Ghideon

The prevailing view in physics does not assert that a 'physical linear timeline' is real. General relativity is widely accepted and demonstrates that time is relative and not linear (and also absolute). The theory's equations are non-linear.

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/133936-testing-for-tolerance/?do=findComment&comment=1266513 https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/133936-testing-for-tolerance/?do=findComment&comment=1266462

If I have the funds; what experiment should I run to falsify chronovibration and hence your ideas? Assume I have the means to run experiments that are focusing on concepts in established theories and the equipment is built by engineers whose methods relies on current understanding of physics. The following two statements do seem to contradict each other, can you clarify? (In case you missed the question earlier)

The units of Planck's constant and electron's angular momentum are the same and their values differ. Angular momentum of an electron is quantized and depends on quantum numbers.

The Compton wavelength of a particle depends its mass and is given by the equation: h/mc h: Planck's constant, m: Mass of the particle, c : Speed of light in vacuum.

As far as I know the Compton wavelength depends on the mass of a particle. What mass & particle does your statement "The Compton wavelength" refer to? You said: Can you clarify?

I am struggling wit the first sentences; From your statement "Chronovibration is measured the same way photon speed is measured" I get that Chronovibration has the same unit and the same value as the speed of light in vacuum; is that what you mean? Equation Fq = c / λC does not clarify how chronovibration itself is measured or detected distinctly from existing phenomena like the speed of light or photon energy. Could you provide a detailed methodology for how chronovibration is experimentally distinguished and measured independently?

Thanks! I'll rephrase my question; please give a detailed definition of chronovibration including: Measurement: How can chronovibration be measured experimentally? What specific methodologies or instruments are used? Verification: Are there empirical experiments that have verified the existence of chronovibration? If so, could you describe these experiments and their outcomes? Units and Quantization: What units (preferably in SI units) are used to quantify chronovibration? Is chronovibration considered a quantized phenomenon, occurring in discrete packets, or is it a continuous variable? Conservation and Relativity: Is chronovibration a conserved quantity within the framework of your theory? How does chronovibration behave under the principles of relativity, particularly in different inertial frames of reference? Additionally: If the aspects I mentioned do not apply, could you explain other relevant properties?

What is "chronovibration"?

I agree. @Externet what is the purpose of sharing the documents? Majestic 12, also known as Majic-12, and MJ-12 for short, is a purported organization that appears in UFO conspiracy theories. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majestic_12) The wikipedia page have several references, for instance FBI comment on documents like those posted above: https://vault.fbi.gov/Majestic 12/

You are correct and I guess it depends on premise and any options one might have? Want to join a trip to a new planet? I want to know if it is habitable. We will send our kid to a new planet. I would like to know, like Jor-El*, if the planet is habitable. We have to go now or we are doomed! Ok, I'll join and hope for the best. But to be honest, I have no idea about what could motivate extra terrestrial beings, if they exist. If the goal is to use armadas of self-replicating machines and panspermia to propagate through the universe then I guess data return is of less concern? True; I did not refer to any sightings, just provided possible answers, from a human perspective. (just to be clear: I no not think any sightings or UAPs are in any way related to any aliens activities) *) Otherwise I guess Superman would have been in trouble; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jor-El

Home destroyed due to bad management or disaster(s)? propagation?

I'm a little late, I think all aspects are sorted out already. But I had started drawing a picture of different aspects of the relative velocities in the scenario. Posting in case anyone finds it helpful: Rocket A is traveling from space station a at velocity VAa (Aa denotes that the velocity is the relative velocity between a and A) Rocket B travels from station b at velocity VBb . The rockets will meet head on and VAa=-WBb Equations: 1: a and b (the space stations) are at rest relative one another, in the same inertial frame of reference 2: When each rocket's crew measures the velocity of the other approaching rocket, relative to their own rocked, the velocity does not match the sum of velocities relative their starting points. (Assuming the correct sign is used since velocity is vector) 3: for low speeds the sum of velocities is a reasonable approximation 4: Rocket A will measure its speed relative its starting point to be the same (with negative sign) as the rocket B will measure relative it's starting point 5: Rocket A will measure leaving a with the same velocity that it is approaching b (minus the sign) 6: In any case the relative velocities between the rockets, measured by crew on board A, is greater than the rocket's velocity relative it's starting point a (and symmetrical for rocket B and crew) 7 (now shown) observers on a or b will agree that the rockets will meet half way between a and b. The sum of distance traveled by A plus B can be more than a light signal could travel in the same amount of time. (did this in a bit of a hurry between other things, please point at errors)

Fiber optic cables operate on the principle of total internal reflection, not the photoelectric effect.

You are probably referring to electroluminescence, not photoelectric effect.

Are you by any chance using translation software? If so it is not very good; I think "technobabble" is the correct definition for the above.

No. As far as I know modern touchscreens typically work either via resistive technology or capacitive technology.

The opening post does not make much sense; what do you wish to discuss?

Can I assume that AI content can be discussed in the Computer Science section as long as it is used in correct context? Example: A member wants do discuss the scientific reasons for choosing between competing AI-based prompting strategies: "In the linked peer reviewed paper the LLM version X was observed to provide an improvement of 3.6% in test Y when using AI generated prompts based to template Z, below is a table of examples." The context in the example is science related to LLM's rather than the application of scientific-looking output of an LLM. In this case discussing AI content may be appropriate outside of speculations section? (English not my first language; so the answer may possibly be obvious)

Did you read what the AI generated? From your document: Your post looks like a joke about LLM usage. Was that the intention?

Ok. The sun's apparent motion across the sky is due to the earth's rotation. That means that a sudden shift in velocity of the suns movement requires the earth rotation to suddenly change. No such change in earth rotation was observed during the eclipse. It would have been a rather cataclysmic event. So the equipment and how it was used is relevant if you want to know how the video looks the way it does.

I agree. Modern equipment (hardware and software, phones for instance) may have image and video stabilisation. So the impression @Sensei mentions might be enhanced if the clouds are kept stable by the hardware/software so that the sun looks like it's moving quick.

Can you show, mathematically, how you transform between two inertial frames of reference in your conjecture? Especially; highlight any differences or similarities (due to your ideas) when mathematical equations are applied to brains and clocks* in different inertial frames of reference. Also highlight if any postulates or assumptions deviates from the mainstream. I know the established physics (Lorentz transformation etc) so I'm curious about a comparison. (Your explanations raises many questions regarding the logical consistency of your conjecture and explanations; I will return to these issues later) *) Your explanations seem to propose that human brains and time keeping devices does not follow the same physical laws

Can you explain this in the context of special relativity? Especially how the "internal clock" works for observers in relative motion.

Done. I bring £1000,000 to your house, zero times. Maybe you are confusing multiplication with subtraction when you create your examples. (edit: User banned while I was writing)