LaurieAG

Are you saying that all the leaders of countries which have massive nuclear arsenals are paranoid and delusional?

Don't forget the end as well. As our current universal physics models don't recognize any location outside the bb singularity or the expansion border of the universe, mainly because if there was anything there it couldn't be scientifically observed anyway, we cannot conceive anything pushing back on our 'universe' beyond the bb expansion sphere. Considering that the ratio of total calculated universal matter (Lambda CDM) divided by total universal visible matter is extremely close to 2*pi we should probably adopt a new paradigm as our inability to measure/observe anything outside the visible universe does not necessarily mean that something does not actually exist out there. The real paradox is something like dark matter, which is not made of anything we can identify under our our current physical laws, that 'exists' within the confines of our visible universe.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/redacted-testimony-fully-explains-why-general-macarthur-was-fired-180960622/#cGem5TFgfEuVcV88.99

An axle is perpendicular to the plane of a circular wheel but it is not quite a radius.

There are not many 'pseudo' objects that can be collected or modelled electronically apart from things like Einstein rings and crosses. https://nyti.ms/2nH0L4f

It's also interesting what other objects, pseudo or otherwise, you can capture with a feedback loop with the camera at various different angles, with or without mirrors. If you right click on an image and select view image in new tab, you will see the number of mirrors in the image name.

I noticed that I can post images so here are a series of images as referred to above. I made them around 20 years ago and I suspect they are hardware dependent i.e. the Pentium 233 MMX was the first CPU with built in graphics processing and the CRT is necessary for the behaviour of the display. So you probably won't be able to duplicate them with a modern PC/LED display and camera. Technically the screen capture images are Poincare sections of photons/light travelling around in a circle. The photons travel through air between the screen to the camera's CCD, via encrypted electronic charges from the CCD to the CRT and finally as electrons in a vacuum through the CRT to the phosphors on the screen. If you look into things in more detail you will see that the final stable halo state is actually an "Einstein Ring" so the ones we see in our astronomical observations must be in sync with the rotation of the object going around/in front of a star and our observational granularity/depth of field. At no stage do you actually see the photons travelling between the screen and the CCD with your eyes but they must exist or the images would not be produced so they are 'pseudo objects' to our eyes. Unfortunately I never managed to get an image of the final stable halo state, it is so fascinating and mesmerising that I clean forgot to take a screen shot. I only managed to get to this state twice because you must place your finger on the screen in the dead centre of the orb shape and get it out within 1.7 seconds or you won't get it right. When you do get it right the orb swells outwards and goes into the stable halo state with the counter rotating waves running around the inside and outside. The other images shown show various other configurations of just the bare loop or with one or 2 mirrors introduced into the loop, in number 4 I placed my finger on the screen next to the orb shape.

My avatar (top left of this post) is a screen capture of a feedback loop that comprised a digital camera pointed at a computer screen. (if you right click on the avatar and select open image in new tab you will see the edges of the window) The camera was on a pedestal approximately 3 feet from the screen and was set so that the light from the square viewing window was being fed back and was twisted into the spherical shape you see due to lag at the extremities i.e. the previous screen captures, at 25 frames per second via the camera's CCD, are twisted due to the camera being at 3 different angles to true 90 degrees in front of the screen and form the consistent spherical shape. I placed my finger onto the screen and removed it within 1.7 seconds to introduce a shadow into the feedback loop. The shadow in the centre of the spherical shape is a 'pseudo object' that consists of a truncated conical shadow that exists in the feedback loop between the screen and the cameras CCD at all times. The image shown is half way to the final state that appears like a stable halo with a ring of waves travelling in opposite directions around the outside and inside of the halo. The initial spherical shape in the feedback loop is stable and the halo formed by inserting a shadow into the feedback loop also remains stable while undisturbed. Once the halo shape is disturbed it reverts back to the stable spherical shape. If anybody would like a series of images of the feedback loop setup and various images pm me with your email address. All the images are screen captures and they are exactly what you see with your eyes when you view the feedback loop in a dark room.

Here's some of the latest news. It looks like some influence pedlers share the same lawyers etc. https://www.apnews.com/a3521859cf8d4c199cb9a8567abd2b71/The-princes,-the-president-and-the-fortune-seekers

I just finished 'Anabasis' 3 & 4 by Xenophon. It tells the story of the march of 10,000 ancient Greek mercenaries northwards from near Mosul through the warlike Kurdish tribes and others in what is now Armenia and Turkey to finally arrive at the Black Sea. They were deceived into fighting for Cyrus in an unsuccessful attempt to defeat his brother, Artaxerxes, the Persian emperor and had many of their generals killed in another act of deception before the young Xenophon spoke to them of their options and was appointed as a general. Xenophon later went on to write the 'Hellenica' which took on the story of the Peloponnesian war between Athens and Sparta after Thucydidies left off his story.

If you looked at the link I posted, on GPS Block IIF satellites, you'll see that the latest satellites, GPS Block IIIA, are due to start being launched around now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS_Block_IIIA The first GPS Block I satellite was launched in 1978 and was called NAVSTAR GPS and was used for concept verification while the first GPS Block II satellite was launched in October 1989 and the last in October 1990. During the first gulf war (1990/91) GPS had this thing called Selective Availability which was retired in 2000. https://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/modernization/sa/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS_satellite_blocks

You said it Janus and others who note UTC time (based on GPS) discrepancies know how unreliable it has been recently, I noticed that one of our Bureau of Meteorology radars, a relatively new high tech dual polarisation radar, had its UTC timer out by 4 hours from April 2 to April 6 between at least 6:00 am and 11:00 am AEST this year. I stayed up the next morning on April 7 and noticed that the radars UTC time was correct at 3:00 am AEST, was out by 30 mins by 3:30 am AEST and was correct again at 3:35 am AEST. I also noticed further weird UTC discrepancies in the mornings from March 25 while following the Tiangong 1 reentry on satview.org and they receive data from radars all around the world. The current GPS Block IIF Satellites have reprogrammable processors that can receive software update uploads so that's about the only way GPS could possibly be out by exactly 4 hours for a fixed time period over many consecutive days for many different radars around the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS_Block_IIF#New_characteristics That's probably why Europe, Russia, China and even Elon Musk either have or are currently setting up their own GPS type systems.

Hi Shauno, You are using the standard Compton wavelength λ instead of the reduced Compton wavelength ƛ (barred lambda). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength#Reduced_Compton_wavelength https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength#Relationship_between_the_reduced_and_non-reduced_Compton_wavelength

Hi Janus, If you only examined face on galaxies, where the light from all parts depart at roughly the same time, would the shift component of the light reflect the direction the galaxy was travelling in at the time of emission plus any cosmological recession shift of the emitted photons during transit? Surely a selection of face on galaxies of all types could be expected to be just as representative a sample as a mix of all types of galaxies with different planes of rotation and extra shift components. Has anybody studied face on galaxies alone to analyse their various shift components and the respective limits of their directional/recessional velocities?

So if you regard the 'reduced' Compton wavelength ƛ (barred lambda) as 1 radian your 'standard' Compton wavelength λ effectively becomes 2π times λ, to keep the difference consistent, so when you multiply the ordinary matter component of ΛCDM by 2π you get the total matter component!

If you regard the reduced Compton wavelength as 1 radian instead of 2π radians you can conflate the reduced Compton wavelength with the standard Compton wavelength. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength#Reduced_Compton_wavelength

Strange, Arthur Compton demonstrated the particle nature of electromagnetic radiation in 1923 through his discovery of the Compton Effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Compton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength Considering that the reduced Compton wavelength is a natural representation for mass on the quantum scale, and Arthur Compton did his work in the early days of QM, it is unusual that modern QM appears to disavow particle/wave duality, or at the least seems confused about it. ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength#Relationship_between_the_reduced_and_non-reduced_Compton_wavelength

Jajrussel, you should probably go back to basics and have a look at Arthur Compton's work on the particle nature of electromagnetic radiation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Compton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength

Thanks Strange. If you copy the links and paste them into a new tab in your browser they will work.

Gee, the other 3 science forums I posted this on didn't get linked back to the OP, especially as I tested all the links before I posted on all 4 sites. I will make an official complaint if the correct links are not restored pronto! https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/basic-rule-for-atmospheric-reentry-of-glider-class-vehicles.944162/ https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?168356-Basic-rule-for-the-Atmospheric-Reentry-Time-of-non-powered-Glider-Class-vehicles http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/24218-near-earth-objects/page-13#entry355340

The Chinese Space Station, Tiangong 1, looks very much like a glider i.e. a bit like the US Space Shuttle (solar panels are made of similar materials to Space Shuttle tiles with much less friction), as the German radar images show in the link below, so it most likely wasn't tumbling but yawing from left to right and pitching and rolling just like a glider would, as it comes down to land. https://www.space.com/40089-china-space-station-tiangong-1-radar-images.html Here's a basic summary of how to project the reentry time of non powered Glider Class reentry vehicles, similar to Tiangong 1, as it might prove useful in the future. It's probably a little bit easier to look at rough approximates, as I never managed to find out how the US Strategic Command, or anybody else for that matter, calculated their Altitude of Nominal Burst (ANB). The ANB's used below are those provided by Satview.org, so here's the basic methodology. The basic rule of thumb is that when the natural descent becomes a Pythagorean right triangle with a ratio of 3:4:5 over 8 days. i.e. it drops 6km over 8 days, the time to atmospheric reentry is approximately 1 kilometre per day until the average ANB (over those 8 days) is reached plus an adjustment factor. I made rough plots and a projection on the link below on March 1, and wasn't sure how recent the data was as the Satview.org UTC timers (and the ANB) were all over the place for most of the reentry, so the end figure I used was 252.5 - 220.25 = 32.25 days - an adjustment from my last plot (i.e. 09:00 UTC March 1), because I didn't know how accurate the timing/altitude was. http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/24218-near-earth-objects/page-11#entry354689 Note that my figures don't actually reflect the eventual altitude of atmospheric reentry (ANB), they just indicate the time of atmospheric reentry based on the last data point, that satisfies the criteria in bold, and the average ANB projections over the previous 8 days. Even without the timing adjustment this projection was much more accurate than the forecasts by the US Strategic Command and the European Space Agency (ESA) for most of March. The eventual atmospheric reentry time given by the US Strategic Command via Satview.org was April 2, 2018 at 00:16 +/- 1 minute UTC (below) and China Manned Space give the reentry altitude as approximately 132.75 km (below). http://www.satview.org/?sat_id=37820U http://en.cmse.gov.cn/col/col1763/index.html

Our bb models based on gravity can't measure anything outside the boundary of the sphere we measure it in. That doesn't actually mean that there is nothing there, it's just that with our current physics we just don't really know anything about it and can't measure it so we say that it doesn't exist and create something that we can't define under the same physics but can measure to explain our ignorance. After all, it's much easier to search for eternity for something that doesn't exist than to actually hypothesise something that we cannot measure. One thing we do know is that the ratio's of our total calculated universal matter divided by our (visible matter times 2), in both the Planck and WMAP data and under the LambdaCDM model, comes out to Pi +/- 1.1% but it's so much easier to call this numerology, stick our heads in the sand and refuse to explain it, because we know better (when we don't). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerology#To_describe_questionable_concepts_based_on_possibly_coincidental_numerical_patterns

Probably because they are professionals who tell people what they need to hear as opposed to what they want to hear, from where I come from anyway.