Notices
Results 1 to 54 of 54

Thread: Tsolkas or Einstein ?

  1. #1 Tsolkas or Einstein ? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    31
    EXPERIMENT-12 and EXPERIMENT-13

    at

    www.tsolkas.gr


    The most important experiments in the history of Physics!

    How a physicist, using only a pencil, five blank sheets of paper and the power of his intellect (without performing a single physics experiment) can prove that Einstein was wrong!!!


    tsolkas


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Personally with all due respect, I don't think you are going to get many fans. I don't have the maths knowledge or where all to defend that statement, but you've been here before saying that Einstein is wrong, when cleary his theories do check out well, I don't even need a degree to see that. Relativity works fine and gravity as spacetime seems to function adequatley in the space we conveive around us. I understand that you have put a lot of effort into this, but you are kind of advertisising your theory on the forum, and quite frankly people are going to percieve it as spam. Just a friendly pointer/warning.

    Cheers,

    SVWilllmer.


    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    Personally with all due respect, I don't think you are going to get many fans. I don't have the maths knowledge or where all to defend that statement, but you've been here before saying that Einstein is wrong, when cleary his theories do check out well, I don't even need a degree to see that. Relativity works fine and gravity as spacetime seems to function adequatley in the space we conveive around us. I understand that you have put a lot of effort into this, but you are kind of advertisising your theory on the forum, and quite frankly people are going to percieve it as spam. Just a friendly pointer/warning.

    Cheers,

    SVWilllmer.
    No, you jump to conclusions. This is evidence people live in their own bubble.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    56
    I find it refreshing someone is challenging the "big ideas" of science.
    Too bad I dont have time (or probably the knowledge) to review this in-depth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by Twixly
    I find it refreshing someone is challenging the "big ideas" of science.
    Too bad I dont have time (or probably the knowledge) to review this in-depth.

    And your point is?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
    Quote Originally Posted by Twixly
    I find it refreshing someone is challenging the "big ideas" of science.
    Too bad I dont have time (or probably the knowledge) to review this in-depth.

    And your point is?
    Exactly what I wrote?
    Unless the laws of physics, for example, is constantly tested through scientific ideas science has no chance of moving forward.

    I dont know if you understand this, but proving something WRONG in science is actually GREAT, it´s progress! So people need to try and prove things wrong. All of science is build on testing, retesting and critical thinking.

    This is the second thread you´ve replied to my post with no sort of information at all. I dont get you one bit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    121
    You ask what mathematical relationships apply to the fact that all bodies, regardless of their mass, fall at the same speed. Here you go.

    F=m(object) x a

    F=(G x m(earth) x m(object))/r^2

    (G x m(earth) x m(object))/r^2 = m(object) x a

    As you can see, the mass of the object cancels out of this equation.

    Also i think you should probably do some experiments to see if your theory stands up. However, I do commend you for questioning the accepted theories, and thinking for yourself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: Tsolkas or Einstein ? 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    203
    Quote Originally Posted by tsolkas-1
    EXPERIMENT-12 and EXPERIMENT-13

    at

    www.tsolkas.gr


    The most important experiments in the history of Physics!

    How a physicist, using only a pencil, five blank sheets of paper and the power of his intellect (without performing a single physics experiment) can prove that Einstein was wrong!!!


    tsolkas
    I'll believe you if you come up with mathematically sound proofs and not some casual thoughts.

    By the way, I appreciate your courage to oppose widely, almost universally accepted models of the universe.!
    Beyond Equations,

    Pritish
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
    No, you jump to conclusions. This is evidence people live in their own bubble.
    Exactly. Jumping to conclusions is a way of working towards that conclusion. Such as saying 'speed of light's velocity is the same for all observors no matter their own reference frame. Or the laws of physics are the same for all observors no matter their reference frame. If we didn't jump to conclusions, we wouldn't reach a conclusion we wanted to. If you have a conclusion already before you finish, and it is not the same, you know what needs to be changed :wink:.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    NC USA
    Posts
    488
    Christos Tsolkas:

    I have taken the time to actually read what you have written. Please explain the following:

    Experiment ΧΤ, due to its simplicity and very low cost, can be easily conducted on a broad scale by Universities, Physics Institutes, etc, as well as by university and even high school students!!!
    Explain why you have not done so!

    You have merely postulated the results of the experiment. I believe your assumptions of results are incorrect, yet you use your error to claim Einstein is wrong, that Relativity Theory is junk.

    Go back and actually do your own simple, low-cost experiment. Explain why your observed results do not match your predictions. Then review Einstein again.

    -------

    Pritish:

    I appreciate your courage to oppose widely, almost universally accepted models of the universe.!
    Give this a little more thought. I hope you will realize that any fool can oppose widely, almost universally accepted models of the universe. In fact, that's all that fools can do!

    *
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    Personally with all due respect, I don't think you are going to get many fans. I don't have the maths knowledge or where all to defend that statement, but you've been here before saying that Einstein is wrong, when cleary his theories do check out well, I don't even need a degree to see that. Relativity works fine and gravity as spacetime seems to function adequatley in the space we conveive around us. I understand that you have put a lot of effort into this, but you are kind of advertisising your theory on the forum, and quite frankly people are going to percieve it as spam. Just a friendly pointer/warning.

    Cheers,

    SVWilllmer.
    Einstein's theories were very wrong. And it took billions in grants, and laws against humanity to push his theories through. Billions back when $100,000.oo was unfathomable to most.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Re: Tsolkas or Einstein ? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by PritishKamat
    Quote Originally Posted by tsolkas-1
    EXPERIMENT-12 and EXPERIMENT-13

    at

    www.tsolkas.gr


    The most important experiments in the history of Physics!

    How a physicist, using only a pencil, five blank sheets of paper and the power of his intellect (without performing a single physics experiment) can prove that Einstein was wrong!!!


    tsolkas
    I'll believe you if you come up with mathematically sound proofs and not some casual thoughts.

    By the way, I appreciate your courage to oppose widely, almost universally accepted models of the universe.!
    There are no mathematical proofs of Einstein's theories. None whatsoever. And no experiments that even come close to proving it.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    203
    What the heck, the theory of einstein still fits all the voids left by physics done before it!
    I mean, if this guy has the mettle to challenge The great theories that physics has produced so far, right from Newton to Einstein, this person must either be the greatest physicist or the most WRONG (no offence tsolkas) one. Well, so, if he really is the former, he must give me something to make predictions, which can be proved true later by experiments, maybe. Mathematics, if provided, is a great tool for doing so.
    Beyond Equations,

    Pritish
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    NC USA
    Posts
    488
    *
    Quote Originally Posted by PritishKamat
    I mean, if this guy has the mettle to challenge The great theories that physics has produced so far...
    Come on, Pritish, use your head! If you are impressed with people who challenge existing theories, those who emphatically deny well-accepted facts, then our own William McCormick must be one of your greatest heroes!

    Go read Tsolkas' arguments. I mean, actually read them. You should be able to spot the errors in each argument. They are not very subtle.

    *
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by PritishKamat
    What the heck, the theory of einstein still fits all the voids left by physics done before it!
    I mean, if this guy has the mettle to challenge The great theories that physics has produced so far, right from Newton to Einstein, this person must either be the greatest physicist or the most WRONG (no offence tsolkas) one. Well, so, if he really is the former, he must give me something to make predictions, which can be proved true later by experiments, maybe. Mathematics, if provided, is a great tool for doing so.
    Look I do not know how to explain this to you. But we had the things working in hand. That Einstein and his ridiculous theories said could not exist.
    Einstein types attacked real things like ants. They raised numbers of individuals, and trained them against reality. And the government was the smart bug leader of the whole bunch.

    And the government and even the military just gave up trying to push the real working high tech stuff into the light. They were shelved away and pretty much wiped away. Many were demoted for even mentioning these things.

    Einstein was dead wrong. Just plain all out dead wrong. Not even a slightly interesting idea. Unless you like wild science fiction.

    Did anyone remember reading the article from the English popular mechanics? Where professor Joad is quoted as saying that the nuclear bomb was the stupidest thing since the combustion engine?

    Why do you think he said that? Because we do not need combustion engines or fuel. We get unruly without them.
    We cannot be cut off from travel or supplies, if we are not reliant on gasoline. Without military action.

    The proof to us is that Einstein wasted ten minutes building a mass of radioactive substances to create energy. He was a very sick man. A super coward and mental case.

    And the only thing sicker is that today I have to prove a mental retard wrong.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by PritishKamat
    I mean, if this guy has the mettle to challenge The great theories that physics has produced so far, right from Newton to Einstein, this person must either be the greatest physicist or the most WRONG (no offence tsolkas) one. Well, so, if he really is the former, he must give me something to make predictions, which can be proved true later by experiments, maybe. Mathematics, if provided, is a great tool for doing so.
    Predictions are for fortune tellers.

    If you could see what can be done with slight variations in an experiment, you would almost doubt science. That is why the Universal Scientist took pain staking time to find common things that everyone could look at, and understand.

    You do not do science off in a secret laboratory. It is done with all looking on. The idea that there are scientists, and then there are those that are to be told how science works. Is the ultimate unknowing admission, by a none scientist. A rather sick individual with strange needs.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    203
    William,
    I dont think that I've made my point clear about "predictions". I meant, that for a theory to be accepted, it must first prove all known facts and it must provide a new tool for physicists to 'predict' the outcomes of future experiments that the former theories fail to explain. That is what I want from tsolkas.
    Beyond Equations,

    Pritish
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    414
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    Personally with all due respect, I don't think you are going to get many fans. I don't have the maths knowledge or where all to defend that statement, but you've been here before saying that Einstein is wrong, when cleary his theories do check out well, I don't even need a degree to see that. Relativity works fine and gravity as spacetime seems to function adequatley in the space we conveive around us. I understand that you have put a lot of effort into this, but you are kind of advertisising your theory on the forum, and quite frankly people are going to percieve it as spam. Just a friendly pointer/warning.

    Cheers,

    SVWilllmer.
    Einstein's theories were very wrong. And it took billions in grants, and laws against humanity to push his theories through. Billions back when $100,000.oo was unfathomable to most.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    If Einsteins theories were wrong how would you explain the reason why two people travelling at different velocities come up with different measurements for the same thing?
    "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" - Bertrand Russell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by PritishKamat
    William,
    I dont think that I've made my point clear about "predictions". I meant, that for a theory to be accepted, it must first prove all known facts and it must provide a new tool for physicists to 'predict' the outcomes of future experiments that the former theories fail to explain. That is what I want from tsolkas.

    The former scientific understandings, left only one thing left to explain. And that was why law makers were still breathing American air. And why their polluted footprints had not been filled with their own blood.

    But rather frail, scared scientists, wanted no part in things which might get violent. And certainly agreed to anything, rather then a confrontation with cowards, as desperate and cowardly as themselves.

    A paradox.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by BumFluff
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    Personally with all due respect, I don't think you are going to get many fans. I don't have the maths knowledge or where all to defend that statement, but you've been here before saying that Einstein is wrong, when cleary his theories do check out well, I don't even need a degree to see that. Relativity works fine and gravity as spacetime seems to function adequatley in the space we conveive around us. I understand that you have put a lot of effort into this, but you are kind of advertisising your theory on the forum, and quite frankly people are going to percieve it as spam. Just a friendly pointer/warning.

    Cheers,

    SVWilllmer.
    Einstein's theories were very wrong. And it took billions in grants, and laws against humanity to push his theories through. Billions back when $100,000.oo was unfathomable to most.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    If Einsteins theories were wrong how would you explain the reason why two people travelling at different velocities come up with different measurements for the same thing?
    That was already explained. As we view ambient radiation, that brings us pictures of things. From objects surfaces. And carries the energy for a bomb. We know that light can be bent as in a mirage. It can shield objects from plain line of sight.

    So we know that varying density, can distort ambient radiation. That would mean, that if you were to travel in certain directions, at certain places or elevations from bodies and there densities. You may create diodes that may or may not raise or lower the ambient voltage, of the vehicle you are traveling in.

    It may create an induction field around the vehicle. Then devices inside may not work well. Or may work differently.

    I am a firm believer that the field that powers a compass, is due to the atmosphere that moves with the earth at 1500 feet a second at sea level, near the equator. And the friction where the atmosphere meets space.

    We know space does not spin with the earth. Although I would not rule out such a theory. Or even a flat world at this point in science. I could see space shuttle astronauts stating to a congressional committee that the world did look flat to them.

    http://www.rockwelder.com/Flash/magnets/magnets.html

    But yes at these points you may create small differences in ambient voltage, that may have a slight effect on equipment. However once out of those fields or where the two fields are grinding. Everything is once again at normal. The Apollo mission highlighted this.

    If you saw the plane that crashed into the twin towers you may have noticed that before it hit. There was a plasma ray created, in front of the plane. It is that ray that cuts through the steel and cement in the building.

    I work with all those materials and have done ballistic testing, it shows clearly that aluminum does not cut steel, unless you create a plasma ray in front of the aluminum. The high voltage can obliterate the steel as if it was water. Being blown out of the way, as a mist.

    The tests the newer scientists do, show nothing. Because they are trying to prove something without even understanding their own equipment. If there were any predictions, they were made a long time ago, by real Universal Scientists. Who easily explained the possibilities of what might take place, anywhere in the Universe.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    203
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by PritishKamat
    William,
    I dont think that I've made my point clear about "predictions". I meant, that for a theory to be accepted, it must first prove all known facts and it must provide a new tool for physicists to 'predict' the outcomes of future experiments that the former theories fail to explain. That is what I want from tsolkas.

    The former scientific understandings, left only one thing left to explain. And that was why law makers were still breathing American air. And why their polluted footprints had not been filled with their own blood.

    But rather frail, scared scientists, wanted no part in things which might get violent. And certainly agreed to anything, rather then a confrontation with cowards, as desperate and cowardly as themselves.

    A paradox.
    Is this supposed to be a reply?
    Beyond Equations,

    Pritish
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by PritishKamat
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by PritishKamat
    William,
    I dont think that I've made my point clear about "predictions". I meant, that for a theory to be accepted, it must first prove all known facts and it must provide a new tool for physicists to 'predict' the outcomes of future experiments that the former theories fail to explain. That is what I want from tsolkas.

    The former scientific understandings, left only one thing left to explain. And that was why law makers were still breathing American air. And why their polluted footprints had not been filled with their own blood.

    But rather frail, scared scientists, wanted no part in things which might get violent. And certainly agreed to anything, rather then a confrontation with cowards, as desperate and cowardly as themselves.

    A paradox.
    Is this supposed to be a reply?
    Not only a reply but a very, exacting and hard look, at the underlying truths of the time.

    I don't know if any of you watched Star Trek years ago, but there were episodes of civilizations that were at war, and instead of real weapons they fired computer simulated strikes, and then you had to report to disintegration chambers. That is really happening now, but with slightly different weapons and limitations.

    Or did anyone ever see the episode where Dr. Sandervol was infected by plants that made him a sexual fool, and made him forget his scientific mission? Well, that has happened in America.

    Science is not coming from any other country. Let me assure you of this. Before it comes from another country they will first, remind us of our founding fathers words and basis for America. And then if that does not wake us up, they will first strike our capital. That is how evil and screwed up our science is.

    We are the devil of science. We are the givers of ignorance in the name of omniscience.

    We are not progressing but rather heading towards civilizations destruction. I would estimate 45 years at most. Before it is over, and nomadic tribes take over once again.

    I am giving you my word as an amateur scientist, one that loved science more then anything on earth. That we had hard real things, that could be demonstrated. High paid government sanctioned scientists, would look and say "That cannot be, or all the work over the last 40 years was for nothing". And they would quickly run to a black board, and show you with math why reality could not exist.

    I am saying a lethal chamber for them would have been an act of God. They were paranoid individuals displaying about 10 percent of what is required of a scientist.

    They would come and say after watching the most amazing things. That if that was so it would be too dangerous to the existence of earth. And then deny its existence.

    Today, young scientists say "wave particle duality" years ago you would be taken away to a quite place to work that out, safely away from others. With rubber walls. It would be like screaming out "My skin is drying out due to the dry waves of the ocean".

    Science was a joke 40 years ago. Today it is science fiction sitcom. With ever changing characters. Each episode totally alters the basics. And the newest theories.



    You cannot prove anything with math. Math at best is a compass, that may lead you to a place close to where you wish to go. It is like sailing a ship. By the time you calculate wind drift, tide currents, and throttle adjustments in rough seas, you hopefully will end up somewhere close to where you wish to end up.

    However the math is not the proof. The math is just a compass. And I can make a compass change direction anywhere on earth.

    So lets get back to real science. And use math, for uncovering truth, not proving that math is right because of math.
    We can prove that math is right by repairing its basics. And then we can test math as the tool it is. And we can use it, to make predictions, about the size, strength, density, and structure, of equipment needed for experiments. If we understand the entire universe. Short of that, trying to use math to prove things, is just a way, not to do science.

    You guys are saying M^2*11D2=the sum of understanding and excitement in science. And you have not even seen or witnessed science yet. And what it can do.
    You have no idea, what you can do with ordinary things. Yet you are acting like math can predict all the excitement out of them. Math is a cheap compass at best when designing and building. Sometimes we just toss it down and go to work.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23 Re: Tsolkas or Einstein ? 
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    NC USA
    Posts
    488
    *

    Quote Originally Posted by PritishKamat
    By the way, I appreciate your courage to oppose widely, almost universally accepted models of the universe.!
    Proof that one must be careful what one wishes for.

    *
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    203
    William, you are missing the whole point here!
    Beyond Equations,

    Pritish
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    414
    Quote Originally Posted by PritishKamat
    William, you are missing the whole point here!
    He usually does. You'll get use to it.
    "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" - Bertrand Russell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    203
    Actually, I have.
    Beyond Equations,

    Pritish
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by PritishKamat
    William, you are missing the whole point here!

    This guy Tolkis or whatever, is attempting to appease the scientific world, in order to wake them up. And I can understand that. The new scientists are destroying knowledge, and the next generation.

    He got you to attack your own math as a form of proof though. Ha-ha. You just called your own math a joke as a form of proof. Ha-ha.

    At ten thousand cycles a second two planes traveling at 1500 miles an hour respectfully, away from each other, will cause almost six inches of wave length difference, at 10,000 hertz, if one broadcasts to the other.

    Yet both planes are going to receive a perfect broadcast. Set to a certain frequency/wave length.

    It is because the transmission is still the same speed and almost instantaneous. From both planes.

    I am though the first to admit that radios do not even use wavelength but rather frequency. However it is funny to watch you guys beat each others heads in.

    If he states that the new scientists are just science fiction freaks, and that ambient radiation is what I say it is. I would think he is on the level.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    203
    But you are going too much on that subject about how physicists seem to be sleeping nowadays. try to listen to others.
    Beyond Equations,

    Pritish
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Copying this over from the spammish duplication.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by PritishKamat
    Why are you posting this again?
    People love to daydream that they are smarter than the person that most people think was the smartest man of modern times. It is so much easier to do this than make the effort to understand something like the Theory of Relativity.
    Looking through this thread I must conclude that daydreaming is an epidemic on this forum.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    My Computer
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    The proof to us is that Einstein wasted ten minutes building a mass of radioactive substances to create energy. He was a very sick man. A super coward and mental case.

    And the only thing sicker is that today I have to prove a mental retard wrong.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    William McCormick your theoies have wasted much more of peoples time on here, you are a paranoid idiot and it sickens most people on here that they have to see and sometiems read you retarded posts.
    ~Edd
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by PritishKamat
    But you are going too much on that subject about how physicists seem to be sleeping nowadays. try to listen to others.
    That is all I can do, try.
    They get to fifth dimension, or Hobart boson adjustment and I am out of there.
    Not even in the realm of science. With science you have to be able to smash it on the ground. Blow a hole through a building with it. And everyone has to understand it. Not just a few practicing something other then science.

    Your mom should be able to correct your excellent science, when your mind is adrift, on planetary exploration.
    As it is now, your father just shrugs his shoulders at current science, and let me say he probably has little faith in new science and rightly so.

    I am sure the new stuff is just another complication of something that we should know like 2+2=4, and we used to know science here on Long Island like that. It has been almost forty years now since anything exciting was introduced.

    They are having monumental problems going to the moon. Years ago Roy Grumman could have pulled one of his Hobby toys out and had you on the moon in four hours.

    I really try, but I get to those monumental (NOT REAL SCIENCE) signs and I abort, abort, abort.

    Brilliant individuals, that would work 20 hours a day to make your life a better more enjoyable journey, did not make this because all was well.



    This was a very bad sign for me.




    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Instow, Devon, UK
    Posts
    99
    Dear William McCormick,

    I would gladly accept your theories if you could offer me proof toward them. So far all you appear to have done is insult several people and dodge questions. You answer questions with accusations of 'frail' and 'weak' and 'scared' scientist. What do we have to be afraid of? We have nothing to be afraid of. Physics makes the world go round, quite literally, and if I spend most of my life working on physics related subjects I would be more than happy to but what you are doing is obscene. I knew a professor at Oxford university who spent most of his life preaching a particular theory of his. One day another scientist came to lecture at the university and disproved this theory within 20 minutes. The professor went up to the man shook his hand and thanked him.

    That is how scientists act. Not in your manner. You are a disgrace to the scientific community with the manner in which you act. If your theories, wild as they may seem, are correct, then please prove them so that we may be appeased. Until that day shut your damned mouth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    203
    William,
    Well, its not my place to judge, but you look like a practical experimenter, wacky, science kinda guy, who has a hard time accepting new theories if he can't use it in daily life or can't set up an experiment in his backyard.

    I don't know if I am right or wrong, but if it is the former, you've got to change. (By the way, no offense meant)
    Beyond Equations,

    Pritish
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Tenacity
    Dear William McCormick,

    I would gladly accept your theories if you could offer me proof toward them. So far all you appear to have done is insult several people and dodge questions. You answer questions with accusations of 'frail' and 'weak' and 'scared' scientist. What do we have to be afraid of? We have nothing to be afraid of. Physics makes the world go round, quite literally, and if I spend most of my life working on physics related subjects I would be more than happy to but what you are doing is obscene. I knew a professor at Oxford university who spent most of his life preaching a particular theory of his. One day another scientist came to lecture at the university and disproved this theory within 20 minutes. The professor went up to the man shook his hand and thanked him.

    That is how scientists act. Not in your manner. You are a disgrace to the scientific community with the manner in which you act. If your theories, wild as they may seem, are correct, then please prove them so that we may be appeased. Until that day shut your damned mouth.
    I have done the very friendly giving of proof, that all multi particle science is standing on nothing scientific. I was told that science no longer was based on hard facts. And that now science was based on theory. If you are in with those individuals, I mean every bit of what I said to you and them.

    The understanding I received in school, was used to do the really good stuff. The government came out and said basically, No more good stuff for violent minority types. Or other countries like Russia. Who had their own evil leaders, that blocked their own real science that was as good as ours.
    This was on national TV in the late sixties early seventies. My mother and I watched it together. My mother was very confused by what was said. And kept asking did he just say, that they would use counterintelligence on school kids?

    The pastor of our church stated that we might have a duty to go down to Washington DC and hurt the law makers physically. So this is pretty real to me. I was not yet confirmed, but I was in the church rounding up people to go downtown with me.
    And some of the members, said "Bill, look we are going to do something, but just not violent". And they fired the best Pastor we ever had. Wasted the best sermon I ever heard.

    If you read what I wrote and ever did any hands on, you would be in agreement with me. Because what I say is taking place in reality. And does in fact correspond to reality.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Instow, Devon, UK
    Posts
    99
    Again you have simply palmed me off.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    My Computer
    Posts
    52
    Science cannot be based on fact, as we do not have enough understand of things around us to be sure.

    Also please provide evidence of the government saying all this, you seem to make a lot of crap up.
    ~Edd
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Tenacity
    Again you have simply palmed me off.
    I don't know what that means. And if anyone else is confused, I never touched him. And we have no intimate relation, I have never met him to my knoledge.

    I was saying that your team, said, now we must work with theory alone.
    After my team said, lets go! We can do anything within and up to a thin boundary between man and God.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmund
    Science cannot be based on fact, as we do not have enough understand of things around us to be sure.

    Also please provide evidence of the government saying all this, you seem to make a lot of crap up.
    They say they have counterintelligence operations ongoing here and abroad. They say it, you just do not want to know what the definition of counterintelligence means. It means making everyone stupid enough not to question someone like George Bush, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld.

    Proof?



    Lets say that the government was not lead by anal people, but rather individuals.
    And these misguided government workers wanted to tax a rather poor still operator, on a Federal level. Which was at that time actually and totally un-American. How would you tax alcohol?

    You would tax it at pure alcohol, and rate it on down. If you were sick and evil enough to tax an American citizen for making it in the first place.

    Look at the wording those sick bums used. That lead to all kinds of misunderstandings embarrassment and even death.

    Wake up and face that we just need to shut down big Mary.

    Some will say that it was for the good of mankind that they stopped the alcohol, Yea right. And they happily accept a structured settlement from Budwieser.

    There was a reason why men were drinking, and it was because Washington DC had gotten out of hand. In their beautiful George Washington country. And they were sick over it. They were sick over things like ordinary chemicals being mislabeled.

    If a town is infested with Mosquitoes, and people are actually getting quinine poisoning, fighting it, do you tax the quinine, or do you kill the Mosquito larva?

    If all electron universe science is halted by a government, do you switch to confusing 70 plus particle science and dream about science rather then to achieve it? Or do you uphold electron science and get rid of law makers?


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmund
    Science cannot be based on fact, as we do not have enough understand of things around us to be sure.

    Also please provide evidence of the government saying all this, you seem to make a lot of crap up.

    Here is one more point of view. Do you need George Bushes diplomatic skills to happily and rather joyfully, stay out of a war with goat herders?
    To achieve a mutually profitable, and happy ending for all?

    If you do, maybe we should stop the vote before it is too late.

    I have a point. If he is not your choice. Maybe you have lost control of your country. And if you have, they are in charge of your science. They can buy and sell anyone in science. And have dirt on all of them.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    203
    William,

    Please leave politics out of the science forum. We are here to discuss about the many theories that make up the great subject that is physics. we don't care much about the US policies on oil and stuff. :x
    Beyond Equations,

    Pritish
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41 Tsolkas or Einstein ? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    31
    To: Clifford M. Will
    Professor of Physics
    WUSTL
    USA



    Dear professor,

    On may experiments-12 and experiment -13 , at www.tsolkas.gr I am right or wrong?

    I would like your answer.......

    Regards,

    Christos A. Tsolkas
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    203
    William,

    Please leave politics out of the science forum. We are here to discuss about the many theories that make up the great subject that is physics. we don't care much about the US policies on oil and stuff. :x
    Beyond Equations,

    Pritish
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    The reason it's stupid to say Einstein was "wrong" is because that's like saying Newton was "wrong", when in fact Newton's formulas for gravity were approximately correct. Einstein's space time curvature was slightly more precise than Newtons version, but we still use Newton for most practical matters because Relativity equations are incredibly hard to calculate, and being a few micro-meters off is usually acceptable.

    That said, relativity never managed to unite all the fields and forces, and especially never managed to reconcile macro-scale physics to quantum physics.

    So, physics has expected all along that we'd find some flaw in it somewhere, or at least a way to improve it. It's no surprise. What would really be more a surprise would be if relativity were never surpassed.



    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by PritishKamat
    William, you are missing the whole point here!

    This guy Tolkis or whatever, is attempting to appease the scientific world, in order to wake them up. And I can understand that. The new scientists are destroying knowledge, and the next generation.

    He got you to attack your own math as a form of proof though. Ha-ha. You just called your own math a joke as a form of proof. Ha-ha.

    At ten thousand cycles a second two planes traveling at 1500 miles an hour respectfully, away from each other, will cause almost six inches of wave length difference, at 10,000 hertz, if one broadcasts to the other.

    Yet both planes are going to receive a perfect broadcast. Set to a certain frequency/wave length.

    It is because the transmission is still the same speed and almost instantaneous. From both planes.

    I am though the first to admit that radios do not even use wavelength but rather frequency. However it is funny to watch you guys beat each others heads in.

    If he states that the new scientists are just science fiction freaks, and that ambient radiation is what I say it is. I would think he is on the level.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick

    Alright. I do have to comment on this. Airplane analog radios are not affected enough by the motion for it to matter. Digital radios probably do have to adjust, but it's not all that difficult.

    Of course there's a slight redshift effect, but most radios are robust enough in their operation that they don't need an absolutely, perfectly, exact signal. In fact, very few radio transmitters can even consistently emit a signal at the exact right frequency to begin with.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    My Computer
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by Tenacity
    Again you have simply palmed me off.
    I don't know what that means. And if anyone else is confused, I never touched him. And we have no intimate relation, I have never met him to my knoledge.

    I was saying that your team, said, now we must work with theory alone.
    After my team said, lets go! We can do anything within and up to a thin boundary between man and God.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    But God does not exist, so we can do anything.
    ~Edd
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax


    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by PritishKamat
    William, you are missing the whole point here!

    This guy Tolkis or whatever, is attempting to appease the scientific world, in order to wake them up. And I can understand that. The new scientists are destroying knowledge, and the next generation.

    He got you to attack your own math as a form of proof though. Ha-ha. You just called your own math a joke as a form of proof. Ha-ha.

    At ten thousand cycles a second two planes traveling at 1500 miles an hour respectfully, away from each other, will cause almost six inches of wave length difference, at 10,000 hertz, if one broadcasts to the other.

    Yet both planes are going to receive a perfect broadcast. Set to a certain frequency/wave length.

    It is because the transmission is still the same speed and almost instantaneous. From both planes.

    I am though the first to admit that radios do not even use wavelength but rather frequency. However it is funny to watch you guys beat each others heads in.

    If he states that the new scientists are just science fiction freaks, and that ambient radiation is what I say it is. I would think he is on the level.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick

    Alright. I do have to comment on this. Airplane analog radios are not affected enough by the motion for it to matter. Digital radios probably do have to adjust, but it's not all that difficult.

    Of course there's a slight redshift effect, but most radios are robust enough in their operation that they don't need an absolutely, perfectly, exact signal. In fact, very few radio transmitters can even consistently emit a signal at the exact right frequency to begin with.
    Well, first off, WM's transmission frequency is off by a factor of ten for the wavelength difference he gives. It takes a frequency of 100,000 hz to produce that diffeence at the given relative speeds.

    Secondly, when compared to the entire wavelengh(3 km), the change is very small. The equivalent frequency difference is only about 4.75 hz.

    Thirdly, radio receivers are not designed to just receive at the single frequency it is tuned to, but to a range of frequencies on either side of the carrier frequency. This is because when you modulate the carrier so that it carries information, you create sum and difference frequencies called sidebands. Your receiver has to be able to receive these side bands as well, so it is designed to recieve signals across a given bandwidth. For instance, if the signal is carrying audio, the bandwith must extend to about 20,000 hz above and below the base carrier frequency.

    A 4.75 hz difference in a 100,000 hz carrier wave is just not going to cause any noticeable difference in reception.

    Once again, WM speaks of which he knows not.


    As a side note, there is a way that radio receivers can take advantage of the creation of sidebands. One of weaknesses of early radio designs was
    due to the fact that the radio signal received had to be graetly amplified before it could be demodulated and the audio signal extracted. This required passing it through a series of RF amplifiers.

    The problem was that you couldn't make RF amplifying circuits that had a flat frequency response over the whole tunable range of the radio. Thus you designed the amplifiers for the best response at the miidle of the dial and accepted fall off at the ends of the dial.

    To get around this, they changed the way you tuned the radio to select a given frequency. The old way was to use a tunable band-pass filter. Only the radio frequency band tuned for was allowed to pass though to the RF amps.

    The new way used a local oscillator and a "mixer". What happened was that you tuned the oscillator to a frequency a given number of hz above the desired station. (For AM radios this was about 450Khz.)

    The oscillator signal and the radio signal were both fed to a mixer, which produced upper and lower sidebands. The lower sideband would be the difference between the radio signal and the local oscillator. This means the sideband for the desired signal would be always be at a fixed intermediate frequency (again for AM, 450 Khz). The mixed signal was fed through as fixed band pass filter which centered around this intermediate frequency and thus selected only the frequency of the lower sideband for the desired station. All the rest of the amplifiers were designed to have the best frequency response at this intermediate frequency. (And thus were called IF amplifiers. )

    For example, if you wanted to receive a station at 620 khz, the oscillator would be tuned to 1.07 Mhz which created a sideband for the signal at 620 Khz at 450 Khz.


    This tuning process is called Superheterodyning. Those of you old enough, might remember when the word "Superheterodyne" was printed on radios as a selling point. (Not that most consumers new what it meant, only that it implied that the radio was better in some way.)
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax


    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by PritishKamat
    William, you are missing the whole point here!

    This guy Tolkis or whatever, is attempting to appease the scientific world, in order to wake them up. And I can understand that. The new scientists are destroying knowledge, and the next generation.

    He got you to attack your own math as a form of proof though. Ha-ha. You just called your own math a joke as a form of proof. Ha-ha.

    At ten thousand cycles a second two planes traveling at 1500 miles an hour respectfully, away from each other, will cause almost six inches of wave length difference, at 10,000 hertz, if one broadcasts to the other.

    Yet both planes are going to receive a perfect broadcast. Set to a certain frequency/wave length.

    It is because the transmission is still the same speed and almost instantaneous. From both planes.

    I am though the first to admit that radios do not even use wavelength but rather frequency. However it is funny to watch you guys beat each others heads in.

    If he states that the new scientists are just science fiction freaks, and that ambient radiation is what I say it is. I would think he is on the level.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick

    Alright. I do have to comment on this. Airplane analog radios are not affected enough by the motion for it to matter. Digital radios probably do have to adjust, but it's not all that difficult.

    Of course there's a slight redshift effect, but most radios are robust enough in their operation that they don't need an absolutely, perfectly, exact signal. In fact, very few radio transmitters can even consistently emit a signal at the exact right frequency to begin with.
    Well, first off, WM's transmission frequency is off by a factor of ten for the wavelength difference he gives. It takes a frequency of 100,000 hz to produce that diffeence at the given relative speeds.

    Secondly, when compared to the entire wavelengh(3 km), the change is very small. The equivalent frequency difference is only about 4.75 hz.

    Thirdly, radio receivers are not designed to just receive at the single frequency it is tuned to, but to a range of frequencies on either side of the carrier frequency. This is because when you modulate the carrier so that it carries information, you create sum and difference frequencies called sidebands. Your receiver has to be able to receive these side bands as well, so it is designed to recieve signals across a given bandwidth. For instance, if the signal is carrying audio, the bandwith must extend to about 20,000 hz above and below the base carrier frequency.

    A 4.75 hz difference in a 100,000 hz carrier wave is just not going to cause any noticeable difference in reception.

    Once again, WM speaks of which he knows not.


    As a side note, there is a way that radio receivers can take advantage of the creation of sidebands. One of weaknesses of early radio designs was
    due to the fact that the radio signal received had to be graetly amplified before it could be demodulated and the audio signal extracted. This required passing it through a series of RF amplifiers.

    The problem was that you couldn't make RF amplifying circuits that had a flat frequency response over the whole tunable range of the radio. Thus you designed the amplifiers for the best response at the miidle of the dial and accepted fall off at the ends of the dial.

    To get around this, they changed the way you tuned the radio to select a given frequency. The old way was to use a tunable band-pass filter. Only the radio frequency band tuned for was allowed to pass though to the RF amps.

    The new way used a local oscillator and a "mixer". What happened was that you tuned the oscillator to a frequency a given number of hz above the desired station. (For AM radios this was about 450Khz.)

    The oscillator signal and the radio signal were both fed to a mixer, which produced upper and lower sidebands. The lower sideband would be the difference between the radio signal and the local oscillator. This means the sideband for the desired signal would be always be at a fixed intermediate frequency (again for AM, 450 Khz). The mixed signal was fed through as fixed band pass filter which centered around this intermediate frequency and thus selected only the frequency of the lower sideband for the desired station. All the rest of the amplifiers were designed to have the best frequency response at this intermediate frequency. (And thus were called IF amplifiers. )

    For example, if you wanted to receive a station at 620 khz, the oscillator would be tuned to 1.07 Mhz which created a sideband for the signal at 620 Khz at 450 Khz.


    This tuning process is called Superheterodyning. Those of you old enough, might remember when the word "Superheterodyne" was printed on radios as a selling point. (Not that most consumers new what it meant, only that it implied that the radio was better in some way.)
    The higher the hertz the smaller the difference in theoretical wave length per cycle. I say theoretical because it is actually the frequency that is picked up by a radio. Not the wave length.

    In other words lets just assume I was correct. And it is almost six inches at 10,000 hertz. You would cut that distance or divide that distance by ten, if you upped the frequency to 100,000 hertz. So six inches would be (edited) 0.6 inch per cycle, at 100,000 hertz.

    Because the lower the frequency the longer the distance between each cycle. At what ever speed radio is moving.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by PritishKamat
    William,

    Please leave politics out of the science forum. We are here to discuss about the many theories that make up the great subject that is physics. we don't care much about the US policies on oil and stuff. :x
    I am sorry, you appointed the politicians, as commanders and chiefs of science. By first accepting their money for phony science. And then needing their money to keep phony scientists employed.

    I am an amateur scientist. And require no government funding. I rely on friends to acquire equipment. I will trade some of my time to get equipment. I will do things sometimes, that are a little risky for me. However to me it is worth it. It is what I believe George Washington would demand of me.

    I like George Washington, have had enough of the politics. You perhaps unknowingly are bolstering them.

    Bolster, To buoy up: Visitors bolstered the patient's morale.

    Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V., further reproduction and distribution restricted in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.




    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick

    The higher the hertz the smaller the difference in theoretical wave length per cycle. I say theoretical because it is actually the frequency that is picked up by a radio. Not the wave length.

    In other words lets just assume I was correct. And it is almost six inches at 10,000 hertz. You would cut that distance or divide that distance by ten, if you upped the frequency to 100,000 hertz. So six inches would be one six of an inch per cycle, at 100,000 hertz.

    Because the lower the frequency the longer the distance between each cycle. At what ever speed radio is moving.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Well, light moves at about 300,000,000 meters per second. So at 100 mhz, a wavelength is 3 meters. At 100,000 hertz, a wavelength is 3000 meters, or almost 2 miles.

    The thing with radios is that the oscillators that power them are usually not exact enough to be capable of maintaining a perfect frequency over a very long time. They drift a little bit, and the receiver just has to be able to accomodate that drift within a certain range.

    What I mean is, when you tune your radio to a certain band, it listens to that frequency + or - a little bit. The same goes for when you transmit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick

    The higher the hertz the smaller the difference in theoretical wave length per cycle. I say theoretical because it is actually the frequency that is picked up by a radio. Not the wave length.

    In other words lets just assume I was correct. And it is almost six inches at 10,000 hertz. You would cut that distance or divide that distance by ten, if you upped the frequency to 100,000 hertz. So six inches would be one six of an inch per cycle, at 100,000 hertz.

    Because the lower the frequency the longer the distance between each cycle. At what ever speed radio is moving.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Well, light moves at about 300,000,000 meters per second. So at 100 mhz, a wavelength is 3 meters. At 100,000 hertz, a wavelength is 3000 meters, or almost 2 miles.

    The thing with radios is that the oscillators that power them are usually not exact enough to be capable of maintaining a perfect frequency over a very long time. They drift a little bit, and the receiver just has to be able to accomodate that drift within a certain range.

    What I mean is, when you tune your radio to a certain band, it listens to that frequency + or - a little bit. The same goes for when you transmit.
    The radio actually just rides the wave, however the frequency will be lost, if it drifts or changes. The reason is that, a transistor drains the antenna and tuner, once it is closed (turned on), or the gate is activated, and allowed to conduct against the normally open, condition, of the natural diode.

    The capacitor cannot refill out of sync to the frequency it is sized to be filled, within a certain time limit. It is actually very accurate. It is based on frequency alone though.
    And most, even cheap radios are highly accurate. They have to be, or they miss the broadcast, or pick up another.

    The transistor opens up just for a split second, to drain the tuner, precisely when it reaches the preset voltage, and intensity. To open the gate on the transistor that feeds the speaker or audio circuits.
    However the next cycle will open, a path, nearly exactly the same time between the last opening. Because it is based on the tuner/capacitor not the wave transmission feeding it.

    Even if there is no transmission at that frequency. You will see that there is a draining of the antenna and the tuner, in a receiver. Because there is still a carrier wave of higher voltage present from other broadcasts.

    The fact that a receiver works like I said, makes it possible to locate a receiver. As it drains its antenna on a set frequency.

    I believe that is what the fellow tsolkas-1, was saying, I believe.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick



    The capacitor cannot refill out of sync to the frequency it is sized to be filled, within a certain time limit. It is actually very accurate. It is based on frequency alone though.
    And most, even cheap radios are highly accurate. They have to be, or they miss the broadcast, or pick up another.


    What happens is if you're slightly off, you just get a slightly weaker signal. They are very sensitive, however, so if you're off by very much you won't get any signal at all, or it will be way too small to detect.

    It's not like running into a wall. It's like trying to climb a steeper and steeper hill.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51 Tsolkas or Einstein ? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    31
    Equivalence Principle is absolutely wrong!!!!

    The "gyroscope experiment".
    (experiment 14, at www.tsolkas.gr)


    This experiment is the end of Relativity Theory...!!!!



    tsolkas
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52 Tsolkas or Einstein ? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    31
    Equivalence principle is 100% wrong!!!!!!!!!!

    http://www.tsolkas.gr/html/equivalence-principle.html



    tsolkas
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53 Re: Tsolkas or Einstein ? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by tsolkas-1
    Equivalence principle is 100% wrong!!!!!!!!!!

    http://www.tsolkas.gr/html/equivalence-principle.html



    tsolkas
    My area was done with science in the sixties. It was just time to use it. So I do not even know what most of the collegiate terms mean. I have on idea what the equivalence principle is.

    It usually only takes me a second or two to dispel them as reality though, once I know what they are trying to put across.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    31
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •