Strange

Hmmm well if that is possible, why didn't we end up in one of the universes with "radically different fundamental constants".

We did.

 

ajb already took diode so I'll say transistor.

I'll go for incandescent light bulb.

The resistance of a diode will be equal to voltage across it divided by the current following through it i.e. R = E/I. If one passes a different current through said diode (forward biased) then the resistance will still be in keeping with the (new) voltage across it R= E/I.

That is a pretty useless redefinition of Ohm's law. If there is no fixed relationship between V and I then it isn't much of a law. Of course there are devices where the current is not constant with a constant voltage so they don't obey even your "weak Ohm's law".

(Are we getting off topic...)

 

Is it possible we will find a cause for it in the future?

Possible, but there is no reason to think so currently.

 

Does this have anything to do with the fine-tuning argument thou lol?

It probably belongs in the Cosmological Argument thread as yet another example of things that are acausal.

I call it [charge] entity because it “ disappears” and “appears” in a precise quantity, it is “something” measured with high accuracy that don’t leave tails behind.

It doesn't appear and disappear. It is a conserved quantity (like mass-energy) and the total charge never changes.

There have been some measurements that suggest that the speed of light may have changed. But this is a few parts per million over a period of many billions of years.

Obviously, this can't be tested directly by measuring the speed of light. So it has to be done indirectly by measuring things such as the fine structure constant in the past (e.g. looking at distant galaxies). As far as I know, these measurements have not been successfully repeated or confirmed.

The other, unrelated, idea is that it is possible to choose a different set of coordinates for describing the expanding universe. If you choose appropriate coordinates then the speed of light changes over time and the universe is infinitely old (and distances shrink .... or something; I don't claim to understand the details). But it is just a different version of the same model that (for most people) is less intuitive.

The velocity of the electron at the apogee of shell 1 is 2,188,000 times .0030394. An arbitrary number that works.

Does this mean you have chosen a couple of arbitrary numbers in order to get the right answer?

8 Use the wave length to calculate the velocity of the galaxy that sent the photon to us.

Can you explain how you calculate the velocity of a galaxy from the wavelength?

Now use the calculated wave length to calculate the velocity with the "Standard" method.

How does the "standard method" calculate the velocity of a galaxy from a wavelength?

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, can someone tell me whats

wrong with the electron to stars calculation? Other than

the electron is supposed to radiate.

Can you explain what your program is supposed to calculate ... i.e. describe the steps it goes through -- it is a bit hard to read code formatted like that (I assume it is some dialect of Basic?); and not the best way to present a calculation anyway.

It looks like you are calculating the velocity of an electron (assume a classical model) and then using Doppler effect to calculate the frequency shift. And then relating the change in this velocity (and hence frequency shift) to the change in energy of energy level (or just kinetic energy?). Is that correct?

I don't see the connection to stars. Unless they are orbiting galaxies at the same velocity - which seems unlikely.

The "completely crazy" stuff is about force reducing with distance (squared). A situation in which the rubber band becomes more and more liquid as long as it extends.

 

IMHO people are not enough surprised.

I think the reason we are not too surprised by this is that we are familiar with it (qualitatively) from things like the way the intensity of light or heat, or strength of a magnet, falls of with distance. Then, learning about Newton's laws of gravity at a young age. It ends up feeling quite intuitive.

For me, at least, it was more of a shock to find that other forces didn't follow the same law.

The "rope" analogy for the strong force is limited (well, it is an analogy) in that if you break the rope, your dog runs free. If you provide enough energy to "break" the strong force, the energy is converted into more quarks ... all still bound by the strong force.

Oh, the amps just don't show up on the Amp hole.

Can you explain what that means. What is an "Amp hole"?

What make/model of multimeter are you using?

But it still measures only 1 milliamp even to the resistor with the least resistance. Wit the 2 to 3 amps it should say like 20 milliamps or higher due to the supposed bias to lower resistance. It looks like the amps still can't get through yet.

Have you actually calculated what the current should be through each resistor and in total?

What is the voltage of the battery in your circuit?

 

"and yes I can make up my own God and it's limitations" yes you can but you sure as hell arn't going to apply them to my God is uncaused and never began to exist.

The invisible unicorns came first. They created the universe and then went on to create your god.

 

Because all the scientific evidence (that I know of) points to a beginning, and there is no scientific evidence (that I know of) that points to an enternal universe.

I don't know of any scientific evidence that points to a beginning of the universe (a lot of speculation ... but a lot of speculation about an eternal/cyclic universe as well).

There may be no scientific evidence that points to an eternal universe but then ... there is no scientific evidence that points to an eternal god, either.

It may be a design flaw. The multimeter shows volts as amps even when amps is chosen and the amp holes are lit up.

What does "shows volts as amps" mean? What does "the amp holes are lit up" mean?

What make/model of multimeter are you using? Do you have the instructions for it?

Exactly, "everything which beggins to exist has a cause apart from itself" - God didn't begin to exist.

Why doesn't that apply to the universe?

But now the amps don't seem to be going through the resistors. Maybe the battery does need more power.

An ammeter between the end of the resistor and the battery now reads zero.

But yet reads a number if connected to the other side of the resistor.

All of this suggest some serious problems with your circuit and/or the methods you are using. Until you resolve that and can get consistent and meaningful results, you cannot really conclude anything.

It doesn't appear to be doing it now. I remember measuring it doing that last night, though.

I don't know how you have put your circuit together but I wouldn't be surprised if you have some poor or intermittent connections which are causing erroneous values. Or it could be that the battery voltage is running down between your measurements.

Really, you need to be using a proper regulated power supply, rather than a battery. Ideally, you would use two ammeters: one to measure the total current and one to measure the current through one of the resistors.

But, basically, electrical theory at this simple level has been extensively tested over hundreds of years. So I don't think you are suddenly going to find an obvious flaw.

Yes, almost the exact same amps.

You are obviously doing something wrong, but it isn't obvious what.

Can you be a bit more specific: what is the voltage and what are the two currents?

How do you insert a picture into a reply directly?

Ammeter position 1:

 

Ammeter position 2:

And are you saying that the ammeter reads the same in position1 and poistion2?

Theorized in Star trek Voyager.

Not a great source for scientific information.

 

I guess my point being that the Observer (the person who makes this "travel in time" or through time) should be included in the equations. This is done right now in physics?

Yes. In relativity things such as distance, time, energy and many others are observer dependent.

In my tests of parallel circuitry just now, with 12 resistors, it seems that each resistor in parallel with each other resistor in the circuit was having the exact same amps as the input amperage,

Can you please explain how you determined the current through all the resistors. Did you measure it? If so, how? Did you calculate it? If so, how?

 

And a resistor LED measured at 150 kohms

lit up, parallel with 11 resistors with resistances between 100 ohms and 8 kohms.

A LED is not a resistor. It does not obey Ohm's law: it has a non-linear voltage-current relationship. Therefore the "resistance" reported by your meter depends on the voltage.

The LED will light up if there is sufficient voltage drop. You don't give enough (any) information about your circuit to say whether this would be expected or not.

 

Volts seem have the same effect.

What does that mean? Same effect as what?

 

Which program can be used to make and export images of circuit diagrams?

Paper, pen and scanner/camera?

Poll doesnt make sense to public ? why we have it ?

Who said it doesn't make sense? I just asked if you thought a poll (here, presumably, among a self-selected atypical subset of the population) would be significant. Would it represent the real position of most people in the world?

can we have a vote among those who have adult children and feel they are alienated from them and not cared by them ?

Do you think that will be statistically significant?

In sound file analysis reportedly images spelling things such as "Leave now" were found, is this possible?

How can a sound contain an image?

 

Also frequencies were around 44kHz on average

That is well beyond the range of human hearing. And beyond the range that can be encoded in a standard audio file. And probably beyond the range that can be reproduced by most systems. I am not aware of frquencies like this having any noticeable effects on people (unlike infrasound).

Another way that I know this is expressed is that theoretically an object could travel faster than c but is nothing that can accelerate that object to such a speed. Another way that I know this is expressed is that theoretically an object could travel faster than c but is nothing that can accelerate that object to such a speed. (to imprint that speed). I don't know if a law expressed in this way is a law. It enough to detect ONE object faster than c to proves us wrong (like is enough to see a single black swan to in-confirm that "All swans are white") and that object will have that speed on it's own independent to the speed of other - that we are aware of - so no need for it to be accelerated).

There are hypothetical particle called tachyonw which only travel faster than light (they can't be slowed down to the speed of light). There have been experiments to detect such things but currently there is no evidence for them (and no real reason to believe they should exist).

Also, my question is: this is not a paradox also? Because in "day to day experience" the velocity adds up. If I'm on the ground stationary and throw a rock, that rock would have a speed. If I'm in a moving vehicle and I throw a rock that rock would have a combined speed for a stationary observer (related to my position and speed)

.

The thing is, we think that speeds add linearly (you throw the rock at 5 mph from a car doing 60 mph, and as a result the rock is travelling at 65 mph) but that is only because at everyday speeds the error is too small to see. In fact velocities don't add linearly. The sum of two velocities is given by:

[latex]s = {v+u \over 1+(vu/c^2)}[/latex]

If you are in a car doing 90% of the speed of light and throw a rock at 90% of the speed of light, the combined velocity will be 99.45% of the speed of light.

Axiom 2: If light would travel faster than c than that light (beam) would "travel back in time" not sooner than the time it started (t₀). It is this true?

No. Although, if faster than light travel or communication were possible, it would be possible to pass a message back in time. I don't think that is the same as travelling back in time.This would cause all sorts of things to do with causality (the effects could be seen before the cause).

Using the assertions I come to the conclusion that objects can travel faster than c but is a problem of measurements and detections in which we define our Reality.

I don't really know how you come to that conclusion.

This might be relevant: http://blogs.scienceforums.net/onablog/2012/10/15/an-open-letter-about-your-new-theory/