Well this is my first post. I've been following this thread for a little while, so I will make several comments on what has been posted so far. First a comment on dualities. We know that anti-matter exists. Perhaps this is part of the dualities that XoFFoX is suggesting. It is not too hard to create anti-particles in the lab, and some is even created in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays. However, when I refer to anti-matter, I mean elementary particles. Anti-atoms (that is atoms created with anti-protons and positrons) are very difficult to create and observe because they are not very stable. However, if you could create enough of them someone could argue that they might create an anti-gravity. However, I will let a particle physicist answer that one (I'm only an optical physicist).

Second, I don't know what to say to XoFFoX. You try try make yourself out to be a sensible guy but then you wander off on some sort of diatribe on zero-point energy and anti-gravity. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img] An electrical circuit with battery that lasts for a 2-3 lifetimes? What kind of circuit? Will it light up a single useless LED or will it power all of Manhattan? The energy that a battery can supply is finite. If you create a circuit that just barely sips at that energy it will last a long time. A home-made anti-gravity machine? Where did you find the design for this? Can you actually give a Web address? How does high voltage actually produce anti-gravity? You give some sort of techno-nonsense about densities and sub-densities and accelerating electrons, but it isn't followable. I'm a scientist myself and can talk techno-bable with the best of them. I can also quickly spot when someone is just spouting technical jargon without having any idea what it means. Or how about this car that runs on water (and I don't think you're talking about Chitty-Chitty Bang Bang [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] )? I've heard about such things before, and let's just say it's all wet. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif[/img]

Well that will do for a first post. I don't mean to be rude, but the teacher in me is on a crusade to stomp out ignorance wherever it lurks.

__________________
Old laser physicists never die, they just become incoherent.
These days, every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows what a photon is, but he is wrong. - Albert Einstein

Well, the rogue star thing is just a simple simulation made for fun. It's probably pretty accurate as far as it goes, but I'm sure it doesn't include every single influence that might occur in such a situation. I've already mentioned that it's limited to a 2D environment and real life works in 3D.

That said however, the basic laws of gravity and planetary motion are thorougly understood, tested, and observationally accurate. The motions of Venus in this simulation are based entirely on these well-known equations. There's nothing inherently weird about them. The strangeness of the trajectories is due to the ever-changing gravitational influences between the Sun and the rogue star. In other words, two stars (very massive objects) coming close together will pull everything between them back and forth, but those distortions can be predicted with the proper equations. There's no anti-gravity involved here at all, only two interacting and ever-changing gravitational fields.

Another thing explaining the "wonky orbit" of Venus after it was captured by the rogue star is the movement of the star on the screen. If you held the rogue star still in the screen (IOW, as if you centered the camera on it), you'd actually see a normal eliptical orbit, but because it's moving relative to your point of view, it looks like the planet has to speed up to get in front of the star, and then fall back behind it as it reaches in front of it. Again, this is basic orbital physics, an quite within current understanding. Your point of view just makes it look strange.

And nobody ever said that objects don't change speeds. It is true that an object moving in a straight line can't change speed without some form of accelerating force, but such forces do exist in nature in the form of gravity. And objects in elliptical orbits are constantly changing speed. Indeed, it's a fundimental property of orbital mechanics. When an object reaches the closest point in it's orbit it will be going at it's fastest, and when it's at it's farthest it will be going slowest. All of these things have been known since Kepler and Newton.

The problem with the PX theory you mention is not that there shouldn't be an acceleration, but that the acceleration as described has no rational explanation. It would require some form of anti-gravity or other unknown force, and frankly, there's no creditable evidence that such kind of forces exist. The same is true of PX itself; there's no creditable evidence that it exists, no matter what metaphysical messages have been recieved.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

Welcome aboard Laserjock. Good first post. As I understand it, antimatter should really be considered more as a mirror-image of regular matter. IOW, it acts in exactly the same way as the matter we know. Anti-hydrogen combines with anti-oxygen to create anti-water. The effect of antimatter on gravity is exactly the same as regular matter.

Yes, I'd like to know more myself. The hallmark of a weak argument is the inability to back it up. Can we get some supporting info here?

And I fully agree about the last one. Water-powered engines are only a step down from full-fledged perpetual motion machines, and just mentioning them raises all sorts of red flags in the bunkum department. Every single instance of such devices throughout history has been shown to be either mistaken in some way or outright fraud. At this time there's no reason to believe that it isn't the same this time.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

Quote: '... (leading edge of the heliosphere ??? What's going on there ???) ...'

Although this has nothing to do with Planet X, one can find an introduction to heliospheric physics (that may give insight even to musicians) here http://sci.esa.int/content/doc/10/2576_.htm or elsewhere on the net (try a google search if you like). We are expecting Voyager 2 to find the termination shock soon, but it's not sure this will be visible at all...

By the way - did you find any reference, XoFFoX? And do you have an example where one of the fundamental forces has an anti-force (I'm not talking about Newton...)

XoFFoX - Since you are a musician, you may want to brouse this thread . By the time you get to the last page, everyone is debating back and forth about music stuff (I linked you to the page where it all got started - look for dwhite's post). Maybe you can add some words of wisdom there?

Yes, the Board is on EDT. There are people on this Board who are from other time zones, though (such as Washington state, Australia, Japan).

Laser Jock - A Princess Bride quote; I love it! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] And welcome to the Board!

_________________
"All that is gold does not glitter / Not all those who wander are lost..."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: nebularain on 2002-08-29 13:45 ]</font>

I'm still enjoying the webpage that David Hall found some time ago for looking at rogue stars(http://janus.astro.umd.edu/orbits/rstar.html). Let's see how many ways we can destroy our solar system!!! One thing is true, if the PX folks are correct (which they're not), we would really have a problem. What they say would happen to Earth is rather optimistic [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img].

__________________
Old laser physicists never die, they just become incoherent.
These days, every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows what a photon is, but he is wrong. - Albert Einstein

Actually, I believe the server is based in Colorado, so it's set to mountain time.

But yeah, there are people from all over the world here. Sometimes it's active, and sometimes it's quiet. Unfortunately, I've found that it get's quietest on the weekends, just when I have the most free time and want to read a lot of threads. When I have to get to sleep early or such, that's when it's active and I end up staying up way beyond what's good for me.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

Actually it looks to me to be EDT.

__________________
Old laser physicists never die, they just become incoherent.
These days, every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows what a photon is, but he is wrong. - Albert Einstein

Hmm, seems you're right. It's hard for me to tell since I'm on the other side of the world and have to actually think in order to calculate the time differences. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

I recall the BA saying it was mountain time when the subject first came up last October (with the initiation of the new board software). Maybe there's been a change recently. ???

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

OK. Let's test this. Currently it is approx. 14:42 PM CDT in Chicago.

Oh, and Xoffox, I'm a Virgo with a bad moon rising. Astrology really has no bearing on astronomy. Also, a tenth planet which comes close enough to the sun like the Nibru folks claim in a periodic fashion is impossible. The pole shifts occur naturally over tens of thousands of years. Nibru seems to be a new, more threatening and less likely occurrence than the Nemesis theory which held at least passing interest.

"You keep saying that word, I don't think it means what you think it means." -- Inago Montoya

__________________
Valiant Dancer

Here's the thread where he said that. I think that their clock is also just screwed up, and it keeps getting farther ahead. Just a thought.

Sorry to be boring you with all this kindergarten stuff there grapes and disturbing your much needed nap time.

I did mean mass and I get confused about the two, density and mass. Let me know if this analogy is correct. If you have 10 ball bearings and bunch them all together it has a given mass and a certain density right ??? Density being related to the amount of space between the bearings. If I took all those bearings and melted them into one ball it would take up less space,hence being more dense but still retaining the same mass right ???
So then PX would have to be 23 times more massive in order to have any impact on smaller bodies from a close flyby, is this correct ??? My understanding is that something with more mass exerts more gravitational effects than something less massive.

You know something funny just dawned on me. As far as I can tell, all of you here have already decided that PX cannot be so why are you even discussing this amongst yourselves ??? It seems I'm the only one poking around with the notion that it may be true. If I were you guys I'd kick all the pro PXers out and rename the discussion group to "We've already made up our minds on this !!!" I suppose the same could go for all the other wacky notions that come this way. Just remember that most people thought the Wright brothers were wackos.
You guys wanted some more data, facts, explainations on some of the stuff I speak of... the electro gravitic device I built is no secret and many hobbyist types have been messin around with it. Here is one website that yall can get to and see some of this stuff in action. There is also a great number of good links on other topics related to this and zero point energy as well. The papers from Tom Bearden are very technical and very interesting. I have read quite a few but not all. He is the one who has put forth the idea that we can design our electronic circuits to be over-unity devices. We have been designing them all wrong, he says. If you are interested at all in this, Beardons stuff is a must read.

http://jnaudin.free.fr/

As for the water car, it is very very simple to do. This system works like this. Water has approx. 40% more potential energy than gasoline and that's a conservative estimate given by the DOE. Some say it's as high as 80% more. Anyway, you can separate the two components of water (H and O) by using 2 stainless steel electrodes placed in close proximity to each other and vibrating them with sqaure wave pulses at a certain frequency. Hence, you get hydrogen and oxygen to use in your already working combustion engine. The gases are collected and stored under pressure and properly regulated. THe result is super clean combustion with water and spare oxygen as a byproduct. I believe NASA owns a patent for this process.(The separation process) This why it is paramount for them to find water on Mars if they are to send a mission there. They will have water for life and for fuel. Getting the system tuned up properly is a bit of a trick, or so they say. Carbed engines are easier than FI. But once the system is fine tuned and running good you can get anywhere from 80 to 300 mpg of water.
You get more HP and if you wanted to you could recycle your exhaust water and drive the thing until mechanical breaks down. One last note about the system is that you need to rust proof some of your engine components. The exhaust system and valves need to be replaced with stainless and the cylinders and pistons need to be coated with a protective ceramic, then your set. One other alternative to this would be to leave the gasoline portion of the engine in tact and then one could burn a small amount of gas or better yet, alcohol to dry out the engine. The great thing is that you can set the system up so that you may retain the ability to burn standard fuel. I have read that this knowledge has been around for a while and of course the powers that be said uh uh, no way, out of the question that we (the poor unsuspecting and paying through the nose for everything, public) will use water as a fuel for our engines. And that's the end of that story and here we are with a very big problem on our hands. Now they are desparately spraying fine metallic aerosol crap in the upper atomosphere to try and cool the planet down or so one theory says that's what they are up to ... who knows eh ??? All I know is what I see in my area on a very regular basis. Very bizarre very high altitude air traffic that spit out these contrails (that's a joke calling them that) that never seem to disappear. They slowly disperse and turn a normal blue sky into a milky slick in a matter of hours, depending on how much they are spraying.
Personally I am very very incensed about this. Whoever is responsible for this has not gotten any public consent for this and there seems to be no way to stop them. THe first thing I know what most of you will do is say that I'm crazy, they're just contrails ...well it's just not so. Here are a few sites you can read up on this. http://educate-yourself.org/ct/
http://www.carnicom.com/contrails.htm
Sorry I don't know how to make links in this text mode. If anyone has any patience left with me they might show me how this is done.
222

_________________
Anti Gravity and Zero Point Rule.
11:11
777
33
1

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: XoFFoX on 2002-08-29 21:49 ]</font>

Nevermind about the links thingy.
Sorry I'm just a lowly BAD newbie


Has anyone seen my mind ... I seem to have totally lost it

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: XoFFoX on 2002-08-29 22:07 ]</font>

Absolutely.

This is a wonderful idea! Just one small question, though. Where does the energy to separate the oxygen and hydrogen come from? Can't burn the gases to get the energy, because you need energy to produce them. Burning gasoline to provide the energy defeats the whole purpose. Perhaps some of our more learned friends could provide the math, but I think it is sufficent to say that it takes more energy to separate water into oxygen and hydrogen that is produced by recombining them.

Now, does anyone want to tackle the contrails?

__________________
I am a doctor, but I don't play one on TV.

The power from the car battery is used to do the separation process. If I remember right it takes about 4 to 6 amps at the 13 to 14 volts you get from a battery. Once the motor is running the alternator takes up the job nicely. Apparently it is the ocsillation that does the trick. Did I not mention that there is a patent(s) for this process. I am in the process of hunting down the right type of stainless tubes or rods to use for electrodes. According to the diagram I have it looks like you need tubes that can fit one inside the other with a very small air gap between them, typically 1mm or so. When I find what I need I will set up an experiment to test the separation process. Unfortunately I had the perfect beater car that I could have used to make a complete working model but I gave it away to the scrap yard before I had the plans for the water thing. Oh well, it's back to the drawing brd for the MAD scientist. (insert sound of Homer Simpson screaming here)

PS. I cannot stress enough that these contrails as they are being explained away as are absolutely NOT. There is a very good scientific analysis (of real contrail physics) on one of the site links I posted.

http://www.carnicom.com/contrails.htm
the article is called "The RH deception"
It gets pretty technical. Remember, I'm more of a lay person when it comes to the hard math and I can understand this.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: XoFFoX on 2002-08-29 23:28 ]</font>

"Real contrail physics"......LOL

http://www.borderlands.com/contrails/contrail.htm

Dog

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DogB on 2002-08-30 00:12 ]</font>

Hmm... why not just burn the seperated hydrogen and oxygen together once seperating them, instead of taking oxygen from the air?

By the way, you can't actually pour the water into the car with this idea. What happens is that a device takes energy from somewhere else in order to split water. Usually this would be done by just plain old electrolysis, but maybe the square waves help it (I have no idea how). And then the hydrogen goes into the car, not the water. Steam goes out the exhaust pipe, because it is useless to the car.

You cannot recycle the water into the car and keep driving, because you need energy to split the water into fuel again. Where are you going to get the energy? If you take the energy from the engine, then the car can't actually go anywhere (it needs energy to drive around). You actually get less useful energy out of burning hydrogen than it will take to split the exhaust water again, so entropy won't even let you cycle it forever without input energy.

Oh, and when you burn the hydrogen, the oxygen has to come from somewhere. There is no net spare oxygen byproduct. 2 H2O -> 2H2 + O2 -> 2 H2O. No mass is created.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: xriso on 2002-08-30 00:23 ]</font>

Well, all I know is that at midnight my time (EDT), the date changes to the next day.

BTW, XoFFoX, to change your "Bad" status, you have to make 100 posts.

Also, I've been puzzling over your username, and I think I get it. Your username is a duality, right? XoF/FoX. XoF is the reverse of FoX? Or is it FoX is the reverse of XoF. Or has this duality talk gotten my brain so mixed up I don't know what I'm talking about? (I'm a biology major, not a physics major [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img] .)

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

I never stated that the oxygen came from outside the reaction chamber. This all happens in a container and is under pressure. All gases are produced in the same space(reaction tank) and then burned in the same space.(combustion chamber)

The car battery and alternator provide the electricity needed for the separation process if you keep filling the water tank with water the car will run until there is a mechanical breakdown. You cannot recyle all the exhaust water and I didn't say that it was a totally closed loop where there is no losses. There is no reason why you could not reuse water coming from the tailpipe. Yes, eventually you would run out of water but not for quite some time I would imagine if you can keep losses to a minimum.

Apparently there is a loss of some of the gases in the combustion, that's just what was said in the set of plans that I got. If this reaction has no losses then I would agree that there should be no excess left overs.


I hope I've cleared most of this up. Any more questions ???

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: XoFFoX on 2002-08-30 00:50 ]</font>

Gotcha on the BAD status ... okee dokee.
As for the handle XoFFoX, it is a slight variation of the famous Zoffo of Led Zepellin and I like symmetry so I coined XoFFoX. If I could flip the 1st F I would for the most symmetry. It also looks cool, I think anyway.

I use it sometimes as a monicer for authoring songs and music compositions and I wondered about using it for a band name if and when I get one together.
444


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: XoFFoX on 2002-08-30 00:55 ]</font>

(Elmer Fudd voice) We're hunting Perpetual Motion, he he he he he.

__________________
Does earth plug a hole in Heaven or Heaven plug a hole in Earth? -Peter Gabriel

Perpetual Motion is a misnomer.
I guess I should restate this as it is incomplete.
Perpetual Motion is a misnomer used by the mainstream when over unity systems are mentioned. It's an arguement that gets thrown out at free energy advocates when they (science community) can't explain what's going on with certain devices or theories. I think T.E. Beardon states this case most brilliantly.

I haved a question.
Can anyone tell me why the military classified some of Tesla's work and conficated most of his notes and records ???
I have another question.
Can anyone explain to me why monoatomic iridium disappears when heated past a certain temperature ??? Somewhere between 200 and 300C I think ???
999


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: XoFFoX on 2002-08-30 01:40 ]</font>

And also an impossible dream.

__________________
Does earth plug a hole in Heaven or Heaven plug a hole in Earth? -Peter Gabriel

Maybe in this dimension with it's inherent model of physics which I think a lot of us are confused and misinformed about.

Is anyone aware of microclusters out there ???

Did anyone listen to Art Bell show last night ??? Hydrogen fueled engines. (Sound familiar ??? Hydrogen and Oxygen from water )Easy transition too the best fuel hands down. Unfortunately the big corps are gonna gleep that too.
yee haa !!!
11:11

I think most of this stuff here belongs to a bad physics board...

It's boring and time consuming.

Agreed! For some reason, this is one of the toughest points to get across to believers in perpetual motion or "overunity" (perpetual motion + useful output).

The equations:

2H2+O2=>2H2O+E
and
2H2O-E=>2H2+O2

are exactly symetrical. The amount of energy you get from reacting hydrogen and oxygen to get water is exactly the amount of energy needed to break-up water into hydrogen and oxygen (assuming 100.000...% efficiency in the system). No amount of hand waving, hocus-pocus or smoke and mirrors is going to change it!

Entropy - It's not just a good idea, it's the law!

_________________
Be alert! The world needs more lerts.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2002-08-30 06:06 ]</font>

You got that right Kaptain K. For review, the 1st Law of Thermodynmics states that you cannot create an engine which produces more energy than you put into it. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that you can't even break even (i.e. all engines will have less than 100% efficiency). These are Laws not theory. They have been experimentally varified so many times and in so many ways that it is foolish to question them. Those who say otherwise are either ignorant a best or fraudulant at worst.

_________________
"I am not left handed either."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Laser Jock on 2002-08-30 08:43 ]</font>

We do have another forum for it, the Against the Mainstream forum.

As far as this thread goes, I guess the same question can be asked that we've been asking for years: "So, just where is Planet X in all this?"