Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
This presentation video went viral you will understand why when you watch :-)

http://www.quantumlevitation.com/levitation/See_it_in_Action.html


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
.
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
I would say, "The technology is 'great', but the theory (explanation) is not up to the mark".

In my opinion (based on my theory), it is the balance of forces that causes the phenomenon. In the three dimensional space, a minimum of three independent forces are required for the distance to remain static. Here, the gravity, the electromagnetic repulsion and the kinetic energy of the electrons (a repulsive pseudo force) remain balanced at that given distance. Because of the superconductivity, the electrons could acquire the required speed. The shape of the wafer-thin object helps to create the required motion of the electrons, while keeping its mass the minimum. Hence it is technologically great.

A technological development is possible even without fully knowing the the theory behind it. This has happened many times in the past, and this is one such case.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
QM still wrong hey finiter.

So we just throw out the thousand upon thousand of observations and even the weird ones the theory predicts and where subsequently confirmed because you say it can't be right.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
No, none of the observations has to be thrown out. I say QM is fundamentally wrong because it proposes instant-duality, and because all these observations - it appears - can be explained in an alternate way based on my theory. There can also be other explanations, which may come up in future. In fact, many of these observations are not direct 'predictions' of QM, but just 'accidental' observations, which were later found to be in conformity with the QM.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
How does your theory explain

superposition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition) => The ability for matter to be oscilating between two places at one time

Delay choice erasure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed_choice_experiment) => How am I able to change light a billion years old

The list goes on and on ... your finite world doesn't allow such things.

Quote:

In fact, many of these observations are not direct 'predictions' of QM


Absolute rubbish they were a thought experiment, read the reference, which only later became testable.

That alone shows your understanding of the current state of QM the only accidental observations where duality etc around the 19th century almost all new discoveries come from prediction.

BEC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose-Einstein_condensate)
=> This state of matter was first predicted by Satyendra Nath Bose and Albert Einstein in 1924–25.
=>Seventy years later, the first gaseous condensate was produced by Eric Cornell and Carl Wieman in 1995

Only took 70 years to be able to test it but it was accidental was it, or do you deny the observation?

At the end of the day you hang your hat on

Originally Posted By: finiter

There can also be other explanations, which may come up in future


You know the religious groups do the same thing

Originally Posted By: religious fruitcakes

The dinosaur fossils can't be real the bible says so, there can also be other explanations, which may come up in future



We have a name for that it's called denialist ... I am sorry I rate the denial of QM alongside denial of fossils.


Perhaps you would care to look at the history of QM observations you are up against (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_quantum_mechanics)

Last edited by Orac; 10/25/11 06:19 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5