Indian researcher challenges Newton's law

[Sage]

Actually, I've seen some very compelling evidnce against the "facts" that could be considered to be proof to the contrary of what the mainstream believes.

What these people systematically fail to mention is what about the moon rocks collected? Don't say they are from earth because several independant scientists have studied them and there are characteristics in them not seen of earth rocks.

I never said that I believed that it was faked, but rather that both sides of the argument have reasonable evidence against the other and that both sides have failed to account for many things.

 

[Paul]

And the naysayers haven't argumented against the biggest(800 pounds) worth of evidence, the moon rocks.

The moon rocks alone are proof.

 

[Sage]

I'm not going to argue this with you. Personally, I lean heavily towards a real manned moon landing but only a fool would ignore the arguments set forth by others and not take into consideration the idea that there could be other explainations for the proposed "facts" which both sides present.

 

[Thowllly]

I'm not going to argue this with you. Personally, I lean heavily towards a real manned moon landing but only a fool would ignore the arguments set forth by others and not take into consideration the idea that there could be other explainations for the proposed "facts" which both sides present.

I've seen loads of "proof" that the moon landings were faked. But in every case the "proof" was ridiculous and just showed a poor understanding of physics and no common sense on the part of the naysayer. But if anybody here as some compelling evidence, then I would love to take a look at it.

 

[arjan de lumens]

Not only did the astronauts not land on the moon, the moon itself does not exist!!!! Just look here for undeniable proof!!!

 

[Sage]

ROFL!!!

...Astronomically Correct establishment...

 

[DemoCoder]

'while I understand that there are no simultaneouse nteractions in nature which lead to the above statement. are they really 'waves' the the general sense?'

Yes and no. Gravitational waves are 2nd order perturbations in spacetime. Neutron stars for instance emit them as they wiggle. They do not necessarily propogate at 'c' in vacuo.

Gravitons, the mediators of the gravitational force (also kinda sorta a wave.. more accurately known as a field), are thought to move at 'c'.

IIRC, a static field would consist of virtual gravitons ala electric field and virtual photons. A gravitational wave would consist of *real* gravitons. Gravitons are the gravitational wave quanta as all changes in fields are quantized.

It has now been confirmed by two separate "experiments", one by binary pulsar, and one by using Jupiter and the Shapiro effect that gravitational waves propagate at the speed of light.

As for whether something can simultaneously be two things, that's just a misunderstanding of language. I can look a an object and call it a chair. Another guy can look at an object and call it firewood. We use mathematics to model things in the real world. We create a language to label and reason about such objects, but to say that something IS a wave or IS a particle is too strong. Human beings have defined something called a wave, and something called a particle, and we find phenomena that sometimes acts like or seems like the first definition, and sometimes like the second.

As for what things really are, we don't know, and it's rather philosophically meaningless since our entire world is constructed out of language we created and we use it to describe things in terms of things, but the act of labeling something with a definition also artificially circumscribes it, and like the Tao, something is lost in the process. The map is not the territory.

There's a famous Einstein quote floating somewhere on this (the idea that you can exactly know what something really "IS")

 

[Fred]

Gravitational waves are a relic of the General Theory of Relativity. They are produced when a body with strong 'gravity' accelerates (eg a spinning neutron star). It is not a quantum theory.

Gravitons are a hypothesized (though never detected) virtual force mediator (or in the lingo, the vector representation of the principle bundle SO(3,1) guage group) in GUT theories (but not the standard model). The simplest version of String theory, the bosonic string sector produces a spin 2 particle (along with other nasty things like a tachyon), that is identified as the graviton. That theory is wrong, but its hoped that further refinement will make a working theory that has a stable vacuum.

The Graviton is thought to be a guage field, so it acts like all quantum 'particles'. The peculariaty of this one, however is that it actually produces the geometry of known space, so it will presumably account for 'gravitational waves' somewhere along the lines as well.

Its still a very theoretical particle, albeit one thats motivated by sound reasoning. It could be bunk.

 

[Vince]

It's allways been my impression that the problems of particle/wave duality are much more tangible in nature than it is merely linguistic. Is this question (and derivatives such as locality and causuality) not at the very heart of the incompatabilities expressed by Bell between Quantum Theory and Einstein's crusade against it? My other assumption was that the true question isn't if it can 'be a wave' or 'be a particle' (it's easy to imagine this) - but rather explaining why the odd actions seen in the quantum world concerning this duality are happening. Feynman even went as far as to state that the result of experiments such as the infamous double-slit or it's many derivatives were the fundimental mystery of QM. But, I'm sure Fred will comment (hopefully).

 

[notAFanB]

thanks guys you have been informative.

 

[Fred]

I stuck this in the wrong thread by mistake.


Bells theorem and the like are subjects of a very active field known as quantum measurement. Its far from a resolved issue.

Rather than explain it, i'll link a very good article written for the laymen (thus necessarily a tad flawed or doesn't capture the nuances of a full mathematical version)

http://fergusmurray.members.beeb.net/Causality.html

 

[indio]

http://users.erols.com/iri/ZPENERGY.html

the patented machine is based on zero-point energy .

 

[OpenGL guy]

Being an established scientific magazine does saying everyone's understanding is flawed and what someone else is saying is impossible has no bearing on my opinion. Even though I have respect for scientific american there is ample history illustrating the "mainstream " getting it completely wrong. I do know the US patent office has never patented anything that makes claims like this device.

Of course the US patent office has never allowed a patent on a perpetual motion/energy/orgasm device: Because they don't exist. The fact that this one got through, just shows that someone fell asleep at the wheel.

 

[Sazar]

Link

Indian researcher challenges Newton's law

PTI[ WEDNESDAY, JUNE 04, 2003 11:32:25 AM ]

KOLKATA: An Indian research technologist in Australia has challenged Newton's First Law of Motion and called for a revision of the classical theory in the light of modern technology.

An alumnus of the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, Arindam Banerjee, working for Telstra in Melbourne, has contended in his recently published book 'To The Stars!' that contrary to the hitherto accepted theory, an object can actually be moved without application of any external force.

"Central to my new theory is the proposal that our understanding of Newton's First Law of Motion should be revised," the 47-year-old research technologist said.

Using his unconventional theory, Banerjee has described in a technical paper, what he calls, a design for 'perpetual motion machines' which can generate energy without burning any kind of fossil fuel or any radioactive process.

The Internal Force Engine, which Banerjee has designed, never runs out of power because it is 'self charging' without the need for any external source of energy.

"It is a machine derived from energy internal to the body and can achieve unlimited kinetic energy within a short span of time, using much less energy obtained from external sources like a battery," he said.

The balance energy generated thus is free and could be produced indefinitely if a feedback loop is created in the system, Banerjee contended.

my dad did his EE degree from that very university...

concerning his views... they are interesting...

the US patent office on the other hand does allow people to apply for patents on practically anything and some patents given to US firms are a touch ludicrous... but such is the way the office operates...

 

[Tahir2]

I'm gonna sound really dumb for sticking my nose where it dont belong but reading that link about the Mad Revisionist was a good laugh. However can someone explain this to me, reference the tides the moon causes:

The clouds are considerably closer to the moon, and much lighter than the oceans. One would imagine that if the moon had the power to raise the oceans, this same force would cause the clouds to go flying into space, yet this does not happen. This proves that the tides story is physically impossible.

How come the clouds are not affected or if they are to what extent?

Of course the moon exists I just found that part of his argument without any retort.. can someone with a bit of knowledge shed some light for dumb little me.

 

[Sazar]

perhaps it has to do with the nature of gas and the energy they possess v/s nature of liquid and the cohesive strength between the H2O molecules...

I am assuming that the gravity of the moon will act in a more pronounced manner and more noticeably on a body that effectively acts as one v/s clouds that are zipping around due to atmospeheric pressure changes...

consider the action of water when boiled water is acted upon by gravity and responds (ie if you flip the container the water will fall towards biggest gravitational force... ergo the EARTH) but if you flip a container of steam... it is not acted upon as noticeably by gravity..

further... the atmosphere we have and the relative 'weight' of the clouds prevents them from flying into space...

basically the lad who commented about the tides was either looking for a laugh of has a very warped understanding of physics and our planet...

 

[KBeee]

You have to remember about the US patent office that -
1. Awarding a patent has no bearing on whether the thing'll work or not.
2. As an experiment, a guy has successfully patented swinging from side to side on a childs playground swing, instead of the usual back and forth motion.

 

[Silent_One]

Sazar wrote:

I am assuming that the gravity of the moon will act in a more pronounced manner and more noticeably on a body that effectively acts as one v/s clouds that are zipping around due to atmospeheric pressure changes...

http://members.tripod.com/~CovenK/

But exctly how does the moon control the tides? There are many parts the moon plays in controlling the tides, there are also parts played by other important forces, these are called the tide producing forces. High tide is basiclly when the moon is most over head. If we were to have a world with no land interfereing with the flow of tides, directly under the moon, the water would bulge towards it's pull. There is one high tide. At the excat oopposite of the earth there is another high tide there. Why, you say, would the water also bulge outward away from the pull of the moon? The reason for this is what we call centrifugal force. Centrifugal force tends to propel things outward. Centirfugal force, the motion of the earth's spin on it's axis, and the pull from the moon, overpowers the earth's gravity, and the water bulges out. There are normally two high tides during the day. So we said, the sun is a junior partner in the flow of the ocean, it's power is less than half the moon's, and all it basiclly does is increase or decrease the moon's power over the oceans. Everyday the tide rises fifty five minutes later than the day before. This has to do with the moon's revolution around the earth.

Tahir wrote:

How come the clouds are not affected or if they are to what extent?

Well, how about Earth and Air Tides
http://members.tripod.com/~CovenK/index-5.html

New sudies have shown that not only are there tides in the oceans but also in the earth and the air....<snip>....Like the oceans, the earth has tow high tides, and two low, the average range being between eight and twelve inches.....<snip>.....A man named Pierre Simon de Laplace, discovered tides in the air. It took him eight years of reading his barometer every day four times a day to come to the conclusion that the air also flows similarly to the ocean tides. Puzzlingly, though, these tides did not follow the moon, as did the ocean, and earth tides, no these tides followed the clock. High tides were at 10:00 am and pm, and low tides were at 4:00 am and pm. Unlike ocean tides, that flow an hour later each day, these times remained constant, disproving the theory that the tides are following the sun and moon. Scientists now beleive that they followed the heat of the sun, and that was what caused the pressure to rise and fall.

So one could assume that clouds would rise and fall to some extent along with the tides of Air, but that the effect is NOT caused by the moon. 8)

 

[Tahir2]

Ahh interesting, thanks.

However I had thought that the idea of centrifugal force had been abandoned and did not exist. Rather there is a centripetal force.