Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: guest39538 on 30/01/2016 03:06:43
-
I am either crazy or the world is either crazy. so I have developed a crazy test in the form of a question
between A and B is a distance
A.........................................B
This distance is an absolute invariant, a constant.
Anything measured other than distance and considered to be a rate, between point A and point B is the measurement of the speed of something.
type YES for agreement with the bold, or No to disagree with the bold.
-
Please study dimensional analysis before you embarrass yourself any further.
There is a place in the world for drivel passed off as science, but this is not the European Union or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
-
Please study dimensional analysis before you embarrass yourself any further.
There is a place in the world for drivel passed off as science, but this is not the European Union or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Firstly I do not do embarrassed, secondly why do I need to be embarrassed about saying the truth?
It is science who should be embarrassed passing drivel off as science.
I know I am correct, people who read my posts know I am correct, so denying is just futile.
-
I am either crazy or the world is either crazy. so I have developed a crazy test in the form of a question
between A and B is a distance
A.........................................B
This distance is an absolute invariant, a constant.
Wherefore you say so? I don't believe in practical constants anyhow. Don't you remember how I pre-empt Lorentzians with the Snellian?
Anything measured other than distance and considered to be a rate, between point A and point B is the measurement of the speed of something.
type YES for agreement with the bold, or No to disagree with the bold.
How do you mete a range without time? You can't.
I know I am correct, people who read my posts know I am correct, so denying is just futile.
Name these folk. know != believe.
-
Name these folk. know != believe.
Like the title says it is a crazy test .
I think you just failed, you have a mental block on your perception.
If I define 10m , 10m is a set constant, 10m of space does not change and never will, it is an invariant, the only invariant in the universe. Distance is the only invariant we have.
The thing is time is measured by a distance. a frequency rate over a distance. A frequency rate change , is a change in speed , the distance remains a constant.
I.e if we have set distance x
x=299 792 458 m
any change of rate of something between A and B would be a change in speed.
-
Distance might not be invariant.
Far as we can tell, space relies on time in a thing known as spacetime.
So, your axioms are wrong.
-
Box. You are crazy. And (demonstrably) wrong on so many levels. As has already been pointed out many times, often the crux of your argument relies on a misunderstanding or complete disregard of dimensional analysis.
If you were able to come up with any self-consistant models/theories when disregarding the dimensions, your theories might qualify as interesting. However, the bizarre and contradictory conclusions of your analyses are actually excellent evidence for why understanding dimensional analysis is crucial to understanding any of the quantitative sciences.
-
Box. You are crazy. And (demonstrably) wrong on so many levels. As has already been pointed out many times, often the crux of your argument relies on a misunderstanding or complete disregard of dimensional analysis.
If you were able to come up with any self-consistant models/theories when disregarding the dimensions, your theories might qualify as interesting. However, the bizarre and contradictory conclusions of your analyses are actually excellent evidence for why understanding dimensional analysis is crucial to understanding any of the quantitative sciences.
Please demonstrate I am wrong . Let us see who is wrong, where would you like to start?
Time? oh yes I did that one and you all agreed anything after zero is history.
Dimensional analysis? I already did the dimension of time, so that leaves xyz, there is nothing complicated about xyz or distance,
Time dilation? a rate of repeat measured between two points, set points, a constant distance that does not change, any slowing down of rate is a decrease in output speed, not a change in time.
Light? it is not white light it is clear light, darkness and space is transparent to this light,
I could go on and on, and you will always be wrong and I will always be right. I use reality. Please prove reality wrong?
My constant-'constant destroys most of the ideas of science.
I tell you what let us start here -
It may take 1 Ly to travel a distance but the mind is instantly there and see's the object in the now through the constant-'constant
So let us see your great proof to prove my constant-'constant is not an axiom.?
Understanding the constant-'constant of light propagating through space.
Light in a vacuum travels at 299 792 458 m / s and is a constant. Space is a near perfect vacuum and is ''transparent'' to light, meaning that space allows light to propagate through space unchanging in the constant speed. Ourselves, observe a clarity of space in that relatively we can observe distant objects reflecting light and the space between ourselves and the observed object is not opaque, it is relatively ''see through''. This observation is relatively constant to all visual observers in any frame of reference that is not in shadow/night.
Not anywhere in science does it say this. New science you all ignore.
The constant-'constant should be in Wiki,
-
Name these folk. know != believe.
Like the title says it is a crazy test .
So you can't name them?
I think you just failed, you have a mental block on your perception.
Good. Anyone who wants to pass a crazy test must be crazy.
If I define 10m , 10m is a set constant, 10m of space does not change and never will, it is an invariant, the only invariant in the universe. Distance is the only invariant we have.
If you define 10 m. But how do you define 10 m?
The thing is time is measured by a distance. a frequency rate over a distance. A frequency rate change , is a change in speed , the distance remains a constant.
sometimes
I.e if we have set distance x
x=299 792 458 m
any change of rate of something between A and B would be a change in speed.
Apparent speed consists of two apparent rates and one proper rate.
-
I am either crazy or the world is either crazy.
Yes I agree. You are crazy.
between A and B is a distance
A.........................................B
This distance is an absolute invariant, a constant.
Only according to a crazy person.
Anything measured other than distance and considered to be a rate, between point A and point B is the measurement of the speed of something.
type YES for agreement with the bold, or No to disagree with the bold.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Wow dum dum, I have never seen that one before, wow I am amazed and can now go cure my craziness.
Some advice - do not go down this path Mr Space Flow, I silenced the bad science forum, you are no match for me if you want to continue with trying to insult and get at me to raise a reaction. I will gladly come over to your threads and shrink you to the size of an ant, relatively I am a giant.
-
Here's a pretty good crazy test:
What have you accomplished relative to the world?
What has the world accomplished relative to you?
How would it impact your life if the discoveries of others were to disappear overnight? Is your intelligence really greater than everybody else?
-
Here's a pretty good crazy test:
What have you accomplished relative to the world?I have ''time'' yet to accomplish something
What has the world accomplished relative to you? the world has accomplished lots
How would it impact your life if the discoveries of others were to disappear overnight? My children would learn correctly
Is your intelligence really greater than everybody else?I have no idea, maybe my perception of reality is just slightly better when considering strict definitions. My ideas are just thinking, if I was intelligent then maybe I would of done this when I was younger, but then I would not have experienced life and not have the ideas I have.
Most of you probably learnt science before experiencing years of reality, I experienced reality then learnt science, so in my learning if something does not conform to the 42 years of observation from my own perspective, then I want to know why. I compare 100's of years of history of perspective, to my own perspective of what I observe.