Formal Debate: Gravitational Shift and the Least Action Principle

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Trapped, Oct 14, 2013.

  1. Trapped Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,058
    So some outstanding statements was made by Brucep over the last few days. I want to have a formal debate so that he can finally admit to everyone he doesn't have a clue about what he is talking about.

    First incredible statement: ''The gravitational shift cannot be over unity''

    Me: Why not? Just look at the equations and the answer stares you right in the face!

    If the shift is measured with z, the expression of gravitational shift is

    1+z

    If the shift is zero (z = 0) then all you are left with is unity, there is no physics happening!



    Second incredible statement: ''The least action principle is not the least energy''

    An amazing statement in itself, since the least action principle is about the laws of motion and how systems tend to use the least energy to get from one place to another. If it wasn't a statement about minimizing the potential energy, it wouldn't be a least action!




    Ok Brucep, make it clear for us all, what exactly is your expertise in these matters? Do you have any evidence to show any of us that you do actually know what you are talking about? (everyone else is allowed to put their thoughts forward!)
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,608
    OK since you asked for my thoughts... Brucep has typically added a lot of great content to this site and is quite knowledgeable. You, on the other hand are rude and sound like a raving madman. I am not interested in you ideas because your ranting presentation makes it clear it is not worth the effort. Have a nice day.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    Agreeing with and adding to origin's statement, the purpose of this forum is to first propose and agree to a formal debate on certain topics and then to have a new thread opened in which the debate itself is held by the agreed-to formal rules. Here Trapped abuses the forum to no good purpose and has not even approximated a formal proposal because these purported quotations of brucep lack context and a reference to when and where brucep wrote those words.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Trapped Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,058
    Rude to who? Brucep? I sure have been, but out of frustration that his statements are accepted in reasonably high place of standard.

    I start to question, other posters here if they can't call someone out on clear errors! Brucep entered my first post ever here, quite rudely as well but also the worst part, offering bad science.

    If you think that is acceptable, then so be it. I'd rather be an accurate madman, than an inaccurate loveable guy.
     
  8. Trapped Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,058
    Again, the same to you as I said above. If you want details of the conversations, I am happy to oblige. I haven't abused the forums, I think forums are being abused, there is a diff.
     
  9. Trapped Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,058
  10. Trapped Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,058
    Also I would like to note, that when my discussions with him got heated, the way I was treated even though I offered the science to the moderators! I was astonished that the moderator in question, who I will not mention, didn't have a clue about the physics being discussed. Not an incentive for a new comer who was only honestly calling someone out on both trolling and of offering inaccurate science on the main boards.

    It's nice to know that such science is basically... tolerated! Not only tolerated, but the guy is tolerated... because he's a good guy.

    And I sound crazy? The irony.
     
  11. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    Several times in the off-site thread at http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/79124-a-charge-in-a-gravitational-field/ user "TrappedLight" cuts and pastes the factor
    \( \frac{\sqrt{1 - 2\frac{Gm}{\Delta E} \frac{M}{r} + \frac{GQ^2}{c^4 R^2}}}{\sqrt{1 - 2\frac{Gm}{\Delta E} \frac{M}{r} + \frac{GQ^2}{c^4 R^2}}} \)
    which is of course exactly equal to 1, so brucep could be pointing that out as did imatfaal and timo in posts #7, #9, #11, #13, of the off-site thread.

    This makes one question your and "TrappedLight"'s ability to do algebra. If the numerator and denominator are identical then you don't just cancel out dimensional units but you cancel out everything else and the ratio is equal to one. And if you can't recognize this, then one questions your ability to participate in any discussion of physics.

    If you and/or "TrappedLight" are missing subscripts to make the quantities not always equal to each other, it is up to you to post the correct expression before any further debate continues.

    And "over unity" in bruce in [post=3119466]post #9 of the thread on this site[/post] seems to be alluding to the crank physics subculture of zero-point energy/free energy/perpetual motion/over unity enthusiasts. This seems justified from post #6 of the off-site post.

    But my earlier message to you, Trapped, is that you seem to be clearly violating the written rules of the Formal Debates sub-forum as described [thread=74142]here in the sticky, must-read post[/thread].
     
  12. Trapped Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,058
    Right this is a start!

    First of all, the poster mentioned nothing about the zero point field free energy (which alludes to the reading capability of some people). He also mentions in a ''revamp'' of his work which I posted a link to, that he omitted subscripts for simplicity but rewrote the work anyway as not to cause confusion.

    The only time the expression you have quoted is equal to one is when there is a zero z ''the shift.'' This was mentioned in the his work as well, so where does the penny drop?
     
  13. Trapped Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,058
    Also the over unity had nothing to do with any notions of free energy, in the article he said

    ''and is unity when there is zero red shift''

    I don't know how anyone could get free energy mixed up with this statement. Clearly Brucep was reading what he wanted to read! And was very rude towards me about as well, his post was condescending!
     
  14. Trapped Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,058
    \( \frac{\sqrt{1 - 2\frac{Gm}{\Delta E} \frac{M}{r} + \frac{GQ^2}{c^4 R^2}}}{\sqrt{1 - 2\frac{Gm}{\Delta E} \frac{M}{r} + \frac{GQ^2}{c^4 R^2}}} \)

    This is the same thing as

    1+z

    the upper part describes the received energy, the lower part the source and is only unity if there is a zero z. That's how basic the algebra is! The author is quite aware that both the recieved and omitted terms cancel out, he said they have to. It wouldn't be a power equation if it was, he also told me only real physical systems in nature are dimensionless!
     
  15. Trapped Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,058
  16. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    What follows isn't recognizable as physics.
    The purported energy density of the vacuum cannot be the energy density of the vacuum because it has \(\omega\) as a free parameter.

    Equating the first and last expression of this post requires \(3 \hbar \omega \dot{a}_g = c^2\) which doesn't make dimensional sense.
     
  17. Trapped Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,058
    I'll ask him what that means.
     
  18. Trapped Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,058
    he said there was a typo carried on in the work. He emailed me this and he says he has corrected the work

    Hi again!

    There was a typo taken through the work

    A spectral energy density is

    \(\rho(\omega) = \frac{\hbar \omega^3}{2 \pi^2 c^3}\)

    In the given expression

    \(\frac{e^2 \hbar \omega}{2c^5}\)

    we are supposed to have a mass term

    \(\frac{e^2 \hbar \omega}{2mc^5}\)

    You can see why

    \(\frac{e^2 \hbar \omega}{2mc^5}g^2 = \frac{m}{m}\frac{e^2 c^2}{c^5}g^2 = \frac{e^2g^2}{c^3}\)
     
  19. Trapped Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,058
    He also said

    ''\(P_s = -F_s v = -F_s g \Delta t\)

    The zero point energy also is a recoil force on the object in the direction of acceleration.''
     
  20. Trapped Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,058
    Since there doesn't seem to be any objection to what has been said, I believe I have made my point. Brucep was running his mouth off and I would like to think the true contributors of sciforums actually appreciates it when someone corrects another persons errors. I may have came across as a madman, but I was actually mad at the non-science he was trying to spread.

    @Rpenner

    I know you were to some extent making some excuses for his ignorance. In the end of the day, we can all read for ourselves and there was nothing suggestive about free energy in the article, and we have also established the metric ratio did not come to unity! Even without the subscripts, I think you knew fine well what the author of that work was saying and clear enough Brucep didn't have a clue.

    I know brucep hasn't involved himself in this thread, but there is very little he can add to any of this, so if a mod wants, they may close this now. I got my point across!
     
  21. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,608
    Hey Trapped, was this "other guy" previously on this site under the name of reiku?
     
  22. Trapped Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,058
    I don't know. If he had an account here, he'd probably post here.
     
  23. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,608
    No, he can't post here he, was banned for being an idiot.
     

Share This Page