. Your paper's method and conclusions are wrong. That you are insisting otherwise shows you to be anti-scientific.

    The thread should be closed, not because you have proven your assertions, but because you have proven that assertions are the only things you have to offer. You stick your fingers in your ears and yell "lalalalala I can't hear you" because you don't want to hear anything about how the real world works.

    And as to dissertations, you have me beat by a country mile on both page count and equation count (I see that these are important to you; one wonders why). But I take some comfort that my university was not shut down for being an unaccredited diploma mill.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    I conclude that I have successfully rebuffed all attempts at disproving my "Theory of the Capacitor" paper, ...
    I conclude from the evidence presented here that papageno's statement that "...the physics papers, "Theory of the Capacitor," is "pathetic." was quite accurate. Which actually applies to the whole RTS idea, if one of the main proponents of it can't even provide answers to questions about it, here in a thread he started.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    7,918
    General note to all: Let's have some care with the tone, folks. This can (and must) be discussed without digs and snarks.
    Brett's the name. Peters Creek is the place.
    ─────────────────────────────────────────────
    My moderation comments will appear in this color.
    To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the lower-left corner of the post:
    .
    Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Clear Lake City, TX
    Posts
    9,042
    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    ... I conclude that I have successfully rebuffed all attempts at disproving my "Theory of the Capacitor" paper, and so the moderator may close this thread if he likes.
    From what I can see, you are the only one of that opinion. Please answer the outstanding questions per BAUT Rules.

    Alternatively, you may state that you have no intention of answering any more questions, that you have no intention of defending your concept. This, however, will earn you an infraction per BAUT Rules.

    However, if you retract your claim, there will be no infraction and the thread will be closed.
    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
    Isaac Asimov

    Moderation will be in purple.
    Rules for Posting to This Board

  21. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    CJamesHuff: give up now, you cannot even follow junior high physics.
    It should be simple to point out the errors I've made, in that case. Odd that you haven't even attempted to do so.

    The math is extremely simple. What is the mass of liquid before and after the full tank has half-drained into the empty tank? It is the same. What is the gravitational acceleration before and after? The same. What is the height before and after? Afterward, the height is half of what it was initially. You yourself said that U = m*g*h, so...what is the potential energy before and after the full tank half-drains into the empty tank?

    Do you deny that a tank with 1/2 the mass of liquid and 1/2 the liquid height has 1/4 the potential energy? If not, how much do two such tanks have, compared to a full tank? What specifically is wrong with my math?

    I expect answers to the above in addition to my previous questions.

  22. #82
    CJamesHuff: The two tanks together (combined), at the end, have the same mass as the first tank had at the beginning. The height of the liquid in the two tanks together (combined), at the end, is the same as that in the first tank at the beginning. There is conservation of energy here, just as there must be conservation of energy in the two capacitor problem. QED (again).

    GeoKaplan: The gravitational situation you cite is not analogous to the DC RC circuit situation. If you give a ball greater energy at the beginning of a throw, it will reach the destination faster than it would at lesser energy. If you increase the voltage in a DC RC circuit, the time constant will decrease, because voltage = energy/electron. tau = (RC/(V x .2024)) not tau = RC. Unfortunately, many methods of capacitance measurement make use of the conventional capacitor expressions, and so they generally misreport the values. To properly measure the capacitor use a source voltage of 4.94 (approx. = 5)--this way there would be no bias toward the conventional theory or the Reciprocal System. Then measure the rise time = tau, and obtain the value C. This value of C should then be used in any experiments with that capacitor. The experiments you do with your students assume that tau = RC, which is wrong. It is nonsensical to tell me that regardless of the energy of the electrons that the time constant remains the same!

    Tensor: I have successfully rebuffed all attacks. The conventional electrical theory and the nuclear theory of the atom are dead wrong.

    Strange: Engineers who actually work with capacitors know that they are not "ideal"--i.e., they do not follow the expressions handed down by the physicists between 1895-1911; there was a recent article (within the past two months) in EE Times about this very issue.

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,512
    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    Strange: Engineers who actually work with capacitors know that they are not "ideal"--i.e., they do not follow the expressions handed down by the physicists between 1895-1911; there was a recent article (within the past two months) in EE Times about this very issue.
    Please don't confuse non-ideal properties of real components (which we also model when designing high performance circuits; typically as a network of appropriate ideal Rs, Ls and Cs) with your claims that ideal capacitors do not work as classical theory says.

    You have claimed that, other than at 5V, capacitors (I assume, ideal theoretical capacitors) do not behave as predicted by standard physics. I know this wrong from both lab experiments and decades of practical design, simulation, test and sales of millions of dollars worth of high performance components.

    On the other had, if all you are saying is that real capacitors do not behave exactly like ideal ones... well, duuh, of course. That is what "real" means. But that doesn't require a new (and wrong) physical theory.

  24. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    CJamesHuff: The two tanks together (combined), at the end, have the same mass as the first tank had at the beginning. The height of the liquid in the two tanks together (combined), at the end, is the same as that in the first tank at the beginning. There is conservation of energy here, just as there must be conservation of energy in the two capacitor problem. QED (again).
    The height is the same, really? Draining a full tank into an empty tank gives you two full tanks with the same liquid mass? Is this "junior high physics", then?

    Your math is rotten, and you once again avoided answering the questions that would force you to give the correct answer. A full straight-walled tank draining into an empty but identical tank gives two tanks each having half the liquid mass at half the liquid height. U = m*g*h, and m and h are halved for each tank, so each has 1/4 of the potential energy of a full tank. The sum of the potential energies of the half-full tanks is 1/2 the potential energy of the full tank.

    And yes, there is conservation of energy here. You can do work with the liquid draining from the full tank into the empty tank, as you can do with a charged capacitor discharging into an uncharged one. The amount of work you can do is equal to half the initial potential energy of the liquid. Your assertion that the potential energy is the same before and after clearly violates conservation of energy.


    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    GeoKaplan: The gravitational situation you cite is not analogous to the DC RC circuit situation. If you give a ball greater energy at the beginning of a throw, it will reach the destination faster than it would at lesser energy. If you increase the voltage in a DC RC circuit, the time constant will decrease, because voltage = energy/electron. tau = (RC/(V x .2024)) not tau = RC. Unfortunately, many methods of capacitance measurement make use of the conventional capacitor expressions, and so they generally misreport the values. To properly measure the capacitor use a source voltage of 4.94 (approx. = 5)--this way there would be no bias toward the conventional theory or the Reciprocal System. Then measure the rise time = tau, and obtain the value C. This value of C should then be used in any experiments with that capacitor. The experiments you do with your students assume that tau = RC, which is wrong. It is nonsensical to tell me that regardless of the energy of the electrons that the time constant remains the same!
    The time constant remains the same, independent of voltage. It does not matter how nonsensical you think this is, the universe does not care. Raising the charging voltage certainly raises the rate of change in voltage, but it also raises the amount of change required to reach a given state of charge...a capacitor will take the same amount of time to charge to 0.9V from a 1V source as it takes to charge to 9V from a 10V source.


    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    Tensor: I have successfully rebuffed all attacks.
    Where? Not here. You haven't made a single honest attempt to address the issues raised in this thread.


    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    Strange: Engineers who actually work with capacitors know that they are not "ideal"--i.e., they do not follow the expressions handed down by the physicists between 1895-1911; there was a recent article (within the past two months) in EE Times about this very issue.
    They are indeed not ideal. The variations from theory are well known and depend on geometry and material. However, they do not respond in the way your theory predicts.

  25. #85
    Strange: The time constant and energy equation that you use are wrong. I have said, however, that, in many applications, capacitors work better than they were designed to, because massless and chargeless electrons are involved, not charged ones. I would ask you to prove to me, by experiment, that one plate of a capacitor is negative, and the other is positive. I say both plates are neutral. Also: the dielectric strength of a capacitor is based on the maximum voltage it can stand, not on voltage^2.

    CJamesHuff: The two tank problem is analogous to the two capacitor problem. Applying Bernoulli's theorem, we have this statement of energy conservation:

    energy at tank 1 + energy added - energy lost - energy extracted = energy at tank 2

    In symbols:

    (p1/w + V1^2 / (2g) + z1) + Ha -Hl -He = (p2/w + V2^2 / (2g) + z2)

    Ignore energy added, lost, or extracted (assume frictionless pipe, valve, wall, etc.). Then:

    p1/w + z1 = p2/w + z2

    But p1/w = p2/w, so z1 = z2 (at end). (Obviously z0, height in tank 1 at the beginning will be 2 x z1. The pressure p1 will, however, be less than p0, just as the voltage drops in the two capacitor problem.) The point is: we use energy conservation here, and we should be using energy conservation in the two capacitor problem Conventional physics is wrong here, and you guys should admit it.

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    CJamesHuff: The two tanks together (combined), at the end, have the same mass as the first tank had at the beginning. The height of the liquid in the two tanks together (combined), at the end, is the same as that in the first tank at the beginning. There is conservation of energy here, just as there must be conservation of energy in the two capacitor problem. QED (again).
    It's you who is in error here. It's a simple problem: Do two point masses of m situated at (3/4)h and (1/4)h have the same total potential energy as two point masses of m situated at (1/4)h? This is your example before and after the draining. And the answer is no.

    Your solution in Newtonian mechanics would only be correct if you reduce g to zero, ie. you have no gravitational potential.

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    CJamesHuff: The two tank problem is analogous to the two capacitor problem. Applying Bernoulli's theorem, we have this statement of energy conservation:

    energy at tank 1 + energy added - energy lost - energy extracted = energy at tank 2
    You were talking about potential energy, and cjameshuff got it all right. Now you are talking about the total energy. Do you understand the difference between the two?

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,410
    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    Unfortunately, many methods of capacitance measurement make use of the conventional capacitor expressions, and so they generally misreport the values. To properly measure the capacitor use a source voltage of 4.94 (approx. = 5)--this way there would be no bias toward the conventional theory or the Reciprocal System. Then measure the rise time = tau, and obtain the value C. This value of C should then be used in any experiments with that capacitor. The experiments you do with your students assume that tau = RC, which is wrong.
    Once again, you reveal the infinite scope of your ignorance. Measurements of voltage as a function of time make no assumptions about the nature of the devices whose voltage is being measured; it could be a black box containing pudding-based electrical devices for all we care. All that is being measured is voltage as a function of time. That's it. No capacitor values need to be known or extracted at all. Do you even know how to run a valid scientific test? Asked and answered.

    All that is necessary to falsify your own equation is a measurement of the time constant. Since you are evidently ignorant of this simple fact, allow me to educate you: You -- and RST -- claim that a measurement of voltage vs. time would give a different result than predicted by conventional theory. Your own equation may be solved for the time constant as a function of voltage-vs-time measurements. Similarly, the corresponding equation from conventional physics may also be solved for the time constant from measurements. The scientific method says that if the measured time constant does not depend on voltage, you and RST are wrong. And the measurements do, in fact, say that you are wrong. Very simple. Now do you understand how to run, and interpret, an experiment? If not, post back, and I or someone else here will try to educate you why no extraction of capacitor value is necessary. It just complicates unnecessarily what is a trivial test of a key prediction of RST. If the logic is too much for you to grasp, post back and we'll gently walk you through it, one step at a time.

    Do you now retract your foolish claim (if you truly subscribe to the scientific method -- as you claimed in print -- then you must)? If not, you must explain -- using the language and methods of science -- precisely how these measurements of time and voltage are invalid. In your explanation, do not persist in providing an argument along the lines of "I, Ronald Satz, declare it thus." I am absolutely not interested in your beliefs. I am only interested in your scientific arguments.

    It is nonsensical to tell me that regardless of the energy of the electrons that the time constant remains the same!
    Again, you keep repeating your assertions without any evidentiary support whatsoever, as expected. Putting an exclamation point at the end of a claim does not improve its validity. You got nothin' else, I guess. It is nonsensical to tell me that you have a scientific theory when you only provide uninformed opinion.
    Last edited by Geo Kaplan; 2012-Jan-14 at 11:38 PM. Reason: wordsmithing

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post

    Tensor: I have successfully rebuffed all attacks. The conventional electrical theory and the nuclear theory of the atom are dead wrong.
    Claims and assertions without the appropriate support, is not success. The fact that you can't provide answers to my questions, here in the forum, indicate you have not rebuffed anything.

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,410
    Quote Originally Posted by Transpower View Post
    If you increase the voltage in a DC RC circuit, the time constant will decrease, because voltage = energy/electron. tau = (RC/(V x .2024)) not tau = RC.
    Here is a more subtle, but no less damning refutation of your claims. Given that you couldn't understand how measurements of voltage vs time falsify RST, you are unlikely to understand what is to follow. Rather, it's for future readers happening upon this exchange from an internet search.

    Conventional theory says that the only effect of varying the voltage in a capacitor circuit is a simple scaling. Doubling the voltage doubles the response amplitude. This simple scaling behavior is a signature of linearity. Linearity, in turn, says that a sinewave excitation will produce a spectrum with a component at only the frequency of the input sinewave (after transients have died away). In short, there will be no distortion. If RST were correct, then audio amplifiers would be full of distortion (to say nothing of having frequency response that is far from predicted by conventional theory).

    The very fact that audio amplifiers have negligible distortion is another widespread refutation of RST theory.

    RST is simply, embarrassingly wrong. To persist in saying otherwise in the face of such overwhelming, devastating experimental falsification of RST would not be to your credit.

Similar Threads

  1. RE: Doubts About Modern Physics
    By Transpower in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2012-Jun-11, 03:46 AM
  2. Petition to re-open "johnmartin2009's discussion of modern physics" thread
    By MicVR in forum Forum Introductions and Feedback
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 2011-Jul-03, 09:14 PM
  3. Is the "novelty" of modern science a problem?
    By jhwegener in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 2010-Jun-30, 01:22 PM
  4. Computational Physics - "Numerical Integration": RK4, Verlet.. "n-body problem"
    By abaraba in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 2008-Oct-21, 11:10 AM
  5. Replies: 68
    Last Post: 2007-Jan-31, 08:11 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: