Strange

I am just going to copy the answer to this from another forum: All of those examples are due to the shape of the bays and seabed. Something that is obvious if you look at locations near those measuring points:- Edgartown, near the Bay of Fundy (tidal range about 1m)- Cherbourg (5m) near Mont St Michael- Swansea further out on the Bristol Channel (8m)- Bukhta Podkagernaya (7m) in the Sea of Okhotsk- Arkhangel'sk (1m) near Mezensky Bay.NOAA address your claim about tidal ranges in their FAQ with a couple of counter-examples - https://www.co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/faq2.html#27

But not zero. The whole point about science is not the fooled by "the obvious". It is so often wrong. That is why we need mathematics and evidence. Not just forceful assertions.

why not just tell us the answer? Stop playing games.

Now you have shown us your equation, please use it to compare the results to measured energy. Did you read the rules?

1. I said "mathematical" (mention "sinusoidal" doesn't make it mathematics). 2. No, it doesn't. Not if it is in orbit.

Lets just take it for granted that after so many repetitions that we understand what you are saying. Now: use your model to make some quantitative testable predictions. Or admit you can't. Either is fine.

Why are you unable to show us how YOU calculate energy in your model and how this compares with measurements of energy? We are not here to answer your questions. You are here to show that your model works. I don't understand why you are refusing to do that.

It is just a subset of GR and all that is needed in this context. Go on then. Show some mathematical predictions that can be compared with experimental evidence. I don't believe it will. And your assertion doesn't convince me.

Reported for tolling. But please feel free to post exactly the same thing again.

Special relativity correctly predicts the short lifetimes of high speed muons, for example. And quantum theory incorporates special relativity. Do pendulums, water clocks, all biological processes, attic clocks and every other method of measuring time all change their rate of timing by the same amount when scaled by the same amount (in some cases, the answer is obviously no, in others it is not clear). You know seem to be saying something that is trivially true: if you change all lengths including your ruler then you can't tell the difference. If you change all times including your clocks then you can't tell the difference. But, as swansont pointed out earlier, just scaling all your measurements makes no difference but Is meaningless. It appears to be irrelevant. You can't explain it using the theory of evolution either.

And if pigs could fly... Your "theory" cannot correctly model the behaviour of atoms and subatomic particles. You have provided zero evidence that it correctly models the effects of other things. It is just obvious. And useless.

If they have the same intensity, then I would assume they will appear equally bright.

In general, though, you can ignore the changing acceleration due to gravity (for small displacements). So the two are equivalent. If you want to take int account the increasing force of gravity then, yes, Karlson would need to also increase the applied force. But that is an unnecessary complication (when Oleg won't even answer basic questions). You keep saying this (in fact, all you do is repeat yourself). Stop just telling us that current science is wrong. Whether or not current theory is wrong says nothing about the correctness of your idea. Only evidence can do that. Show us how YOU calculate energy in your model and how this compares with measurements of energy. You know, do some science. (If you just repeat exactly the same thing again, I suspect this thread will get closed. And that will be the end of this "very important theory")

Why? If your model is different you should be able to show that mathematically.

So you are saying that your "theory" only applies to things that can be scaled. It doesn't apply to the real world (e.g. muons or atoms). And it rests on the shaky assumption that everything responds the same way when scaled. And you have no evidence to support any of this. Sounds increasingly implausible. And pointless. We can make use of relativity (we have to make use of it). There seems to be no practical use for this idea.

Except that in an accelerated from of reference it is (coordinate) time that changes, therefore all measuring instruments (and biological processes) will be seen to change by the same amount. So the lifetime of a muon will change by the same amount as a ticking clock. That is not the case in your scaling. A muon, for example, cannot be scaled and will not change its decay time in your "scaled frame of reference". The same is true for a caesium atom.

Now.... about that evidence ...

This is the equivalence principle and has been known about since at least 1915.

But then you are not measuring the sam thing. Consider an atomic clock, or the decay of a muon. These are not affected by scaling. (But they are affected by relative velocity.)

Yes. Now, please show the predictions of your model and how they compare with measurement. (Stores about [CK]arlson are not science. Mathematics and data are needed.)

That is measuring time differently. If you use a standard clock, you will see there is no time dilation. This seems utterly pointless, though.

Yes, I know that. So stop talking about it. I am asking you to show the predictions of your model which are DIFFERENT from standard physics. In other words, how do we test your idea? We compare the predictions against experiment. And against current theory to see which best matches the data. So, you say that you have a different equation for energy. So please show how your calculated energy compares with measurements.

Light is the visible range of electromagnetic radiation (although physicists often use "light" as a shorthand for all electromagnetic radiation). Helium is made of atoms which are made of protons, neutrons and electrons. (And most of it stays in the sun!)

But that is perception. Not time.

It depends how bright each one is. The brightness depends mainly on the amplitude (and also on the wavelength, but less so).