Strange

Not at all. We know what the double sit experiment does and why. I am trying to understand your claimed explanation. You have repeatedly asserted that the "observer effect" somehow causes the photon to either go through one or both slits. You have not explained WHY this is the case. And I don't really know what you mean by the observer effect. Perhaps you could clarify that as well. I guess you saying that when we observe which slit the photon the photon goes through it changes the behaviour. But we know that (from both theory and experiment). You are not explaining why it happens (unlike current theory, which does). Let's take the simplest case: you place a detector at one of the slits. If that detects a photon then the photon no longer exists and so, obviously, there will be no interference pattern formed - you have effectively reduced it to a "single slit" experiment. That could be described as an example of the observer effect in action. BUT, the important point is, we can measure which slit the photon goes through without observing the photon (and therefore not destroying it). And that still destroys the interference pattern. How does your claim of the "observer effect" work in that case?

It is more than 30 years since I did any of this but from what I remember... You need to get the surface normal of the surface. You can do this by taking the cross product of two adjacent edges (assuming, as Sensei says, that they are coplanar). Then you ... uhm ... just ... hmmm ... I can't remember how you calculate the required transformation matrix from that surface normal and Z! And I don't have any of my books anymore. So I will follow this thread from a sense of nostalgia! I assume you are using homogeneous coordinates?

Why? Why? The speed of light is invariant, so it isn't affected by the movement of the Earth, the Sun or the galaxy. What does it mean for a photon to "glitch"? What evidence do you have that photons can "glitch"? It seems like you have looked at the results predicted by quantum theory and then, rather than understand them, made up your own story to match. I'm not sure what the point is. Wouldn't it be better to expend the effort to understand why these things really happen?

Sounds like you need a program that will do a Fourier transform (and histogram) of the image. I am not aware of anything that will run on a phone. You might have to download the image and use a PC-based tool.

If it is not constant, then you can't use F=ma. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion#Newton's_second_law Equation 1.2 F = dp/dt Even your own sources prove you wrong.

Because there is nothing to see. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia And you still haven’t explained where “the Sun, the Golden section of the Earth” come into it. Or even what the “Golden section of the Earth” is.

That is the trouble with your search: it is very subjective! George Lemaitre was the "inventor" of the Big Bang; he was the guy who came up with the idea, from the equations of GR, that the universe could be expanding and then used some red-shift data to estimate the rate of expansion. Two years before Hubble published his "law". As Hubble never accepted the idea (he died before the "killer" evidence was discovered) I think this paring makes it more heavyweight than just Hubble's name.

Hubble's law is being renamed the Hubble-Lemaitre Law

That is a truly terrible take on this research. I don't know if it came from the original press release, or some journalist/editor made it up later. So it is about (hypothetical) mirror matter and the possibility that neutrons might be able to flip between normal matter and mirror matter. The idea is that detecting neutrons that appear to have passed through a barrier could indicate that they oscillated into mirror matter and back (and so avoided the barrier). This is a non-trivial experiment. Some good background on it here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/07/16/you-must-not-trust-experiments-that-claim-the-existence-of-parallel-universes

So: dp/dt = F + vdm/dt Therefore F = dp/dt - v.dm/dt If the mass is constant, dm/dt = 0 and therefore F = dp/dt - 0 F = dp/dt Q.E.D. This is schoolboy level mathematics. (That is why even I can do it!) Read what you wrote: the force acting on the rocket is due to the expelled mass and is F = –ve(dm/dt) In other words, F = -dp/dt the equation of motion is F = m(dv/dt) In other words, fo = dp/dt You contradict yourself at every step.

What are "vacant quantum frequency states"? You don't think it might be sensible to be intimately familiar with the subject before launching out with a new theory? What are "non excited states of the quantum vacuum"?

This is all totally irrelevant. You have generated your "magic number" by cherry picking a few of the subscripts. These could just as well be positions on a checker board. Or any other matrix. Finding some numbers that add to 55 is not interesting and has nothing to do with GR or Maxwell. And you still haven’t explained where “the Sun, the Golden section of the Earth” come into it. Or even what the “Golden section of the Earth” is. This looks like numerology and therefore has no place on a science forum.

Does that mean you are not interested in discussing this here? Note that your "magic number" has nothing to do with a Riemannian metric tensor. You have just chosen a few two digit numbers that are created from 2D indices.

Why do you think this is “magic”? What is the the relevance of the sun, the earth, the golden section or Riemann ? Someone born in 1955?

I assume that is why this form is not taught first. It requires the student to have gained a small amount of math and physics understanding.

That makes no sense. dp/dt accounts for varying mass. If you want to take varying mass into account in F=ma then you need the time derivative of mass dm/dt and so you end up with dp/dt. Actually, that is what Newton said. It is usually taught (initially) as F=ma because that is simpler.

He says and then proceeds to show that they are equivalent. (Not that, as your equation shows, F=ma is only valid for constant mass.)

What is the point? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion

It is trivial to see that it is identical. ma = m(dv/dt) = mdv/dt = dp/dt How is F=dp/dt used in the derivation of that equation?

You are only 300 years too late with this breakthrough: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion That is the same thing.

And yet this is central to your idea....

Again, this is the fallacy of begging the question. You are assuming design/designer and then using that assumption to justify the existence of the designer. Also, this is off topic. Let's get back to the origin/etymology/theology of Yahweh, as that is what you wanted to discuss.

You said:

1. How do you know if it disobeys those laws with math? 2. If it disobeys laws know to be correct how can it be correct? And, even without math, Oldland Dills idea appears to be incorrect (as he has redshift decreasing with distance instead of increasing). So it is qualitatively wrong, never mind any quantitative details.

! Moderator Note OK. There is no science here. Closed.