studiot

But isn't this only part of the story ? Surely what matters is what the user of the word aetheist think it means or, if you like, means by it ? If a user uses the word differently from others she has failed to communicate her meaning, before it is even received or interpreted.

I did read your original post and I wondered if you have heard of 'pilot waves' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave_theory These seem to fit for you. However the Wiki article also describes some of the issues they don't solve or where they introduce new ones. But I would suggest you look at more fundamantal philosophy of physics here. In particular you have not addressed Markus Hanke's excellent pictures of his cylinder and the points he made about them. Amore comparable situation in Physics would be the question: Take a single molecule. What state is it in, solid, liquid or gas ? Well it displays some but not all of the properties of each. Can one molecule have a surface tnsion ? Can it 'conduct electricity' ? Does it exert a gaseous pressure ? So when we get down to single particle system we gain simplicity, but loose some properties only appropriate to (sometimes large) aggregates. So waves v particles ? What is a wave ? It conforms to a wave equation, which is a connection between space and time. Similarly particles conform to dynamic equations again linking space and time. Some times these two equation sets predict different outcomes form those observed. Sometimes the observed outcomes conform to one or other equation set, sometimes neither. So you would expect, to be able to deduce properties at specific times, given a knowledge at specific places. Or to be able to deduce properties at specific locations given specific times.

Apologies the last expression should have been, My poor typing again. [math]\frac{{{e^h} - 1}}{h}[/math] when h = 0

Not sure what you have against what I said, but once again, I am the only one prepared to accept anything at all you have said. Which is your loss if you do not want to know what has already been studied in relation to your thoughts. I entirely sympathise with those battling the unfriendly input editor here.

Well I don't know what level of mathematics you are operating at but worries about 0/0 are quite common and Country Boy's answer is the simplest available. It is difficult to know where to begin to answer when you make this obviously false statement. What is 4 times zero ? What is 6 times zero ? What is 4 times 3 ? What is 6 times 2 ? I think that there are a perfectly well defined results for all these multiplications, any many more besides. In fact, as Country Boy indicated for any or each and every b. What else do the first two multiplications, taken together show and what do the second two multiplications taken together show ? This is a unbelievably important result in arithmetic. So to discuss you question of 0/0 without referring to the more fundamental arithmetical operation of multiplication it is necessary to discuss the meaning of [math]\frac{{A}}{{B}}[/math] When A and B are mathematical objects. As an introduction let us consider the value of [math]\frac{{{x^n} - {a^n}}}{{x - a}}[/math] Where x is any rational number, and a is any rational constant and n is a power. Try to calculate the values of the expressions when x = 5 a = 5 n = 2 and x = 5 a = 5 n = 3 I make the first one 10 and the second one 75. Try also to calculate the value of [math]\frac{{{e^h} - h}}{h}[/math] When h = 0. The answer to that one is 1.

What ever colours you choose for line (not live) and neutral you will have the problem that the neutral colour can also be live in lighting and similar circuits.

Tinfoil was invented long before aluminium foil. I think tinplating was once done by pressing thin tinfoil with less thin steel sheet as a protective coating.

Some interesting questions - for many people. If you are bald would you answer to curly ? When I got married, it was conventional for women to take their husband's family name. My wife choose to keep hers , which I fully support. So we are Mr Smith and Mrs Jones. This difference makes some others feel uncomfortable, so unless someone is being akward or a nuisance, I will answer to Mr Jones, to save them that, in say a restaurant that my wife has booked, unless there is a good reason to use the correct term. For my wife there is the benefit that we know immediately a telephone caller who asks for Mrs Smith is one of those bogus scum who plague modern society, since there is no such person in the directory as all bona fide callers know us. I just regard this as getting along with folks and knowing which battles are worth making a fuss about and which are not.

I am not sure how far the moderators will allow you to reiterate your conjectures but I agree that Einstein's relativity (both SR and GR) are not the only solutions to the original observational issue(s). Please state what equations you are talking about. The transformation equations of Lorenz-Fitzgerald are derived in SR as consequences, they are not postulated as basic. Einstein thought long and hard about what physics to abandon and what to continue with in developing SR, As did others both before and after. If you wish to make a different choice, please indicate so that we can discuss the consequences of alternatives. I do agree with exchemist that there is no 'distortion' of space or time. This would imply there exists some sort of underlying absolute space and time to be 'distorted'.

So all this 'kooky science' you have introduced is a preamble and smokescreen to real agenda to gather 'evidence' from unsuspecting members for your cause. In my house, the mobile phone signal cuts out if you stand in the lounge doorway. So does the rover handset to the landline and so does the radio signal for broadcast radio services. This is because the lounge doorway is through a fire compartment wall in the centre of the house. This wall is made from [math]4\frac{1}{2}[/math] inch brickwork, plastered both sides. This is nothing unusual in masonry buildings. Please restate you issue fairly and openly.

I said no such thing. But I did ask you a simple question of Mathematics, which in your 25 lines of self congratulation you have failed to address. I hope you will stoop from your exalted position to to answer it soon as I fear this thread will onterwise beclosed as contributing nothing to Modern and Theoretical Physics. You have made a mathematical claim, Sir. Back it up with Mathematics.

The text refers to relative permittivity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_permittivity

Thank you for your answers. I'm sorry to report that your answer to my first question was lost somewhere in the translation. (about the sine wave plus 20% third harmonic at a phase of -135o.) Can you please complete it because it is a straightforward counterexample to your earlier claim that This discrepancy needs explaining. I wondered if your zero crossing distortion was what is commonly called crossover distortion by another name and that would appear to be the case. I don't think the renaming is a good idea since 'zero crossing' is a recognised technique to reduce/theoretically eliminate intense RF harmonic activity in power control circuitry and not in anyway connected to harmonic distortion in circuits. I would further like to observe that there are other (non harmonic) forms of distortion which can be of greater importance than any harmonic distortion in a well designed electronic/electric system.

So you are claiming that [math]339.4\sin \left( {100\pi t} \right) + 67.9\sin \left( {300\pi t - \frac{{3\pi }}{4}} \right)[/math] is not a sine wave distorted by 20% third harmonic at a phase angle of - 135o ? I think we need considerably more background about what you are trying to do and what sort of distortion you mean. And by the way what is zero crossing clipping ? How do you clip something that has zero value ?

There is a difference between a spectral analysis of a waveform and the waveform itself. You have claimed to be talking about the spectral analysis of a clipped sine wave. A function that has the form f(t) : Asin(wt) + C is not a sine wave

I rather feel that dicussion is proceeding at cross purposes here. I am also trying not to emulate the OP's rude way of addressing forum members but wait until he posts what exactly what he means. In particular what 'formula' is he using for the 'magnitude' of a partly clipped sine wave ? And what, exactly is meant by 'magnitude' anyway. The average value of any alternating current must be exactly zero.

Since this thread is in Earth Science, I suggest you get your old Geography books out and look at them, as you have several serious misconceptions in that post. Wind blows essentially horizontally, not vertically. Different winds blow horizontally at different altitudes and rarely direct connect. Luckily for you the main transfer of (solar) heat from the tropics to the poles is by ocean currents, not winds. This redistribution is vital to making vast areas of the planet's dry land habitable. When talking of currents, the water rises and descend in 'gyres', currents like winds, are more or less horizontal. You should also distinguish between tidal streams which use gravitationally derived energy and currents.

I see you've been not reading my posts again.

That would be me. Pity you didn't answer my comment whilst your thread was still open. You are quite at liberty to quote what others have been saying, moreso , you are even encouraged so to do. We call that discussion at ScienceFroums.

We have particle accelerators that accelerate particles away from the source at speeds where relativity should show up. Perhaps those that know more about particle accelerators than I do could say if any measurements have been done on radiation from these accelerated particles ?

Good question +1

Yes please more detail. I am suprised by animated graph in relation to you statement that the positive peak is clipped. I would expect harmonics with negative values at the fundamental positive clip to be shown as they must predominate to reduce the positive peak, which is what clipping is.

You are the one making the unsubstantiated claim, Please provide mathematical backing for it.

1) Accelerate the implementation of "The Great Green Wall" This has already been shown to be successful. https://www.greatgreenwall.org/about-great-green-wall 2) Look for other areas of the planet where similar schemes might be implemented eg The Gobi, Australia.

I'm glad someone else is also finding invariants. +1 I keep saying that the muon experiment is better than the train example because it is 1) Simpler 2) Is an actual experiment that not only can be carried out but has been many times since the first one.