insane_alien

Alright, but if we are misinterpreting it then the journal editors are going to misinterpret it. BTW, what journal are you thinking of writing to? you'll need to know their guidelines for format and presentation. Well, you make it look like your basing this hypothesis on something similar. you really do have to define yourself more clearly. If you were making a point about pat Aether theories then you should have said something like "In the past, the Aether was thought to work like air in the propagation of sound waves. My hypothesis differs <insert mechanism here>" yeah, light always moves at c relative to the observer other wise we would see light coming at us with all sorts of velocities not this 1.1c and 0.9c stuff you are claiming. as far as i can see, i did. you provided a formula (V(l)=V(s) + C) i just slotted in the numbers. this is how formulae work. well shouldn't your formula have been V(l)= -V(s) +C ? i assumed the direction of light to be the positive direction since you didn't define a coordinate reference at all. in a paper you will need to explicitly show this. do not imply everything, assume the person needs to be told how to do EVERYTHING(within reason, don't go telling them how to properly wipe their ass or anything) okay... i'll go with this if you explain how we would not have the mathematics to calculate the speed the light was going at a certain point on its path? your hypothesis should be able to calculate this and it shouldn't be too hard as we can do it with all sorts of things that really do change velocity all the time. this is true, but what prohibits the external observer from being in the path of the light (besides the fact that he would shortly after have a dude in a spaceship hit him at a ridiculously fast velocity)

Evo, european engineers only deviate from SI when dealing with older machinery that was designed on imperial measures or when sending data to US engineers.

jeremy, that may be true for people who have the knowledge, time and ability to assemble a computer but there are cases where just buying a stock computer is preferable. i still use a computer i bought pre assembled. sure it was expensive but at least i didn't lose money when the hardware crapped up. i even got free data recovery.

i see dead people.

Disclaimer: TriggerGrinn i know you want help writing this paper with our opinions on this left out of it and i have left them out, i'm just analysing the theory in a manner as to how it will be treated if you submit this to peer review. TBH i don't care either way for this theory but if its major principles are incoherent with experimental data then it won't even be published by someone who scientists care about maybe even the crackpot journals wouldn't publish it and THAT would be embarassing. Ok this could make a slight bit of sense if electromagnetic waves were even slightly mechanical. they are not mechanical, the are electromagnetic and are self propagating which means they do not need a medium such as and 'Aether' uh oh, where did the minus come from? wasn't the equation V(l)=V(s) +c if we use the first equation we get V(l)=1.1C On this one i would have accepted a minus since the vectors are in opposite directions and would churn out 0.9c IFF(yes two f's look it up) that is how light works which we have evidence to say that it does not. BUT it is known that light does not behave like this due to other experiments, MM has been backed up hundereds of times with other experiments. I should bloody well hope so since its a physical phenomenon that we understand quite well and can accurately predict using the laws of physics. yes and the external observer would agree that the light was travelling at c AT ALL times regardless of the velocity of the observer and the guy at A see disclaimer, i tried to be nice but its hard with so much inconsistency and deviation from experimental data. I suggest you go read up on relativity and view the data that backs it up and why Aether is grade A bullcrap.

stormfish, he wasn't looking to build an auto release(yours would only work if the plane was bang on course and wasn't too high/low/to the left/to the right/slow/fast/combinations of aforementioned) he was looking to build a smart bomb.

same way they mix concrete, big barrel and stir

until there is math you have proved nothing

This is chemistry related but i don't think it would be appropriate in the chemistry section because it isn't really science. We all know of the whole Dihydrogen Monoxide thing and how many people fell for it, so, why don't we pick a couple of chemicals, apply a scary sounding (but still accurate) name to it and see if we can do something similar. So, the rules for submission of suggestion will be: 1. MUST be essential to life. 2. Should have lots of bad effects due to excess or lack 3. MUST be real. i'm going to nominate oxygen for this. This dangerous chemical(dioxide) was responsible for chernobyl when it got into the reactor core and has been involved in the ignition and sustainment of every major fire in history.

contrary to popular belief amongst those that are not scientists, the mathematics behind a theory is not pulled out of the arse at the last minute and fits perfectly with the postulates, it usually comes along in the early stages and gradually builds up during the mid stages and is tweaked a bit in the later stages. it also constitutes 90% of the scientific merit(or lack thereof) of the hypothesis. if you want a bit of help then you will need to give us something to go on and don't expect it to conform to your hypothesis. expect to change the hypothesis instead.

wouldn't 't' be required to prove you wrong? as in t=(something) thats a bit like saying prove the existance of water but make sure you don't include water in any of the reactions.

Evo, this is an international forum 96% of the world uses SI. SI is the official standard of the forum so pst the questions in SI or don't complain if thats what you get the answer in.

midnight, you'll have to define organic there. by some definitions, there is already no 'organic' food by some there is a decline but some still exists by others(many others) its all organic regardless if its gm or not (i agree with this one)

half life 2 isn't as pretty on consoles. you really don't get to feel as if its you torturing the zombies.

IIRC the metal hydride method has an equilibrium at a few(4-7 ish) bar. substantially less that the standard commercial tank pressures of 300 bar. also it stores hydrogen more effectively than pressurisation. still, i'd be happier with a tank full of 300bar H2 than petrol. hydrogen doesn't stick around near the ground.

turbines are suited to constant speed jobs and for it to produce electricity would require a whole other bunch of machinery that makes the car unfeasibly heavy. better sticking with the fuelcell method, requires much less precision engineering.

hmm, you could certainly decrease the concentration but i don't think it would be practical to decrease it to safe amounts as it would require a lot of cycles.

ok, for enough radiation to be striking the earth to cause the same acceleration gravity does would be phenominal like, atmosphere and oceans boiled away, land eroded everything dead kind of phenominal. the total radiative imbalance(some guy worked it out) is a couple of mega newtons across the whole earth(this causes a very very very very tiny acceleration, it would take a few years to amount to 1 m/s . and get this, its AWAY from the sun. if it was radiation pressure i'm afraid we would be flying away from the sun pretty quickly by now. also how would the sun hold itself together?

ok so i thought about it some more and this is what i think would happen. 1. the US government introduces a series of lisences for owning firearms 2. the people who have reasons to own guns and those that are safe to have a gun go and get liscences and everything is peachy 3. the nuts and people who shouldn't be let within 5 miles of anything pointy get their weapons taken off them 4. bit of uproar at "human rights infringement" or some crap 5. nut finally gets hands on guns and kills the people who refused him a liscence 6. majority finally comes round and sees its a good idea.

w00t! go buy a beer and pretend its from me!

if i had the money i would spend it on something else. my computer provides better and i don't think i could run chemical simulations on a ps3

ahh non newtonian fluids. fun stuff but its a bugger to cram through a pipe. incidentally butter and margerine are also non-newtonian fluids but with the opposite effect. they are solid-ish until you impact them and then they flow quite well as long as there is a good bit of shear stress on them.

don't see how guns are central either.

farsight, just cos its a dictionary does that mean that it can't have the scientific definition of velocity? Just as little side here, if velocity is not measured in displacement divided by time then what is it measured in?

you should definately have a test to gain access to fire arms. i mean you need to have a license to drive(legally) and that isn't a machine that has a primary purpose of death. so why shouldn't you have a barrage of tests to gain access to a gun?