Leaderboard

Others have already more than adequately addressed this, and I acknowledge you've mentioned it may have been a poor analogy, but just to close the loop... I said the job of POTUS was different from brain surgery and the precise skills that requires, not that it was simple. That's what happens when the US electorate votes in a man that is obviously unfit and unqualified and who received most of his votes by engaging in grievance politics... scapegoating mexicans, whipping up religious resentment for muslims, implicitly supporting klan members, stoking economic resentments, saying the previous president wasn't a US citizen, etc. ad infinitum... Also... we should be clear: The "office" of the president is not a joke, even though the person currently sitting in that seat very clearly is. Resentment politics. Ceaseless propaganda and misinformation from Fox and Hannity and Breitbart and RN, etc. Failure to properly fund US education. Allowing all opinions to be treated equally even when some are clearly wrong (see also: climate change denial). These all lead to horrible outcomes. The only reason the idea of Oprah and the Rock running for president isn't immediately laughed at and rejected... the only reason we're even talking about this with any sense of seriousness... is because we've just seen someone as ridiculous as Trump win the seat (even though he lost the popular vote by about 3 million votes). "Without an educated populace, democracy cannot sustain itself."

Today I learned how difficult it is to keep count of the zeroes. 299 792 458 m / s It confuses matters even further when you realise that some folks use the , where others use the . to delineate the decimal point and the thousands separator. In the UK 343 m/s is a bit faster than 300.000 m/s The speeds are about 3E2 and 3E8 m/s. Sound is roughly a million times slower than light

What does that have to do with gravity? Apart from the fact that science doesn't prove things, on what basis should we accept new ideas? Just because they sound good? Or should we look for evidence to confirm them? Personally, I think that looking for evidence is a much better way to make progress. So all I am asking is that you provide some support for your idea. Otherwise why should anyone take it seriously? After all, if people should accept your idea just because you say so, then they also have accept all the other wacky personal theories that people come up with, "because they say so". That is why we rely on evidence to choose between theories.

Sound waves are really slow compared to electromagnetic waves (343 m/s) Electromagnetic waves (radio, microwave, visible light, UV, etc) all have the same speed which is refered to as the speed of light (300.000 m/s)

'Visible light' is just a range of frequencies in the Electromagnetic spectrum.

Do you have any mathematics for this model? Can you show (mathematically) that your model produces Newton's inverse square law? Can your model successfully replicate all the (tested and confirmed) predictions of General Relativity?

being an abused child of three

Sorry lost track of the thread. I did not mean to ignore your request. Regarding perceived socioeconomic status: Quite a few studies were done in Korean populations as they have a very high suicide rate and have, for example, explored the connection between perceived socioeconomic position and suicide attempts and ideation. Recent studies include Ko, Lee and Kim (2014, J Korean Med Sci); Kim, Park and Yoo (2015, Arch Gerontol Geriartr). Note that suicide rate as viewed by job is not an ideal measure as it extrapolates from a pool. To analyze correlations one really has to go to the raw numbers. Here, studies from various countries (and more indirectly, WHO aggregate data). For US specifically I found the paper from the Federal reserve bank of San Francisco one of the more detailed analyses (referenced in the post above). Some of the key findings: - The income distribution of the suicide population is roughly similar distributed as the general population, with a bit of a left shift (i.e. the suicide rate is slightly higher in the below-average income group. The peak of the average population distribution is at ~40k, the peak for the suicide population and about 35k (in 1990 dollars). -Overall there is moderate correlation for for higher income with lower suicide risk (10% higher income is associated with 0.87% lower suicide risk). -When looking at income groups, individuals with less than 20k income are significantly more likely to commit suicide than those with above 60k (and 20k-60k see no significant different to above 60k). Looking hazard rations, an individual with a family income less than 10k is 50% more likely to commit sucide than an individual with an income above 60k. The change with income in non-linearly, though. - However at any given income, being in a county that has a higher average income increases suicide risk. This is a finding that follows a similar theme found in the Korean study (and which I referred to above as relative income). I.e. persons with a lower average income than the county they live in, have a higher suicide risk (with apparently a broader effect on the bottom of the distribution). Race (and gender) is an independent factor from income indicating different social structures that affect suicide risk in the respective groups.

The only factor involved for the purpose of my statement is gravitational time dilation. Surface gravity acceleration: g = GM/r^2 Earth = 6.673e-11* 5.97e24/63780002 = 9.7932 m/s2 Uranus = 6.673e-11*8.68e25/255590002 = 8.8665 m/s2 Time dilation factor as measured by distant observer. 1.00000000069 sec passes for distant observer for every 1 sec on the Earth 1.00000000251 sec passes for distant observer for every 1 sec on Uranus. Surface gravity on Uranus is ~90 percent of that of the Earth, but its clock will run only 0.9999999976 as fast as the Earth clock when only taking gravitational time dilation due to the planets' masses themselves into account

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-dimensional_space Entanglement and quantum-probability imo demands an extra dimension. https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.01287

! Moderator Note So assertions have no place in arguments if you can't back them up with evidence, yes? Without evidence in support, it's all guesswork and opinion, which isn't science. Thread closed. Don't start another thread on this topic.

Yes. My bad.

In fact, it seems to me that most US businessmen know little about business except cutting costs and bribing politicians.

For the record, Oprah is not a pop singer. But to address the question, I guess I'd vote for her over Donald but that is not saying much. I think we've shown that people unqualified are not a good choice, whether we agree with their thoughts or not. No, I will not vote for Oprah.

Your first mistake is your "argument from incredulity" fallacy. Your second mistake is that as you have been shown now many times, space and time are actually variable and it is the speed of light which is constant. This is now well and truly beyond any reasonable doubt, and has been confirmed many times and continues to be confirmed every day.

I think you will find that most regular members here, opposed to 'going along with the crowd', will make their own decisions on things based on the evidences they receive. Many here will change their views on almost any topic if you provide correct incontestable evidence. Quite the opposite from 'going along with crowd'. I have seen the person you are talking to here above change his views on a number of things when shown supported evidence of a claim. This usually comes with a 'thank you for correcting me' comment. No one here will take your word for your assumptions or musings without some testing, demonstration or proper maths. The field which you are speculating on is pretty well researched and modelled. If you want to change it you have to show you have a better model - not random musings based on guesses and assumptions. No one will sheep like follow you into believing untested claims and nor should they.

Strange is many things, idiot is not one of them. Explain your experiment. Your mathematics can be compared to current proofs supplied from experiments for things from gravitational waves, atomic clocks, etc. If it matches all of those, then it might be true. So, firstly, what does your mathematics predict is the speed of light? Edit: Perhaps attempt to address the questions and points I raised rather then giving a downvote because I didn't agree with you.

Firstly, nothing is ever "proven" in science. And, no, obviously it hasn't been directly tested at infinity. It would be practically impossible to measure the Earth's gravitation field outside the solar system (and probably even within it). But the theories we have, which have been tested and confirmed, predict that it does in fact go on forever. Which brings us to the point of this thread: it is not a place for you to question established science but to provide some support for your idea. So, what is the mathematical basis for gravitation field having an edge? Please show us in appropriate mathematical detail that your model of "dense" space-time produces the same results as GR (in other words, the same results as experiments).

A proposal: Time is actually a constant even though we may not ever be able to measure it with complete accuracy. Isn't it reasonable to believe that even with all the fancy clocks we can't really measure time as a constant? There's too many variables. Nothing is stationary. Relative station cannot be reasonably figured. We have human weaknesses. Measuring time is certainly one. The clocks on the planes going around the Earth, to think that they could account for all variables, and to think they could account for aging, seems absurd.

That is not how gravity works.

I'm certain Oprah could probably learn how to become president. However, by the time she learned how to navigate politics, how to convince senators and congressmen to support her bills, by the time she learned how to watch out for all the tiny details in the bill, by the time she learned how to sway some of the opposition, her presidential term would be over. My belief is that pretty much anyone can learn. However that doesn't make them good at it, nor does it mean that it will happen with just a quick briefing. Additionally, it's hard to change your mindset. And running a talk show is definitely a different mindset than being president. Being a billionaire and owning resorts/golf courses is definitely a different mindset than being president. Being a military general is definitely a different mindset than being president. It's my opinion, and I'd imagine a few others in this thread, that the best mindset to have is someone who has already been in office. Someone who's used to the twisted strategies, cunning, etc. However. Just because they have the mindset doesn't mean they're good. I'm just saying for them to be effective, they need the right mindset. Because you have to remember. The president alone can't do anything he/she wants to. The legislative branch plays a huge role in that.

Have you ever even heard of michelson and Moorley? Has anyone here?

Well I have heard of Michelson-Morley. Nothing to do with gravity, though. So perhaps you could explain.

The M-M experiment was about the medium that carries light (there isn't one) not space-time or gravity. Then you need a mathematical model that makes testable predictions if you want this to be taken seriously. So what is your experiment and what is your predicted result? Not that this prediction needs to be quantified (i.e. a numerical value or range) in order to be testable.

Yes that medium being space-time. yeah well if I prove my theory hopefully it will be more then the underbelly of a internet science forum.

This is just a short one minute video I made of a theory on how gravity works. Lets here your feedback if you got any.

Uh huh mechelson and moorley and all that. A kind of person like you, which there are MANY of, goes along with the crowd if they were all pulling out there fingernails and hair because it was the trend to make you smarter. Anything thrown on your plate is completely bias to whether you have read it before or what someone else has already said. Do you have a single original thought in your head? It's the most obvious cliche of a person to only believe things that are provable like if turn my VCR on, then the control button will perform this function. So GR and the Michelson Moorley experiment is your solid proof then huh? Tell me, does the light returning along the same path that it was sent out on in the interferometer experiment cancel the momentum gained or lost being sent out, have no effect, or some effect? By the way I do have an idea for an experiment using a femto camera to measure for the movement of space time. I didn't know I was REQUIRED to prove it to an idiot like you on the internet. SO SORRY!!!