[guest39538]

You have failed to demonstrate any of this. You are a fantasist.

Does or does not the image vanish ? 

What works , works .

It vanishes but that hardly backs up any of your ridiculous ideas. What about all the other stuff you claimed? Or are you just lying again?

It vanished because if I do something it generally works was my point .  Did you see the magnet experiment I did ?

I predict my experiments are going to work before I do them so I know they will  work is my point . In the modulation one I wanted to reproduce the light that propagates through space , a mixture of frequencies propagating so fast they turn invisible . White light is a poor description , it's invisible light .

[guest39538]

Let me add some thought about a cone shaped Tesla coil to see if my thinking is insane or good thinking .

When each circle of the coil decreases in circumference the current will have less distance to travel around the circumference,  will be > in a cone shaped version ,  a cone will also use less material than a cylinder improving the cost . 

I predict  because  the > of the total cone will produce a greater magnitude of output .

Additionally there is several other experiments created from this such as the Faraday experiment ,  electromotive force , but in a predicted outcome a vortex manner using a cone.


dt.jpg (18.01 kB . 594x378 - viewed 2966 times)

I'm good at physics , good at thinking and my internet is going off again soon , can't even afford my bills and CERN, a piece of crap fantasy bs experiment gets billions .  I could cry honestly ....

[The Spoon]

You have failed to demonstrate any of this. You are a fantasist.

Does or does not the image vanish ? 

What works , works .

It vanishes but that hardly backs up any of your ridiculous ideas. What about all the other stuff you claimed? Or are you just lying again?

It vanished because if I do something it generally works was my point .  Did you see the magnet experiment I did ?

I predict my experiments are going to work before I do them so I know they will  work is my point . In the modulation one I wanted to reproduce the light that propagates through space , a mixture of frequencies propagating so fast they turn invisible . White light is a poor description , it's invisible light .

So in both cases how were they experiments? What do they specifically predict? How did they show this?

Specifically with your TV picture thing, please give a detailed description of the experimental method i.e. what you did, how you did it.

If these details are missing, we cannot assess the validity of the experiment or the results. In fact if these are missing, it is not an experiment, but some random on the internet pissing about.

[The Spoon]

When each circle of the coil decreases in circumference the current will have less distance to travel around the circumference,   will be > in a cone shaped version ,  a cone will also use less material than a cylinder improving the cost

How slowly do you think electrical current travels?

[guest39538]

So in both cases how were they experiments?

Ok , let us start with the magnet experiment .

I observed when pushing two likewise polarity magnetic fields together they opposed each other and the space between the two poles seemed to become dense like a conventional solid .  I then considered the space to be isolated from the outer space and more dense than the outer space .  I then considered this denser space to be liking to a force field of density and considered how this field may interact with external energy such as fire .  I then emitted fire at the field to observe the field was kinda of deflecting the flame around the field . So then to confirm this I placed some fine paper within the magnetic field and again emitted fire at the field .  The paper did not catch fire demonstrating the force field density that surrounded the paper was opposing the fire . 


Any questions ?

[guest39538]

When each circle of the coil decreases in circumference the current will have less distance to travel around the circumference,   will be > in a cone shaped version ,  a cone will also use less material than a cylinder improving the cost

How slowly do you think electrical current travels?

It travels at c if there is no permeability   

→
ρ(hv) = F<U = c 

[guest39538]

In the spectral modulation , I considered white light is mixture of frequencies but considered that when you spin a coloured disk etc , you can't remove the matter material so you'll always observe something which happens to be white .

But by doing it on visual display I was only using light , no matter as such so the result was transparency , invisible light , which I was hoping for .  The light propagating through space is invisible light , which is a mixture of frequencies propagating randomly at high speed . 

Spectral content are constants , not random as such . When light interacts with a substance density , it brings temporal order to chaos .

[guest39538]

How about making an atomizer? 

This experiment gave me the physics to create an atomizer .

[The Spoon]

So in both cases how were they experiments?

Ok , let us start with the magnet experiment .

I observed when pushing two likewise polarity magnetic fields together they opposed each other and the space between the two poles seemed to become dense like a conventional solid .  I then considered the space to be isolated from the outer space and more dense than the outer space .  I then considered this denser space to be liking to a force field of density and considered how this field may interact with external energy such as fire .  I then emitted fire at the field to observe the field was kinda of deflecting the flame around the field . So then to confirm this I placed some fine paper within the magnetic field and again emitted fire at the field .  The paper did not catch fire demonstrating the force field density that surrounded the paper was opposing the fire . 


Any questions ?

Yes.
What instrumentation was used to measure density.? What are the results?
What confounding variables did you expect? How did you control for them? How did you isolate 'space' as you call it?
What alternative explanations did you consider? How did you show that these could not have been what was actually causing the phenomena you claim as opposed to your 'exotic' explanation?

Finally, why do revert to sciencey sounding phrases such as 'emitted fire' instead of plain language? Do you think it will impress us?

[The Spoon]

In the spectral modulation , I considered white light is mixture of frequencies but considered that when you spin a coloured disk etc , you can't remove the matter material so you'll always observe something which happens to be white .

But by doing it on visual display I was only using light , no matter as such so the result was transparency , invisible light , which I was hoping for .  The light propagating through space is invisible light , which is a mixture of frequencies propagating randomly at high speed . 

Spectral content are constants , not random as such . When light interacts with a substance density , it brings temporal order to chaos .

Again, unless we have a detailed description of your method how can we judge whether the 'experiment' shows the above.
Also we need to know what measurement techniques were used, how you took into account confounding variables, alternative hypotheses etc as previously.

[guest39538]

In the spectral modulation , I considered white light is mixture of frequencies but considered that when you spin a coloured disk etc , you can't remove the matter material so you'll always observe something which happens to be white .

But by doing it on visual display I was only using light , no matter as such so the result was transparency , invisible light , which I was hoping for .  The light propagating through space is invisible light , which is a mixture of frequencies propagating randomly at high speed . 

Spectral content are constants , not random as such . When light interacts with a substance density , it brings temporal order to chaos .

Again, unless we have a detailed description of your method how can we judge whether the 'experiment' shows the above.
Also we need to know what measurement techniques were used, how you took into account confounding variables, alternative hypotheses etc as previously.

I created several colour layouts then placed them in a movie maker to create an animation of colours changing position , I then rendered this video . I then placed the rendered video in movie maker twice , speeding up the playback of the second placed video . 
I then rinsed and repeated this process to the eventuality of the colours swapped places that fast , no colour was observed at all and the animation turned transparent .
There was no variables to consider , it did what I suspected it would do . 

From this I did gain a great idea , adaptive camouflage , although it would have a limited us . I could make something vanish at a distance , you wouldn't see it conventionally .

[guest39538]

If I show you how to make something disappear at a distance , will you believe me I know physics ?

[guest39538]

Self explanatory illusion ….
view.jpg (15.71 kB . 538x215 - viewed 2914 times)  P.s You can't see the camera if you was wondering what disappears and the screen is camouflaged the same as what you'd see behind the screen so you wouldn't know it was there .

Added- In simple terms if you project what is behind you to the front of you , people in front of you see what's behind you , you've just created an illusion of transparent .

[The Spoon]

In the spectral modulation , I considered white light is mixture of frequencies but considered that when you spin a coloured disk etc , you can't remove the matter material so you'll always observe something which happens to be white .

But by doing it on visual display I was only using light , no matter as such so the result was transparency , invisible light , which I was hoping for .  The light propagating through space is invisible light , which is a mixture of frequencies propagating randomly at high speed . 

Spectral content are constants , not random as such . When light interacts with a substance density , it brings temporal order to chaos .

Again, unless we have a detailed description of your method how can we judge whether the 'experiment' shows the above.
Also we need to know what measurement techniques were used, how you took into account confounding variables, alternative hypotheses etc as previously.

I created several colour layouts then placed them in a movie maker to create an animation of colours changing position , I then rendered this video . I then placed the rendered video in movie maker twice , speeding up the playback of the second placed video . 
I then rinsed and repeated this process to the eventuality of the colours swapped places that fast , no colour was observed at all and the animation turned transparent .
There was no variables to consider , it did what I suspected it would do . 

From this I did gain a great idea , adaptive camouflage , although it would have a limited us . I could make something vanish at a distance , you wouldn't see it conventionally .

So you have effectively used a cartoon to demonstrate... actually what is supposed to demonstrate? You have been vague (purposefully) here again..

Also, what about your ludicrous claim that 'such as  air is attracted to the stratosphere when heated'?
Which demonstrates that you do not understand physics at even a basic level

[Bored chemist]

You can add acres to square km- you just have to convert them to the same units first.
But you can't add acres to pounds.

Do you accept this  so far?

[guest39538]

You can add acres to square km- you just have to convert them to the same units first.
But you can't add acres to pounds.

Do you accept this  so far?

Pounds is a weight , acres are an area of land , obviously different units . Do you have a point or are going to get to a point ?

Even better do you have a 8 acre carp  lake give me lolz 

p.s A rod and reel too .... :

I don't care Mr C to be honest , I'm trying to sell my computer now also , I've had enough of the internet malarkey .

[Bored chemist]

You can add acres to square km- you just have to convert them to the same units first.
But you can't add acres to pounds.

Do you accept this  so far?

Pounds is a weight , acres are an area of land , obviously different units . Do you have a point or are going to get to a point ?

Even better do you have a 8 acre carp  lake give me lolz 

p.s A rod and reel too .... :

I don't care Mr C to be honest , I'm trying to sell my computer now also , I've had enough of the internet malarkey .

Yes.
I have a point.

Do you remember this?

I know my physics

If that was tue you would not have posted this

F³ = <V = >ρ
 

Because it's impossible for it to be true.

Well, in the same way that you can't compare acres with  pounds or metres with gallons, you can't compare velocity with momentum  or anything with units of Newtons^3

So we know that your posting is simply wrong.

[guest39538]

Quote from: Bored chemist on 24/04/2019 22:31:12Quote from: Thebox on 24/04/2019 22:24:11 I know my physics If that was tue you would not have posted thisQuote from: Thebox on 20/04/2019 12:29:19F³ = <V = >ρ Because it's impossible for it to be true.Well, in the same way that you can't compare acres with  pounds or metres with gallons, you can't compare velocity with momentum  or anything with units of Newtons^3So we know that your posting is simply wrong.

You don't read math very well Mr C , V is volume and ρ is density . v is velocity and momentum generally has a directional arrow

→
ρ 


As above .

[Bored chemist]

Quote from: Bored chemist on 24/04/2019 22:31:12Quote from: Thebox on 24/04/2019 22:24:11 I know my physics If that was tue you would not have posted thisQuote from: Thebox on 20/04/2019 12:29:19F³ = <V = >ρ Because it's impossible for it to be true.Well, in the same way that you can't compare acres with  pounds or metres with gallons, you can't compare velocity with momentum  or anything with units of Newtons^3So we know that your posting is simply wrong.

You don't read math very well Mr C , V is volume and ρ is density . v is velocity and momentum generally has a directional arrow

→
ρ 


As above .

If you write stuff that is ambiguous people may not read it correctly.

So what?
There's still no way that you can compare them with a term involving force cubed.
So we still know you are wrong.

[guest39538]

There's still no way that you can compare them with a term involving force cubed.So we still know you are wrong.

You can think whatever you want MR C , I know I am not wrong and it equates in general .  I'm left on the shelf , gathering dust , it's over for me now , I can't dedicate anymore time to thinking physics .