Bufofrog

10 hours ago, Engineeer said:

Imagine a certain volume of space is instantly deleted. Now the space around it fills the void halfway and making the diameter of the void volume double in length

How could space be deleted?  What does that even mean?  Why would space fill the area of deleted space.

5 hours ago, lidal said:

Can we also talk about 'invariance' of the speed of sound?

Sure.  The speed of sound is not invariant.  You need to look up the meaning of invariant.

5 hours ago, lidal said:

I am just trying to figure out how all this changes the argument.

Your argument is that the speed of light is not invariant.  IOW you think that an inertial observer should measure the speed of light as c + v or c - v, where v is the speed of the inertial observer.  That is not true, all experiments show the speed of light is invariant, IOW the speed of light is always measured as c for all inertial observers.  So there really is no argument, because experimentation falsifies you proposal - end of story

23 minutes ago, CarlD said:

Each photon has a structure, probably similar to a sinus curve, but in 3D. It deforms space where it passes.

Do you have any evidence in support of this?

13 hours ago, Trurl said:

Remember the Matrix was designed to create peace.

It was created as a power supply for the machines.  I'm not sure why the machines didn't just use cows or pigs instead of humans.  There would be a much lower chance of  cows revolting against the machines.  Just saying...

2 minutes ago, CarlD said:

Waves moving through an area. The waves have a form, thus they slightly increase distances for anything crossing them. Which gives us curvature of spacetime or gravity, and is responsible for more where frequencies are higher or other factors apply

That does not make any sense to me.  Could you explain a bit more how waves cause the curvature of spacetime?

54 minutes ago, lidal said:

Therefore, the proposed experiment is a test of one of the two pillars of relativity: the constancy of the speed of light.

I believe you have been informed several time that the invariance of light has been tested.  I also believe you have been informed multiple times that the term is invariance not constancy.  You seem to be trying very hard to ignore all attempts to help you.

2 hours ago, MPMin said:

If that falsifies my hypothesis then doesn’t that also contradict the bbt as well?

No.

2 hours ago, MPMin said:

Or, if there are exceptions to the bbt, then perhaps the same exceptions could apply in all cases.

It is not an exception.

It seems like you are not really knowledgeable about the BBT or red shift.  Before trying to replace a theory one should understand the theory. 

9 hours ago, MPMin said:

The confusion from my perspective is why does my hypothesis need to explain anything about the CMBR when my hypothesis only describes that the redshift in all electromagnetic radiation might only be caused by the collective mass of the universe red-shifting all electromagnetic radiation from our perspective on earth?

EM radiation from all other galaxies is not just red shifted, some galaxies are blue shifted.  That would seem to falsify your idea.

3 minutes ago, lidal said:

The GPS has been one of the problematic experiments for my theory.

You don't actually have a theory.  Being very gracious, I would say you have a hypothesis.  That being said I would further say your hypothesis has been disproven by experimentation.

15 hours ago, Chris Sawatsky said:

it is said that our star will run out of Hydrogen, Helium and other light elements, begin burning heavier elements and becoming hotter and hotter until it goes Supernova.

It is wrong, because the sun will not become a supernova.

15 hours ago, Chris Sawatsky said:

Primarily evolution is the development of psychological, physical and spiritual coping mechanisms.

No, it is about changes in a populations genetic makeup over time.  

3 hours ago, MPMin said:

If the universe was as described above, wouldn’t the collective gravity of outer universe cause light to redshift from our perspective on earth thus creating the illusion that the universe is expanding?

I wouldn't think that would be the case.  In the universe you are describing there would be equal amounts of mass around the photons.  IOW the strength of gravitation attraction in front of the photons direction of travel would be the same as behind it, so there would be no red shift.

1 hour ago, lidal said:

The clock at S2, upon receiving the pulse, is set to t= 2D/c , and starts counting from there. This procedure will be affected by absolute motion and the clocks will be out of synch, which will manifest as time difference (at the detector) of 'simultaneously' emitted pulses from S1 and S2.

You keep saying this and everyone keeps telling that you're wrong, so this not very productive.  The speed of light is always measured at c, so it is not possible that it is effected by the relative or absolute velocity of the inertial frame of the experiment.

3 minutes ago, exchemist said:

You don’t struggle to breathe, though.

You're right, thanks for the correction.

3 hours ago, asd2791 said:

I read new evidence in Wikipedia:

"At altitudes above 7,500 m (24,600 ft, 383 millibars of atmospheric pressure), sleeping becomes very difficult."

That is not evidence in support of your claim, that is evidence that if you are struggling to breath it is also going to be hard to sleep.

6 hours ago, lidal said:

This is Einstein’s conclusion: the speed of a light beam is always equal to c as measured by observers in relative motion.

Correct, an inertial observer will always measure the speed of light in a vacuum as c.  I think you got it now

4 hours ago, lidal said:

The principle of relativity is about inability to detect absolute motion inside a closed room with an experiment contained in that room.

More than just absolute motion you cannot perform any experiment in a closed room that will give you a hint about your motion, assuming an inertial frame.

7 hours ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said:

Gods work is complete.

Hope he has a good retirement!

6 hours ago, lidal said:

I started with a classical approach and found a result that can divide physicists. Will the two pulses in the thought experiment arrive simultaneously or not?

Are you saying that you think some physicists would think that the 2 light pulses would not arrive at the point simultaneously for an observer in that lab frame?

48 minutes ago, Capiert said:

My (major) problem (obstacle)
 is intuitively (a) psychological (block(age))
 when using the 2 (thus) inconsistent ((conflicting(?) syntax) methods
 (at the same time?)
 while dealing
 with the units (derivation).

Do you have some sort of parentheses fetish? 

I would recommend you get a degree in environmental engineering .  The pay is higher and the work is more interesting.

15 minutes ago, lidal said:

Can you put this in another way? I don't understand it when you say "S2 is not receding"

And did you mean S1 when you said S2?

It doesn't matter.  The point is both of the light pulses S1 and S2 will move at c relative to the observer on the ship, v never is considered.

Discussing how to make explosives on an open forum seems like a bad idea IMO.

5 hours ago, zapatos said:

You can't seriously be unclear about whether humans breathe through their mouths, sleeping or not. Are you trolling us?

The OP apparently has some phobia about suffocating in their sleep. 

53 minutes ago, LaraKnowles said:

Every medical website I can find says that people can breathe through their mouth, which contradicts the articles.

Then the article is wrong.  Glad we cleared that up.

32 minutes ago, kenjimckinstry said:

It looks like the field actually has circular grooves

The picture is just a way to represent the field, there are no actual lines or groves.