granpa

on a logarithmic scale it would indeed be a shift

if x axis represents wavelength then a change of scale is the expected result.

the simplest error correcting code is a multidimensional parity code. when given a set of data with lots of errors one uses the code to determine which bits are probably wrong and then correct them and then you repeat the process with the newly generated set of data with fewer errors in it. you would think it would be that simple but it isnt. to make those first corrections one must make certain assumptions. then when you repeat the process you are making more assumptions based on your first assumptions. repeated indefinitely this can and does result in the data being "corrected" incorrectly. modern codes are very careful to go back and remove any assumtions before going on to the next level. Put simply, you make assumptions to arrive at new data but then you must be careful to make sure that this new data doesnt require you to drop your original assumptions. when there are many stages to the process its easy to forget what assumptions you first made

As I said before, reality doesnt change when you change reference frames. Only the labels you put on event changes. the universe began the same in all reference frames. I have no idea why you think it wouldnt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science Cargo cult science refers to practices that have the semblance of being scientific, but do not in fact follow the scientific method[1] The term was first used by the physicist Richard Feynman during his commencement address at the California Institute of Technology, United States, in 1974. Cargo cults—the religious practice that has appeared in many traditional tribal societies in the wake of interaction with technologically advanced cultures—focus on obtaining the material wealth (the "cargo") of the advanced culture by building mock aircraft, landing strips, and the like Feynman cautioned that to avoid becoming cargo cult scientists, researchers must first of all avoid fooling themselves, be willing to question and doubt their own theories and their own results, and investigate possible flaws in a theory or an experiment Examples in specific experiments and results Oil drop experiment: The history of published results for this famous experiment is an example given in "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" - in which each new publication slowly and quietly drifted more and more away from the initial (erroneous) values given by Robert Millikan, rather than all having a random distribution from the start around what we now believe the correct result is. This slow and linear drift in the chronological history of results is unnatural and suggests that nobody wanted to contradict the previous one, instead only submitting for publication "agreeable" results. Physician Raymond Tallis[2] describes the psychoanalytic school established by Jacques Lacan as an example of cargo cult science. Tallis argues that Lacan, who was poorly trained in both traditional medicine and psychoanalysis, superficially mimicked medicine and science, and that Lacan's later devotees similarly mimic their guru's confused concepts. The Cranfield University report “Aircraft Cabin Air Sampling Study”[3] provides a recent example of cargo cult science. The government-sponsored study purported to measure the concentrations of toxic substances in aircraft cabin air but used such inappropriate[vague] methodology the results were of little value.[4][5][6] Nevertheless, they were used to make comparisons with domestic environments of dubious relevance in order to assert that “...there was no evidence for target pollutants occurring in the cabin air at levels exceeding available health and safety standards and guidelines.”[3] http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm

http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Science/einstein_aether_and_relativity.php Aether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein, PhD

you completely miss the whole point of relativity. all that changes between different objects is the labels you put on the times for events. the events themselves dont change.

An aspect of "that which exists"

a redshift of 7 corresponds to a time when teh universe was 1/7 the size it is today. if it was 1/7 the age of the current universe then it would have been 2 billion years old not 750 million years

time does not exist any more than red exists. time is an aspect of "that which exists" "that which exists" began with a single singularity

no. I'd say its indistinguishable from a singularity

everything didnt come from nothing. everything came from everything. at the beginning "everything" was a single singularity. at that point one simply cant go back in time any further. there was no before the beginning.

the big halos surround superclusters

each entry is exactly 256 times larger than the one above number 12 is exactly 1 angstrom

light works the same way in 4+1D as it does in 3+1D except that the magnetic field is no longer a vector field. in 4+1D the magnetic field becomes a bivector field a vector field has a vector defined at each point. a bivector field has a plane defined at each point. in 3+1D the electric field, the magnetic field, and the direction of propagation are always at right angles to each other. in 4+1D this is still true.

By em3ryguy at 2012-02-25

easier to just use tides

rotation is not relative. rotation is absolute

escape velocity from earth surface is 11.2 km/s lorentz factor for 11.2 km/s is 1.000000000698 therefore a clock on earths surface ticks 1,000,000,000,698 times while a clock in deep space only ticks 1,000,000,000,000 times a satellite in very low earth orbit has a velocity of 11.2/sqrt[2] km/s = 7.92 km/s lorentz factor for 7.92 km/s is 1.000000000349

its easier to understand newtons laws in the context of kirchhoffs circuit laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_circuit_laws

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lp_space lp spaces are flat and each has a different value for pi

not 'n'. pi

the universe had a beginning time itself had a beginning. yet there was never a time when 'nothing' existed. everything did not come from nothing. everything came from everything. in the beginning 'everything' was a singularity. http://www.city-data.com/forum/philosophy/1561741-original-state-existence.html

dont you need a subducting plate to generate destructive tsunamis?

some single celled organism ingested another of its kind (perhaps a spore) and instead of being digested it it got released into the interior of the first cell and the resulting diploid cell had some advantage that allowed it to survive and outcompete others