quickquestion

What part of my video made you think the "sky is green" analogy? You did the same thing. You judged my video before even getting to my equations because my Cam wasn't HD enough. And here's the thing. I admitted I was wrong about the action and resistance thing. I admit when I am wrong, when the proof of my wrongness is certain. Also, I read what people write. I just remembered it incorrectly.

Hmm. Can you elaborate, but in such a way that I don't have to inject an Xmen mutation serum in order to understand (I never took calculus or lagrangians.)

I read a bit of it, the gravitational waves sound an awful lot like aether waves to me. But let's say, I do all of the equations, plug them into a simulation...it would just feel like I am plugging them into a simulation, creating a "reality-shell" to cover for actual reality. I wouldn't get a much deeper gaze upon reality this way. A lot of greek I am not qualified to do. But I must ask you...if the distance between 2 physical points change...why must travel occur at all? In order to have the effect of an object traveling the path of least resistance, there must first be a resistance. I disproved Einstein on a fundamental, logical level. If you believe my error is so obvious, then point out at what stage of the video I have made an error. For example, if you disagree with one of my sims, tell me what equation did I need to put in the sim and why. If you disagree with one of my paradoxes, then point out what part of the paradox you disagreed with. But don't expect me to debate you using chains of complex equations I have never heard, that's no fair. For example, if I build a Go-kart, and it uses Square Wheels, you wouldn't expect me to debate hundreds of complex Phd level equations in order to explain why my go-kart isn't working. Keep it earthly.

My apologies. I shall reformulate my question as: How does an equation with a variable with exponent, return the same results as a linear equation. I accept it does this, but I do not understand why.

How can any model make the precision, the precision you mean. I can make a firearm or car using pure logic. But to build a Buggatti Veyron, I'm gonna need to up my math game. 3.I am trying to learn this theory, even though I don't believe it really, because it is interesting to me. But it is difficult because my fragile human mind needs to see it to believe it. 2. Now I thought GPS time was different solely due to their longitudal velocity (SR). But you are saying it is because of both SR and GR that their clock is different? 1. I don't see gravity as a curvation. It looks more like a straight line path.

Lord Antares, Are you saying Physics is Irrational. If the evolutionary niche was not to build houses and weapons, then it does not make sense that they would suddenly transcend their niche. But if house building and weaponing was common in ancient females, then their lack of STEM influence must solely be the result of social limiters. The third factor being, the cross-sexualization of the specie, the transition and cross-role switching of males and females. If females are inherently out of their niche, then due to cross-sexualization (trans-sexualization genetic and social factors) then the females may find themselves further and further adept at traditionally male roles.

I thought physics, was based on physics, physical space. Though the effect of gravity is tangible, I am not sure the space-time explanation is satisfactory. I am trying to understand why a piece of non-existentent differential geometry will accelerate me to earth. But lets say for the sake of argument, that the geometry exists. Why would it generate a force upon me. My experiments are not possible with the current technology. But I may think of some which may be more feasible. And yes I don't think GPS is a hoax, but there obviously must be a rational explanation of why satellites seem to age slightly less. Time-travel, the least rational explanation in my humble opinion, or at least used to be before Einstein.

^2 is an exponent. Therefore it is exponential. If I draw a graph of x^2 it will be non-linear. Also, my equation was not wrong, my equation input was wrong. An equation does not care what input you put into it, it is a nonliving entity.

There are two options. 1. In primitive times, females built the huts and houses, and the weapons. 2. In primitive times, females did not build the huts and houses, and the weapons. If 1. is correct, there is no biological reason why females are not filling Stem fields today.

Not sure I fully comprehend my own aether theory yet, let alone my rivals theory that I don't fully understand, yet understand enough to note a few paradoxes. Because the theory has paradoxes, it may not actually be possible for me to ever understand it, since by definition, a paradox, or set of logical contradictions, cannot be understood. 1. True, everything moves through time. 2. Here's the part I'm not getting. You say mass causes a curvature in space-time. But I see no curvature in either space, or time. Time does not slow down as well fall to earth. Nor does space curve as well fall to earth. If space time was curved, and our forward motion would cause our descent, then a rock thrown vertically, would leave the bounds of the atmosphere.

But by interefere do you mean that they can reduce each other's velocity? 1. Hmm this goes along with my aether, that light is just a field excitation of the aether field. 2. My theory is too incomplete to make any thermodynamic conclusions. Einstein spent more time on it and was probably more savant than me, so he had more time to refine and make his theory match the data. Sort of like how Plato did with his theory of 5 shapes...impressive to the greeks but doesn't mean it is actually a model of reality.

1."Propogation rate and propogation delay" were terms I planned to associate with my pet aether theory. But about EM fields, there are some options. Maxwell said Light itself is an electromagnetic field. So if I put Light in the opposite direction of another light, will it reduce each other's speed? Also, magnets. Magnets are a field which has been proven to have an effect on electric fields. 2. True. 3. Spacetime is drawn as dimensionally incorrect (like Picasso or topography.) So let me ask you this, is Spacetime supposed to be denser the closer you get to a planet, or less dense? Either way, it doesn't make any sense to me. Because if gravity was a result of an abberation in Time itself, then time should be radically different in gravitational fields. What makes more sense to me, is that Spacetime is just a metaphor/analogy for Aether, and that objects move to less dense zones (less dense Aether near earth, so they fall to Earth). I am still trying to figure out why "Spacetime" would cause a force to occur in the first place.

Ok but have we ever observed light resting? I thought it automatically travelled at or near C at all times.

If space is a vacuum, then what is the point of science supporting Tepler's idea of using a rotating large cylinder to warp space. If space is nothing, then what is the stuff being warped and moved by the cylinder. Now for the time being, lets forget about aether just for sake of debate. Can you salvage Einstein's theory after i tried to defeat it with paradoxes 1.2.3. and 4. in the video? As well as both experiments 1 and 2? Aether was not a key requirement for those points. Now, you have to be more specific. Vacuum dragged by Earth? I don't understand. Aether is not a vacuum. It is too early in the game to talk about thermodynamics at this stage. All I can say is...mainstream science says "Light has no mass...yet has thermodynamic influence as well as influenced by gravity"...Seems like these rules are fairly mysterious and flexible. Mass shouldn't matter in this context, because according to Einstein time dilation is the same regardless of mass (except in the sense that apparently you can't reach c if you have mass.) This is getting off track, but yes laser will travel slower through different mass regions. But this does not directly prove or directly disprove my points.

Could you explain why. Also it is a standard youtube video, none of which are known to be hazardous to any computer.

youtube should work embedded in the forums, at least it is so on my browser. in the video there is dynamic simulations. what you are suggesting is somewhat absurd. it would be like having an engineering class, but i am forbidden to use a marker on whiteboard, powerpoint or show enginnering videos and simulations. Its like where IP man is fighting that British guy but IP starts winning, and they tell him kicking is against the rules. But that is how IP naturally teaches and fights. You are denying me my style and what I need to succeed.

My video is math and text. Math..and text, and some video simulations. A professor teaches using a lecture and powerpoint. My video is like a Powerpoint presentation. You can't simply say PowerPoint is not allowed. This is my style of teaching. You cant demand that I simply change my style and hand out papers to students. I teach via a certain way that is needed.

That's nice. But you are missing one important thing. Consent. If you get a prince albert and enjoy it doesn't mean everyone should be forced to get a prince albert. If circumcision had no ill effects for you doesn't mean that everyone who gets it will get no ill effects.

I think calling it petrol is a good idea.

I did, which was in the video. But apparently 10 mins is too much to watch. I blame it on modern television.

my equation for KE is not wrong, it is the same as yours. But I fear you are right about the acceleration. I must ponder these equations and how a linear equation can return the same result as an exponential equation. These are truly equations of magical proportions. As physicists say..."the equation is beautiful."

You are demonstrating your ignorance if that is the only thing that you got from my video. I shall take it to other forums then, if my video is seemingly beyond your comprehension. PS: There was math in my video.

Ok, the moment you've all been waiting for, the Relativity movie. I actually realize a gif wouldn't be enough to list all my points. I also laid out the equations I used in case anyone wants to challenge my points. You have to defeat all of my major points in order to put Einstein in the clear. For instance, point 2. of mine may be somewhat weak, but you have to also destroy points 1,3, and 4. For instance, if you disprove simulation 1, but not simulation 2, my argument still stands.

Physical locations of objects will be in the gif. It will be a multimedia. The more physical it is, the better it is. People can argue about equations all day. but it is tough to argue with a clear concise physical representation. einstein litterally says object's speed changes their time. time, is the rate of behavior and change of objects. my argument is that relativity changes aging, but not time. the gif will make this clear. A famous person once said "If the first time you hear of quantum physics, the concept does not immediately shock you, then you are not understanding it correctly." I modify this quote and say "If the first time you hear of einstein's relativity, the concept does not immediately shock you, then you are not understanding it correctly."

Ok that is the thing i'm not getting. if acceleration is 9.8 m/s, then shouldn't v be 9.8 m/s? it takes 1 second to move 9.8 m/s. therefore velocity is 9.8 m/s.