« on: 29/10/2020 19:00:50 »
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
First digit for each instanceIt seems that your calculations are using Base-10 numbers.
Pi x Pi 350 timesTo represent Pi in a computer, you need a computer with an infinite number of bits. These don't come cheap.
One relationship between charge and mass, based on the preponderance of natural data, is positive charge appears to prefer to merge with the heavy mass; proton. The negative charge prefers to merge with the lessor mass; electron. There is more of these two change-mass configurations in the universe, than the alternative, where charge-mass is reversed.
Equation one for the MKS system is not valid for any other system unless we change the constants.
How much centrifuge force would it take to displace 1g of mass of water carefully placed onto a disk shape that was about to be spun?
A centrifuge force is actually a linear force as I suspect you must already know . In fluid dynamics , water has little to no way of 'gripping'' a surface .
It was explained earlier that the centrifuge force of the earth has sufficient magnitude to alter the shape of the earth.
Am I to believe that this force isn't enough to bulge all the water ?
Why would some water bulge and the above and under remain in location when as mentioned it has no ''grip'' ?
How can you be seeing the light as it was 8 minutes ago?In order to simplify this to the very simple question of transit times we are specifically ignoring relativistic and other effects eg redshift.
That light has been red shifted away from the gravitational field of the sun, and then blue shifted into the gravitational field of the earth.
We observe light when it reaches our eye, and to reach our eye the light travels through conditions that change its frequency...
Navigation is no joke.
Our trajectories will cross but we will not meet. If this were not so, every crossroads, shipping lane and flight corridor would be full of scrap metal. At most, I'll be seeing where you were about 3 minutes ago, not 4 months.
Our trajectories would meet if we predicted the event timing and synchronised speed to this timing, a sniper shooting a moving target shows this to be true. Although I have got to admit a long range target has more room for error with the shot.
I know navigation is not a joke.
I will see you in your July orbital position , you would see me in your October orbital position, You are not seeing me in your past or future, you are seeing me in July and I am also in reality in July with you although I get the cold end of the ''stick''.
Yes indeed, but so people understand me I wish to precise with my meanings.
When you miss-use the words, they don't add understanding.QuoteFor several years science told me I was wrong about my subjective experience explanation of ''gin-clear'', yet you agree with me, this tells me nobody understood me because they only looked at my ideas from an objective perception. Your two words you gave me will expand my ideas and now get them understood.
No, I'm not agreeing with you in the way you think.
I'm saying that what you feel about something, or how you perceive it, is your business.
Where you are wrong (and this applies whether or not you sprinkle the latest words you've learned into your posts) is in using your subjective experience to pass judgement on reality. Those several years where science told you you were wrong, science was right.QuoteThe experiments are correct I do agree, but what you are not objectively considering is that the objective experiments are done in the subjective whole of ''gin'clear'', a whole that is constant in it's ''gin-clear''.
It may indeed take 8 minutes for a photon to arrive from the sun, but subjectively my interpretation of distance is correct and we ''see'' the start and end point of the photons journey subjectively simultaneous.
Again, you show how you are trying to overturn objective science with your subjective experience. That'll never work.
Subjectively, you may well think you see the start and end point of a photons journey simultaneously; but that has absolutely zero impact on reality.
Actual experiments have shown that light travel is not instant, so you can't in reality be seeing the start and end simultaneously. How you feel about it can not overturn those experiments.QuoteThis is a concern to me in that something is just not correct somewhere in the objective science thinking and it is incomplete by not considering the subjective which is the interwoven mind experience.
Then you have no idea what science is.
You are ''attacking'' me and not discussing the actual content of the post in an objective manner, it is not my failure to communicate , it is a person's failure to discuss objectively what I have said in the past and what I am saying in this thread. Your intentions are to defend all science, to say all science is fact and does not have room for improvement.
This is subjective education and the very fact that what you learnt you had to accept even if you had a biased opinion.
You are not being objective if you are not willing to think and only willing to reply defending the present information .
You clearly have not thought in any detail about the constant whole you and I subjectively ''see''.