1

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Do Peking and Helsinki lie on a straight line through Earth's core?

« on: 22/06/2019 01:16:02 »

The red line represents the straight-line path.  The yellow sphere represents the extent of the outer core.


core.png (122.53 kB . 960x540 - viewed 737 times)

So the question is, What do you mean by "pass the core"?   Do you mean "pass through" the core, or do you mean "bypass" the core without entering it?  An if you mean bypass, do you mean it has to be close miss or does any miss count?  It is obvious that the line never enters the outer core, nor does it come very close.  so the answer to your question depends on exactly what the question is. 

2

New Theories / Re: How will buckyballs fired at a double slit behave?

« on: 19/06/2019 18:34:06 »

If you describe a matter wave better than me you win a prize.

What would I get if I could describe it worse?
I ask because it seems more like an interesting challenge?

3

New Theories / Re: What time does the rocket arrive at point B?

« on: 27/08/2016 23:36:06 »

How can you be seeing the light as it was 8 minutes ago?

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...

No?

In order to simplify this to the very simple question of transit times we are specifically ignoring relativistic and other effects eg redshift.
The question is when is the image of the rocket seen, not whether it has changed colour, length, etc.
Hope that clarifies.

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: I visually ''see'' a beam of light in different time dimensions?

« on: 06/07/2016 14:29:33 »

MOD EDIT: This thread has become bogged down by the OPs inability to understand basic timekeeping.
Rather than descend to the level of "the big hand points to ....." this thread is locked.

5

That CAN'T be true! / Re: How does darkness enter my eyes so I can ''see'' it?

« on: 30/06/2016 21:38:26 »

Our eyes see the dark the same way that our ears hear silence.

6

That CAN'T be true! / Re: How did I get to October before the Earth did?

« on: 27/06/2016 21:43:57 »

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''.

I am baffled as to why you have so many "Thanks" Maybe because some think your unreadable ambiguous posts contain some truth , which they do not!. You go making meaningless, convoluted posts, regardless of how many times you are informed by the members that what you write is utter nonsense!

Alan

7

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does the subjective ''visual'' experience throw difficulties on time dilation?

« on: 22/06/2016 15:26:30 »

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.

For 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.

The 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.

This 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''.

The poster wasn't attacking you whatsoever, and was absolutely replying to content.  Trust me... I know the difference... lmao

But seriously, you seem hell bent on this idea of yours, and it honestly seems to not make sense, and your overuse as well as misuse of those words makes it even harder to understand what it is you're trying to say.  But I agree with the other poster's critiques completely.  Just because you have such a strong, subjective, biased opinion towards something, doesn't mean it has the power to overturn reality; no matter how much passion is put behind it, no matter how much feet stomping there is, no matter how many times it's repeated.  Science and reality just don't work that way.  But I find it just hilariously ironic how you are pointing your finger at the other poster and labeling him as biased, subjective and unwilling to learn...  Just hilariously ironic lol.