Leaderboard

Why would I care who invented XYZ? I am sure that person has a name. I am also quite sure I don't know that person. The most importantly, I don't know what XYZ is except it has something to do with corals. I know something about corals.

It likely does, but that behavior is governed by your personal notifications settings under user profile (i.e. because you chose for it to be that way). https://www.scienceforums.net/notifications/options/

The CRT monitor has two deflection systems, horizontal and vertical. If the horizontal deflection system is faulty, you have a straight vertical line. If the vertical deflection system is faulty, you have a straight horizontal line. If both deflection systems are malfunctioning, you have dot in the center. https://www.google.com/search?q=vertical+deflecting+system

Interesting use of projective geometry. Towards the beginning of your video you spell distortion as distorsion. I see you are Spanish so no bother I mis-spell words all the time but hey you might like to correct this. I have a friend who is an artist and a draftsman. Very non scientifically technical, non computerate. Yet although I can calculate the effect on shapes, and he cannot, I cannot anywhere near match the way he has taken to drawing programs and can produce the most amazing pictures intuitively and takes equally intuitively to the use of the computer to automatically perform the calculations for him. Which brings me to my point that although you have really used your time well, you have not discovered anything new. Sorry. Mathematicians call your infinity point : "the point at infinity" so a good match. This is a branch of projective geometry which was developed in the 19th century. This is not taught much today, but of great use in compter graphics. It is also of great use in cartography, where it is used to take out the distortion that arises in aerial photography and also to provide information in the 3rd Dimension (Height in this case). This branch of cartography is called photogrammetry. Hope this helps and go well. +1 By the way, phi, I liked the embedding of the video as it plays on SF, but my older computer no longer renders YT etc.

IMO, we shouldn't be too afraid of tautologies, as long as we have an external hypothesis to get us out of it. In fact, if we're ever gonna find a way to understand time, I think it's very likely that we have to do it by formulating some kind of tautology, and then ponder what the external assumption must be if we're to make it into a predicting machine. An outstanding example is Newtonian mechanics. The bare formulation is as tautological as can be. What is force? Mass times acceleration. But hang on. What is mass? Oh, that's easy: It's the ratio between force and acceleration in any direction. We wouldn't get anywhere from just that. But there's a hidden assumption: Whatever we want mass to be, it must be the same in every direction. And then there's the amazingly consequencial assumption that, under different simple circumstances, force depends on position in some particularly simple way. Then we're in business, because we can predict. Something that, with the sheer tautology, was impossible.

Yes, two clocks, one stationary on the Moon and one stationary on the Earth. How many times I need to repeat this? 😄 Did you make (or read) proper GR calculations, or you are just guessing? What reference frame was used and why? With one clock on the Moon surface and the other on a Moon artificial satellite, yes, things would be exactly as expected. No reason to be different. The test with one clock on the Moon surface and the other on the Earth surface was never done, nor any similar, so you don't really know the outcome. It is a dangerous thing, both in physics and in life, to be sure that you know something, when in fact you never really checked it. Gravity is not different, that's not the issue, we simply have not enough/accurate information about "kinematic time dilation" caused by the movement of a planet/star/moon. If you do have such information, please share it here. Loads of money? Tiny, compared to LHC, JWST, or gravitational-wave detectors. So you don't expect that anything special would happen. I hope you are aware that a theory must pass any kind of test related to it. This kind of test (able to check with accuracy the "kinematic time dilation" caused by the movement of a planet/star/moon in relation with another planet/star/moon) is highly related to GR and never performed. If the test is not passed, GR would have to be adjusted or abandoned. You are denying that?