A proposed Gravity-Propelled Swing Experiment.
NoEinstein
which was described the Nichols Radiometer, I was taken by the fact
that those guys embraced the technical complexity of their device to
the detriment of there being any really useful data obtained. That
can be attributed, in part, to the… “form is more important than
SCIENCE” mantra of that journal, which, unfortunately, is typical for
other “technical” journals, as well. To wit: Every statement
describing “science” must have footnotes stating the source. And
there must be a bibliography at the end. There are elaborate
descriptions of the ‘form’ to be used for all equations. And there
are pages describing how drawings must be labeled and referenced in
the text. I know these things, because I contacted that… “learned”
journal 11 years ago about publishing my disproofs of Einstein’s SR.
I was mailed a 20 page document describing the process for seeking
publication. The most DAMNING thing for science is that their
‘process’ effectively locks-in the status quo as though anything ever
published is true. I had had the objective of disproving Einstein
without being corrupted by anyone else’s explanations for anything. I
consider mandatory footnotes and bibliographies to be an affront to
True Science that’s based on reason and fresh ideas.
After seeing the drawings of that laughable Nichols contraption which
were shown in the above article, I thought for a while about what type
of more straight-forward experiment I would have used to learn about:
The ‘thrust’ of light beams (sic); and the effect vacuum efficiency
has in allowing that ’thrust’ (sic) to be made manifest. The
following is a verbal description of the Armistead Gravity-Propelled
Swing Experiment which I invite others, who may have the time and the
resources, to run:
Needed materials:
1. A 6” I. D. x 8” O. D. x 18” long clear Plexiglas tube, cut square
and ground smooth on the ends.
2. A 12” diameter x 1” thick ground Plexiglas plate base.
3. An 8” diameter, milled and polished steel plate 2” thick and with
a 1 1/8” wide x ¼” deep perimeter recess for mating with the tube, 1.;
and having an aptly threaded center hole, that’s at least 2” in
diameter, for receiving a brass elbow pipe that attaches to…
4. An efficient vacuum pump with a large diameter air inlet, and
having a quality pressure gage.
5. An 8” O. D. x 6” I. D. x 1/8” thick, die cut silicone rubber
gasket.
6. A “swing” consisting of a 1.5” square x 1/8” thick, Type 304
stainless steel plate with two 1/16” diameter, drilled holes, located
1/8” from adjacent corners to serve as attachment points.
7. Two nominal 3/8” diameter, split ring, wire couplings, to fit into
the holes in 6.
8. Two 18” long glass fibers for suspending the swing, 6. Note: The
fibers will knotted to the couplings, 7, and bonded to the gasket, 5.
using…
9. Loctite, Gel Instant glue. Such will also be used to bond the
glass tube to the glass base.
10. Two, 100 watt, 110 volt A/C self-reflector lamps, screwed into
ball-mounted, adjustable fixtures that can be mounted to a table or
plywood base. The two lamps face each other about 10” apart, and aim
at opposite sides of the SS swing. The latter should be about 2” off
of the floor of the glass container to allow free air motion.
11. A standard toggle switch that will alternately turn on one lamp
while turning off the other. The switch should be of a type that it
can be held in the hands of the operator without requiring that he or
she touch the table on which the experiment rests.
The experiment is conducted twice with different vacuum levels: 1.
about 1/10 atmosphere, and 2. to the maximum ‘efficiency’ of the
vacuum pump. The table on which the experiment is conducted should be
mounted on rubber, vibration-isolation feet, and the plywood base
should be resting on a 1” thick foam rubber pad.
The principle which makes the swing very efficient at detecting minute
‘thrusts’ of the light is based on harmonics. The light intervals can
be timed to allow a thrust, (or more likely, a gravity “pull”) to
occur, then, reversing the light for the identical time. By
experimenting with the lengths of the time intervals, an observable
harmonic swing should be noticeable. From that point on the
experiment operator reverses the switch to coincide with the swing
having reached its apex. Before long, the swing of the SS plate
should be noticeable enough to show in a video.
There are two “possible” things causing the plate to swing at 1/10th
atmosphere: The Plexiglas near the lamps will heat up, and
subsequently heat up the air inside the container. Some of those air
atoms will strike and push the plate. Since the air pressure is equal
within the container, there will be assurance that the motion is due
to atom impacts, and not due to ‘just’ the thrust of the photons. The
confirmation of the latter “cause of motion” will be made with the max
vacuum inside the container. I predict that there will be zero plate
motion induced in the direction that the lights shine; and readily
observable plate motion in the opposite direction that the lights
shine. The latter, once observed, will be a confirmation that
Newton’s supposed Law of Universal Gravitation needs a temperature
correction to conform with my New Science!
— NoEinstein —
spudnik
that you think would show a proof of your New Kind-of Science?
it's not as if one has to publish in any particular format,
iff one is concise & clear enough. (anyway,
all of those "requirements" are mostly in the public domain,
LaTex e.g. ... and, by the way,
Coriolis did not discover *vis viva*,
Liebniz' s formula for kinetic energy ... although
Coriolis effect/force is supremely important.)
> I predict that there will be zero plate
> motion induced in the direction that the lights shine; and readily
> observable plate motion in the opposite direction that the lights
> shine. The latter, once observed, will be a confirmation that
> Newton’s supposed Law of Universal Gravitation needs a temperature
> correction to conform with my New Kind-of Science!
thusNso:
I'd like to hear more about Halliburton's engineering;
is this really a Dark Art?... following, about a popular and
superefficient use of oil.
Dear Editor;
The staff report on plastic bags, given when SM considered a ban,
before, refused to list the actual fraction of a penny, paid for them
by bulk users like grocers & farmers at markets. Any rational EIR
would show that, at a fraction of a gram of "fossilized fuel (TM)"
per bag, a)
they require far less energy & materiel than a paper bag, and b)
that recycling them is impractical & unsanitary, beyond reusing the
clean
ones for carrying & garbage. (Alas, the fundy Greenies say that
the bags are not biodegradeable, but everyday observation shows,
they certainly don't last very long.)
As I stated at that meeting, perhaps coastal communities *should* ban
them -- except at farmers' markets -- because they are such efficient
examples of "tensional integrity," that they can clog stormdrains by
catching all sorts of leaves, twigs & paper. But, a statewide ban is
just too much of an environmental & economic burden.
--Stop British Petroleum's capNtrade rip-off;
tell your legislators, a tiny tax on carbon could achieve the result,
instead of "let the arbitrageurs/hedgies/daytrippers make
as much money as they can on CO2 credits!"
http://wlym.com
spudnik
it is merely a matter of odd interpretations (viz, *photon*
means "particle" ipso facto "herr Albert thought, So" .-)
thusNso:
always the "doubling" of CO2 is used as an outcome in the GCMs,
when it is clear that there would be change of the whole phase
of the weather, before that was reached (if you are familiar
with studies of the Quaternary Period,
Shackleton et al e.g.).
Dear Editor;
The staff report on plastic bags, given when SM considered a ban,
before, refused to list the actual fraction of a penny, paid for them
by bulk users like grocers & farmers at markets. A rational EIR'd
show that, at a fraction of a gram of "fossilized fuel (TM)" per bag,
a)
they require far less energy & materiel than a paper bag, and b)
that recycling them is impractical & unsanitary,
beyond reusing the clean ones for carrying & garbage. (Alas,
the fundy Greenies say that the bags are not biodegradeable,
but everyday observation shows, they just don't last so long.)
As I stated at that meeting, perhaps coastal communities *should* ban
them -- except at farmers' markets -- because they are such efficient
examples of "tensional integrity," that they can clog stormdrains by
catching all sorts of leaves, twigs & paper. But, a statewide ban is
just too much of an environmental & economic burden.
--Stop BP's and Waxman's capNtrade arbitrageur rip-off!
http://wlym.com
NoEinstein
>
Dear Spudnik: My New Science encompasses all of the observations in
the Universe. I don't have 1% of the amount of time (nor the money)
to perform experiments of interest. The reason I described my "swing"
experiment is because I candidly criticize the work of others. That
wouldn’t be fair unless I can do better at designing similar
experiments, myself. My swing experiment answers "yes or no" rather
than "how much?" The Nichols Radiometer had complex arc lamps, and
interferometers, plus magnetic devices to cause the mirrors to swing.
The Bell jar was probably custom made. And their whole process likely
took two people over a year, and a lot of money to complete. My
experiment uses a stock glass tube. The machined parts can be made in
any machine shop in one week. The experiment itself could probably be
done in a single day. The total cost would be less than $5,000.00
including a new vacuum pump. If the "yes or no" says, conclusively,
that photons cause a gravity "pull", rather than a photon push, the
experiment would be one of the most profound ever performed. At least
that experiment, when done, will have MY name on it! — NoEinstein —