Mellinia

note that the angle of deviation(after the double refraction) for each light ray of different colors is zero.
You may verify this by doing a simple calculation by using snell's law, for different wavelengths of light.

Scientist in China(using earth tides) have calculated the speed of gravity as c.The earth's shape is affected by the sun(gravitational force) and there will be time where different areas experience different tides(not water but land tides). They calculated the time of propagation between the changes and found that the time used for the tides to change is the same as the time for the light of the sun to reach the earth at those places.

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2013/01/02/Findings-say-gravity-moves-at-light-speed/UPI-37801357162827/

Entertaining maybe, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it would be educational.

Yeah, not much but then again both of them will learn lots.

Anilkumar the aggression here comes from you.

 

You attack good sense.

You attack the scientific method.

You attack the principle that responsibility for demonstrating a case lies with the proposer.

You attack established science with unfounded assertions.

You attack logic with waffle.

 

You offend science, scientists and this forum. I attempted to reason and advise you at the outset. I complimented you on your passion. Yet you arrogantly disregarded this advice and continued with your campaign of nonsense. I'm done with you.

You know what, guys? I would really really love to see this guy debate with illusio over their theories. Wouldn't that be both fun and educational?

Note: Illusio is the guy who proposed the other Truth: GR is wrong and his theory of partial dragging, particle produced ether is right.

So....I guess you can pm this guy and give it a go.

Note: He's as adamant as you are.

Watch the image below. If we combine the two triangles we get different results. Triangles will be replaced with the number 3 (because triangles have three angles), the results obtained with the number as a geometric object angles. Connecting the two triangles is the mathematical operations of addition

a + b = c

1.3 +3 = 3

2.3 +3 = 4

3.3 +3 = 5

4.3 +3 = 6

5.3 +3 = 7

6.3 +3 = 8

7.3 +3 = 9

8.3 +3 = 10

9.3 +3 = 12

The current mathematics has the answer (4.3 +3 = 6), it is impossible for the other, the reality is that this may be true.

I'll show you a review of mathematics that solves problems, join ...

Ms. you have confused yourself with pictures and math. When I take 1+1, I will always get two. You put two triangles on top of each other, and you still end up with two triangles. The problem is what you see.

Nothing unreal exists. Space is unreal. Void is unreal. Time is unreal. Massless particles are unreal.

Who among you believe the Big Bang as the beginning, the creation?

on a side note, ......Have someone hacked your account? But I digress...

Most of us do believe Big Bang as the beginning...

Space and time are virtual concepts, but they fit in nature. Yes, they are not real, but they exist....

Photons, among other massless particles, can be detected by your eyes. Are they unreal? I hope not.....

In response to the OP, um, that's why they proposed gravitons to link them together.......

The experiment only seems to make sense if the electron is collected by the electron gun from the detector plate

 

But in reality there is no electron just a path that has been made

Yes, that is why the electron is a particle and a wave.

The whole moon landings were faked. I've got

the book Moonfire by Norman Mailer, there's

no blast crater or disturbance of moon dust

under the lander no a speck of dust on the

lander at all. This is a coffee table sized book

with large glossy pictures of the entire

Apollo 11 landing. A lot of the shadows were

completely impossible with parallel sunlight

cast down on the moon surface.

 

Here's some web sites that do a thorough investigation

 

http://www.ufos-alie...smicapollo.html

 

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm

 

http://batesmotel.8m.com/

I've always wondered why some people think that the moon landing "hoax" is important enough to be spat out from their mouths.

Unfounded in what sense? Total energy in case of moving rotating object is as I previously stated. Ok, maybe I should make also hypothesis that photon is a solid object. Happy now?

Which brings us to another question: Are you saying photons cannot display wave properties because it is a 'solid' object?

Let's do an analysis.

Hypothesis: Photons have mass that can be calculated by theory(if there is one)

Objective: To find the mass of a photon by calculating.

variables:

i) photon mass

Procedure:

i)Apply equation in theory.

ii)Look at the answer

Result:

photon mass is calculated.

For most of us: Hypothesis is not accepted as it does not conform to experimental results.

For you: Hypothesis is accepted as...well, because you accept your theory.

Do you see why this is so strange for us?

I believe you have seen:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/69681-avoiding-black-holes-by-gluon-field-collapse/

This guy showed us the theory, the maths (that is consistent is units, and uses maths that is not self created out of nowhere.) , the predictions.

Now that is the proper way the present a scientific theory.

Unfortunately, you showed us the theory, the maths(if that was even maths...), and the predictions....the predictions were wrong, the maths were convoluted, and the theory hinges on an effect that describes the 'ether' as a fluid, without explaining the mechanism of ether production. You simply stated some strange particles produce them, without explaining why they haven't been found yet.

Faraday did not maths. He did the experiments and let peers do their evaluation on them. Maxwell did the maths. But the Faraday experiments were consistent with the predictions of his hypothesis.

Your experiments were not self-consistent, unexplainable by your own theory, and we can't repeat it. Are you taking random results of experiments that seemed to be correct?

And still you did not in any way answer our criticisms rationally.

You didn't even to attempt to answer.

You saw no need.

You thought that we are seeing this wrongly.

当者则迷,旁观则清-->Seeing things in your own eyes doesn't compare to the objective eyes of others.

Your hope to 'collaborate' is like gathering a cult of ToEBi...with you as the cult leader.

Dude...just...........dude!

You expect too much from automata. 37R is reversible and it have distioguishable mobile objects (rows). Therefore it have some analogue of conservation low. Cellular wold is not defferenciable and likely not quantifiable. But 37r let us to see conservatiom some as a consequence of information conservation (reversiblity).

I do not know whether the official science is able to bind such things.

 

 

 

Photons (or wave) do't change their parameters is this "interaction". Them just exixts in superposition.

unfortunately, without the math, the theory cannot ensure that all rows are conserved,because you would have to do the experiment infinite times in infinite conditions to show that this holds for infinite rows.

You keep saying the samething

 

Just be against it

Defend your self

Be correct

 

So you shall none be to blame if something auful happens

 

 

The ozone layer has holes in it. What could be worse? [/sarcarsm]

What are there symtoms Ifbe being i can assist there illness or if sickness

 

I agree I am also against rockets and airplans

 

So you suppose it is not a lie and there is holes in the OzoneLayer

 

You need to specificaly explain your supposings Be more specific every time

Rockets already flew to the moon.

The ozone layer is depleting.

The ozone layer is not a solid.

The animals are getting skin cancer. If you went there, you probably would too.

There is no hole in the OzoneLayer it be a hateful lie The atmosphere would have scattered out to space

Unfortunately, yes there is one, and fauna and flora are dying because of that.

Another thing. If rockets flew to the moon, the exhaust gases will also destroy part of the ozone layer, apart from tearing it apart. Thus the rockets will create holes where our atmosphere can leak out forever?!!!

That be irrelevant because it none be strong enough to manage the atmosphereive sustainance only the OzoneLayer can contain it and keep it in the relevant arrange

For air molecules to leave a planet, it must have a velocity higher than the 'escape velocity', which is

\sqrt { 2g{ r }_{ E } } 

, plugging in 9.8 for the value of g and 6.4e6 for earth's radius, we have 11kms-1. The velocity of air molecules is about 0.48kms-1, which is way smaller than the escape velocity. For where the equation come from, see Newton's universal law of gravitation. Thus, air molecules and ozone molecules don't leave the Earth that easily.

Did you thought that the ozone layer was a solid and it encased the earth?! If yes, have you ever thought of the large hole in the ozone layer above the North poles?! If your explanation were true, Our atmosphere would have been gone years ago.

Hi all,

 

Recent thoughts have led me to the question 'What is the actual physical mechanism which transmits force between objects?'

 

I'm referring to forces which act over a distance, so electric force or magnetism.

 

I'm familiar with the concept of the electric and magnetic field, where the force is proportional to the distance between the objects. But this doesn't explain how the force is actually transmitted between the objects through space between them.

 

Thanks

Dan

Photons mediate the electromagnetic force. Feynman diagrams can help in understanding it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_carrier

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

We just paint start combination. For example: 00000000000000000000010101010101010000000000000000000

After this we start program and see rows and photons which move, split and other...

They move and spilt but I don't really know if the energy contained is spilt into the different masses, or exchanged, or simply merged together. For example, your conservation of rows examples show that the rows become larger than before. What does that mean? Is energy shared? Or that energy is absorbed from the surroudings? The theory is not quatifiable.

who said the war on terror that isn't working? do you think that war on terror is finished after laden's death? if yes then let me remind you that majority of muslims DO NOT LIKE america at all. they will continue war against america in their way. besides by criticizing their prophet america makes most of the muslim, if not all, its worst enemy. these enemies will attack america in their own way. besides china also do not like american influence over their policy. there is a possible warfare ahead in the future with so many enemies of america.

 

so defence is more necessary than space research.

 

 

 

because steam engine can carry more load and work faster than horse with no fatigue at all. steam engine can be used in industry.

 

 

 

steal sword is sharper than copper and bronze sword. it can be used in war.

 

 

 

pottery is used to make pots that store our food and necessary things.

 

 

 

seeds will grow into plants that can be used for commercial purpose.

 

 

 

house is just like another cave. i still don't get the logic of leaving cave.

 

 

why send people to another planet? why find life on another planet when we have life on earth?

Have you ever played chess? If you did, you would have known that playing against a much better player than you will heighten your ability. In spite of losing almost every time, you will still gain valuable experience. I tried it, and even though it brought me lower morale, my chess skills improved and I got better in analysing the chess field.

The purpose of 'going to Mars', instead of testing and creating equipment on extreme conditions of earth is that the most extreme cases of nature is rarely observable on earth compared to Mars.

Mars has an atmosphere higher in percentage of carbon dioxide than earth. By learning to tame the levels of carbon dioxide there, we get to solve our city air pollution and find ways to clean the air.

Mars has little water. That's the crux of it! Even deserts have water pockets underground but Mars have hers in the poles. By finding ways to retain and create and recycle water, we can solve the problem of water shortage in places where droughts or unclean water is common.

Mars have no lifeforms. Thus, no source of food. By solving the problem of have an self-sustaining food source on Mars, do you have any idea how many people will that feed?!

Mars have a terrain matched with absolutely horrible weather and day-night temperatures and a higher value of 'g'. By creating machines and materials that can survive those conditions we would have created much durable materials and machines better at moving around and coping with the air pressure.The tallest mountain on Mars eclipse the earth's by whopping 14 kilometers!! A past note was that solving the problem with solar glare led us to better glass materials and better cameras.

The weather on Mars is unpredictable and by constructing ways to study it, we get better ways to manipulate our weather. Have you ever been hit by a strong hurricane and lost your home or worse...? If you had, then you would probably have wished we studied ours and Mars atmosphere better.

While trying to decipher the way to live on mars, we learn ways to adapt to current surroundings and better, because Mars is have a hell of a place to live.

On the side note,

It's quite difficult to like a country whose population treat your group as a bunch of blood thirsty killers and think that your sole reason to live is to Jihad when the majority of Sunni's are opposed to the so called Jihad. Did you ever meet a muslim before? Because I have, and my country has more than half of them, and none of them want to bomb ourselves to oblivion.

I take it you mean positive and negative as in electro-magnetism and gravity? Yes, the two forces are in perfect balance to keep us and the Earth static relative to each other. The reason we can't feel gravity but we can feel the electro-magnetism (the feeling of our weight is actually caused by the upwards force that we feel pulling us down) is because it's all at our feet, while the force of gravity is nicely spread out almost evenly throughout our bodies. We can reduce the force we feel by spreading it out more. That's why is more comfortable to lay down than it is to stand up.

 

No, it's constant in any inertial frame of reference. When an object accelerates there is a point behind that object called the Rindler horizon that marks the point that no signal could ever reach them as long as they continue to accelerate at at least the same rate. If they maintain a constant rate of acceleration then the Rindler horizon will stay a constant distance away from them. If they increase their rate of acceleration then the Rindler horizon starts catching up to them, remember it marks the point where no signal could reach them from further than this distance. As they increase their rate of acceleration at a constant rate the Rindler horizon gets closer to them at a slower and slower rate. It would take an infinite amount of acceleration for it to actually catch up to them. This is what I meant when I said that acceleration is the equivalent to velocity when moving relative to energy rather than mass, because it's exactly the same as when measuring relative velocity to another object accept that energy keeps a constant velocity relative to an object when it maintains constant acceleration and changing the rate of the acceleration when measuring velocity relative to energy is the equivalent of accelerating relative to mass. The Rindler horizon describes velocity relative to energy behind the accelerating object but the same is true in front of it. Light shining from in front the object would pull away at a constant rate if the objects acceleration were constant, and it would start to catch up to it's own light if it increased its acceleration, and at a slower and slower rate if it's rate of increase remains constant.

 

Ah, so light speed outside the horizon is not at c.

...... We reduce the stress we put on our backbone, by increasing the area of action, right?

So this electromagnetic force is equal to the reaction force of gravitational force?

There's an electro-magnetic field that stops atoms from coming into contact with each other. In normal circumstances the space between atoms is much greater than the atoms themselves. This holds up the planet. I think it's called electron degeneracy pressure, but that might be something else. Neutron stars are so heavy that this isn't enough to hold them up and they collapse until the neutrons (presumably called neutron degeneracy pressure) holds them up instead. A black hole happens when this is also not enough to hold it up and it collapses completely.

 

The constant speed of light doesn't apply when an object is accelerating, either through gravity or conventional acceleration. When using ordinary acceleration the speed of light slows down from the perspective of the accelerator. When measuring velocity relative to energy rather than matter you have to replace velocity with acceleration. If light were to move away from an object falling towards a black hole at its normal speed then the falling object would be able to see object closer to the black hole crossing the event horizon, and then if it were to accelerate away then it would have to see that object cross back through the event horizon to be outside the black hole again.

 

So the electromagnetic force is the one trying to push us away from the Earth? Technically I am uncharged, right? because the positive charges and negative charges on me cancel each other out.

Isn't the velocity of light photons constant in any reference frame, irregardless of acceleration or position? That's what SR was based on, right? When accelerating, we still measure c as c as length contraction and time dilation occurs.

As for Conway's game of life in itself it is a bad example. It use two dimensions and not reversible. Two dimensions do not allow of wave-like processes existing. In addition, model must be reversible. Universe is reversible and because of this we can know our past.

 

As for cellular automata in general I do't think that it can be as good model as equation. But cellular automata can be very useful as a first step to "a new kind of science" - information science or information physics. IMHO, the challenge is to combine the ideas of the algorithm and the information with the principles of interference of alternatives.

 

As for 37r we can not "do properties" or do anything. We can just observe 37r evolution. It very simple. Rule description you can see in Wolfram book New kind of science.

 

It is strange for me that Wolfram himself did not notice 37R-universe similarity I've illustrated here. I was more observant than Wolfram .

 

About rows mass - no, big row have not big mass.

Moreover in a long time period rows expanded and fill all closed space region. It because row is not single object but rather it is a pair of connected objects: left and right board of row.

 

I believe that information conservation demand in reversible 37R must produce some variant of mass parameter for "rows".

But difficulty lies in a fact that 37R-wold is not differentiable.

Therefore the conservation laws in 37R are more likely to be expressed in the some form like tables than in the form of the equation...

 

 

 

Then how do we observe decomposition? i.e. One row into two.

Decay of atom (nucleus?) which has been destabilized by photon.

 

 

 

37R follow energy conservation law: in evolution of closed 37R system we always have moments when we see only "rows"; we can count this rows and count does not changes.

 

For example:

 

Step 0. We have 3 rows:

 

 

 

Step 60 000. We have 2 rows and 2 photons:

 

 

Step 17 000 000: we have 3 rows again.

 

 

Same picture is observed in all closed 37R-systems.

 

Collision between row and dense "wall":

 

 

Wall can not swallow of energy and this energy carried away by photon.

("wall" is Eden - garden configuration which not have analogue in real universe).

 

Big bang in 37R:

 

 

We can see particle formation in big bang to the time when density reduced.

 

This big bang a few thousand steps later (heat death):

 

 

I hope you have fun .

 

Why 37R is so similar to real universe?

 

1. 37R does not need in particle wave duality because in one dimension wold there no differences between particle and wave.

2. 37R is reversible.

3. 37R rule have enough symmetries to show not trivial behavior.

4. 37R rule have not enough symmetries to show chaotic behavior.

5. 37R have mobile configurations.

 

It all very interesting for my but I not sure that someone can to understand my English at first .

Game of life as model for subatomic particles behavior?

How are rows added? Is there a relation? How do we their properties? i.e. Does bigger rows have bigger mass?

No, I think it's because I said something that someone didn't like.<br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">

A black hole is what happens when there's not force to overpower gravity. It's all relative but one way of looking at it is that we're constantly moving upwards away from the centre of the Earth and we feel this as a downwards force, like when you're in a lift, and time dilation and length contraction stop us going anywhere relative to anything else. Pretty cool isn't it. I love relativity. (:

I believe the moderators are pretty level-headed and will warn you if the thing is minor. There are plenty of people talking about theory without maths first in the physics forum...

Ah, I getcha...but the where does the upwards electromagnetic force of Earth comes from?

If that extrapolate is your (scientific) method then I hope you think that through again

 

I don't know if they are right and I don't have to. I have done my own experiment but that's not in focus now. But is MME measuring unmeasurable?

 

Well, if the experiment is right, then you will be right and vice versa. It's quite important.

hmm...it's maybe the same dilemma as 1+1+1 and 3P2 . Both gives the same answer but they are different in theory.

Is there a simple way to test your theory, without creating a whole new apparatus? (putting all the eggs in one basket is always a bad idea)

i.e. devise a simple and elegant experiment that tests the fundamental idea of your theory, the ether.

Vertical MME should cut it nicely.

Pen lasers? You did spend the money to create the apparatus already, right?

Just because there is ether which effects extended MME (as we have seen now).

Problem is, you didn't do it.

How do you that they are right?

You're right because they are right. And they are right because you're right?!