Butch

This is fun people, everybody getting things out there! 

By the way Trump is a great believer in science benefitting the world, I think we will see some great things, if he can get them through the hill.

3 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

If I paid to go to Trump uni, I'd expect to be a failure.

I'm going to cite Poe's law soon.

I can't tell if you are joking or not.

There are those who attended and have done quite well, they don't need their money back.

Have you ever played the stock market? I don't mean a 401k, a broker or a Muni. I mean taking the bull by the horns and eking out a profit.

1 minute ago, waitforufo said:

Better than that Butch, every one of his tweets is a pleasure to read.  It's like Trump is reading my mind.  Many of therm are incredibly humorous.  

He is not afraid for the world to see him as he is, he "ain't" perfect but he is happy in his skin.

6 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

We have already pointed out that he changes his story more often than some folk change their socks.

If he believes one thing  on odd numbered days and another thing on even numbered ones, doesn't that show he's just swaying in the breeze of public opinion?

 

Trump does not back off, change his story or start making apologies... He doubles down on what he believes and "Damn the torpedoes!" How would you like to wake up in his shoes everyday? Now tell, why does he even bother.

3 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I didn't pay for my tuition. I lived in a civilised country where the State recognised that society at large is the greatest beneficiary from an educated population, so they paid.

Obviously, I had to work to learn, but I was free from worrying about funding, so I had the chance to study more.

 

Have you given up trying to pretend that Trump is honest? Is that why you changed the subject?

If you paid tuition for Trump University and expected to learn to become a billionaire without applying yourself, would you be surprised when you failed?

I believe Trump is an honest statesman, I also believe he is a dog that will rip out your through with no mercy in the business world. If he wanted to be a politician, he could probably do well. I do believe he chooses to be a statesman.

16 minutes ago, Outrider said:

24 minutes ago, Butch said:

he says what he thinks

No he dosent he says what he thinks his supporters want to hear.

He speaks what he believes and hopes to have the support of the people, that is why they all hate him on Capitol Hill.

Before we get to Trump University, let me ask the students here...

Did you pay your tuition and have knowledge injected into your veins... Or did you have to work hard to learn?

3 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

The job of a president is to speak for all.

Any twit can speak for themselves.

 

Re fact checking.

You just broke the irony meter

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/21/carly-fiorina/trumps-four-bankruptcies/

Trump doesn’t deny that four of his businesses have filed for bankruptcy. He argues, however, that filing for bankruptcy is a common business decision, and he was smart to make the moves when he did.

His businesses filed reorganizational bankruptcy, He has never filed any form of bankruptcy.

No one can speak for everyone. Politicians are just good at using language so that you believe they are.

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

The problem is not that nobody speaks for him, but that he speaks for nobody but himself.

That is what we all do, if a man speaks his mind and the people agree for the most part... He might become president!

Not trying to be sexist, I used the term man only because of Trump's gender.

Just now, John Cuthber said:

Come off it.

Were you kidding when you said that?

http://www.straitstimes.com/world/united-states/president-donald-trump-u-turns-on-6-issues

Also, he's shit at business.

If he had just bought real estate with the famous "small loan of a million dollars" from his dad, he would be much richer.

Instead he managed to go bankrupt repeatedly.

Again, you had better check your facts... Donald Trump has never been bankrupt.

2 minutes ago, Outrider said:

Apparently we value different things. 

Nothing wrong with that.

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

But he never says the same thing twice. He lies; and then he lies about lying.

That's not being "honest" it's being incompetent, and dishonest.

 

That is not true, you had better check your facts, he does not make apologies or change his story for anyone... Remember where he came from, the business world is a lot tougher than the hill!

2 minutes ago, Outrider said:

No he dosent he says what he thinks his supporters want to hear.

 

He is often wrong and rarely honest.

I have no problem with him using Twitter, Facebook or any other medium that suits him. I have a big problem with what he says most of the time.

And being dishonest about being dishonest. 

At least he still says it without consideration about who will like it.

On 11/5/2017 at 10:48 AM, tuco said:

Question is which "Trump tweets" are Tump's own: http://www.newsweek.com/does-trump-write-his-own-tweets-677821

Also, the trend of strategic speechwriting in the second decade of the 21st century being dumbed down to 140 characters is kind of disturbing to me. Mr Trump is the first Twitter president and I suspect there will be more.

I don't believe Trump with his super enormous ego will have anyone speaking for him.

On 11/5/2017 at 10:08 AM, Ten oz said:

Trump regularly doubles, triples, and quadruples down on his statements. Implying his remarks are just off the top of his head errors is disingenuous. I challenge you to name a SINGLE time Trump has ever indicated that he misspoke or didn't mean what he had said or tweeted. 

He never does, he says what he thinks, not what he thinks is popular, doesn't mean he isn't wrong... Just means he expresses himself honestly.

On 11/5/2017 at 10:33 AM, Phi for All said:

If you think he's speaking honestly, then how can you honestly think he's fit to be in his position?

I also think you're making a mistake with your line of thinking. You're lending him a LOT of power when you give him credit for "calling a spade a spade" (or whatever phrase one might use to try to excuse crude behavior and appalling prejudice), like it somehow magically makes it both relevant and appropriate.

Politicians have been using office to their own benefit way to long. I don't believe Trump is the best president we ever had, but I do believe he is a statesman who will break up the party on both sides of the fence and give this government back to the people.

Well, I don't follow his tweets(obviously the media does). I think that someone that speaks off the top of their head, may often speak wrongly, foolishly or unpleasantly... But at least they are speaking honestly.

Some of Trump's tweets are well...

Would we really rather have a president that hides behind closed doors and speaks only via a speech writer or a very strategic press secretary?

19 hours ago, Strange said:

Nope. That is not what a postulate is. The closest thing to "fact" in science is a theory.

You have presented no meaningful math.

Have you not heard of dimensional analysis? Your "formula" is meaningless.

As

I

Have

Stated

previously...

The math of our relative universe does not work in the absolute, if you look at the charts you should be able to understand that with limits of infinity, the hyperbolic curve of acceleration becomes a right angle... This indicates that the framework of the universe exists only @ T0 absolute present time. 

Because of neural delay and the travel time of photons we witness the curved path between -15 Ms and -13.67  billion years, if we look at a distant body it can be plotted as a single point between these two.

I have elected to describe the beginning of the big bang as the point of unity, as we cannot measure things that are in the past beyond the right angle represented by the plot with limits of infinity, thus we can plot objects on this curve as a function of time with values less than unity. For example a body at a distance of 1 gly would be placed at 1/13.67 =  T-0.073152889539136.

I prefer to call 13.67 gly one cosmic unit, if you think it wise to use different units I am open to suggestions.

If you follow me, we can continue with dimensional analysis, I am just trying not to lose you along the way, you have been responding for quite some time... I do appreciate that.

I see the multiverse as a web of black holes each containing a universe which contains black holes...

On 10/23/2017 at 2:48 PM, Strange said:

Just came across this blog post. If inflation happened then it suggests that a multiverse is inevitable: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-multiverse-is-inevitable-and-were-living-in-it-311fd1825c6

Excellent article, it has occurred to me that if the universe is infinite it still has a finite number of possibilities defined by physical laws, hence it would reduce to a fractal... An infinite number of the same occurrences.

4 hours ago, Strange said:

Then your understanding is seriously flawed. How can a wave have no dimension? And if light gives up its energy, then it no longer exists therefore the wave no longer exists.

How much dimension does a frequency shift have? A photon can have a frequency measured over an infinitesimal amount of time. Indeed if a photon gives up it's energy( which they do) what is left of it?

4 hours ago, studiot said:

It's that overmarinaded tuna agian.

 

The fool on the hill, sees the sun going down, but the eyes in his head see a world spinning 'round.

4 hours ago, DanTrentfield said:

And for our next trick I present to you, Door number three! (AKA Hubble's law). http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/hubble.html 

A successful science paper often contains 1% idea and 99% evidence. Please cite some evidence besides a statement Einstein made, like at least some math or genuine scientific papers investigating the phenomenon you are describing. 

If nothing in science is fact then nothing is fact. Which means I'm a super rich dude with a mansion an a garage full of cars that cost five million a piece, which I am clearly not. 

Physical laws and scientific theories can never be 100% confirmed because you could never observe 100% of the scenarios where it could be observed. To doubt the fact that is in science is like doubting you have a hand. 

That is why we call them postulates.

4 hours ago, Strange said:

Those are not the only two possibilities.

Reported for lack of science.

I have presented the simplest math I can at this point and you pretend ignorance. It is simply acceleration... Do you or do you not understand S=1/T^2 it is a simple acceleration formula...

In my understanding light is a wave without dimension, hence no mass. Upon encountering matter it creates a dimensional wave when giving up it's energy.

Yes, no satisfaction... I need to create orbital models, I don't need to incorporate forces, but there is timing involved.

23 hours ago, Strange said:

[deleted unhelpful comment, sorry]

Is it an Android or Apple phone? (I assume not Microsoft.)

Android

5 hours ago, Strange said:

These are not postulates, they are based on evidence and mathematical models.

You have presented no evidence and no mathematical model, just some metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. Is it time to ask the mods to close this because there is no science?

The evidence for those postulates is confined by the relative universe.

They are postulates, because nothing in science is fact.

It perhaps is time for you to think on those charts and try to understand so that we can move on. I am pretty sure that you are the rare breed that does not confine themselves to learning, teaching and verifying... You want to explore.

7 hours ago, Strange said:

That is pretty meaningless as well.

Close but no cigar... What is space without time and what is time without space, note that in the absolute space and time do not coexist!

7 hours ago, Strange said:

What does "space = 1/time^2" mean? Dimensional analysis shows it to be wrong/meaningless.

What evidence are these graphs based on? Or have you just made it up?

My hypothesis says that the relative universe exists at T0, the absolute present. We can never witness the absolute present because of neural delay and the limited speed of light.

The relative universe that we witness in one instant, no longer exists in the next instant. Our sense of time is created by our minds and is a factor of the neural delay (a fly has a much different sense of time). The absolute function would be as T approaches 0, S approaches infinity. When plotted to infinity this path is a right angle...

When we translate this into what we witness in the relative, it becomes an accelerating expansion of space (matter included) so the formulae I have presented is simple acceleration... Do not let this trip you up, we are for the most part unaware of this expansion because we are a part of it. There are some indications of it and it can be measured... It can also become a victim of errant assumptions.

7 hours ago, Strange said:

In which case we wouldn't see red-shift. You can't have it both ways.

Actually, we do have it both ways... The object is distant and in the past, it is smaller then and the photons it originated then have a shorter wavelength than the photons it is originating at present. If these photons do not experience red shift in their journey across space they would arrive at our retina with higher frequency and hence energy than they should have.

Please note that the absolute facet of this phenomena would have the photons accelerating with expansion a double whammy for energy of the photon, thus the red shift in the absolute would be equal to that in the relative and they would be additive, one we can measure, one we cannot... That is we cannot measure it directly, however we know it is equal to the relative. Expressing this in more precise mathematical terms would again be meaningless until you grasp the concept, if you will study the charts I think it will help.

7 hours ago, Strange said:

More to the point, what evidence do you have for it?

Redshift and the apparent accelerating expansion of the universe that current assumptions postulate. There is other evidence, but again, we would be getting ahead of ourselves. I really am making a great effort to make sure you have your head around this concept before we move on. That does not mean you need accept it, just grasp it.

I am seeking to create an animation of an atomic model of my own creation, I need an animation app to do this on my phone, any suggestions?

Alright then, here is the answer regardless of the distance between the tires, if they are the same size, they will leave subsequent marks at the same distance from the original paint spot... The answer is 0.

These charts are plots of space v time via the function space = 1/time^2.

For clarification:

Time here is absolute time, it is flat and infinite.

Space is the absolute dimension of space, not just the void between particles.

This then is the path of space v time, at this scale it approaches a right angle and indeed plotted with limits of infinity it would be a right angle. But let us take a closer look...

This is not the chart I had prepared but it will do... At this scale we observe a hyperbolic curve, the relative soace/time we are familiar with lies along this curve. The "Big Bang" began at -unity. If you refer to the first chart note that unity is at the vertex of the right angle. 

Our present is at T-15ms (neural delay) as we look into the distance we are looking into the past, the past lies along the path of T-n, the furthest we can observe is T-1.

36 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

I always thought the cow enlarges from the size of an ant to a full grown cow the more I approach it.

I will never understand your "Absolute universe" now.

 

The physics student wondered, "Why is that frisbee getting larger?" And then it hit him. (At T0, however he did not realize it until T+15ms).

48 minutes ago, Strange said:

You are the one who needs to increase their understanding.

Just to be clear, we would see distant objects actually being smaller, which we don't. Sheesh.

We do not see them actually being smaller because we are also matter that is expanding, their relative size remains the same at any point in time, however we are observing distant objects as they were in the distant past... They were smaller then. I warned you that this concept would seek to escape you, it is difficult to think outside of relative space time.

Simply put, perspective is a part of the illusion that is the relative universe... It is difficult to ignore this illusion, it is ultimately persistent.

Perhaps it would provide incentive to grasp this concept if it seemed a worthy pursuit, so what is the use of understanding something that is outside of our "reality"?

This absolute frame of reference would provide a means by which to verify and/or modify current science, it would also provide clues for new discoveries. It should not however negate solid scientific theory, rather it should enhance our understanding.

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

No. We would see more distant objects being smaller, which we don't.

Don't you think you should a little basic cosmology before attempting to overthrow it? There is difference between "thinking outside the box" and not even knowing there is a box.

I am not trying to over throw anything, I hope to expand our understanding.

Actually objects at a distance do indeed appear smaller, we label this "perspective" this is something we accept without further consideration because it is a natural part of our relative universe. I am familiar with 1/d^2, so you need not go there. If you would stay with me while I present some charts.

14 hours ago, Strange said:

It isn't.

Could that be one of those errant assumptions? 

We are doing well Strange, you may never accept my hypothesis, however I believe very soon you will understand it.