Klaynos

I've done around 20 m paths at a similar frequency using collimating mirrors. We gave up using lasers for alignment. Over longer distances I would be very tempted to try them again.

You can do free space microwave transmission and reflection experiments inside (and optics, IR and terahertz of course). You've just got to be careful.

Keep the word count low! Walls of text dishearten even the keenest.

All measurements require error analysis of both the measurement and predictions to really state whether the measurement is consistent with the prediction. Measuring 0 is especially difficult in real physical systems and a good example if the usefulness of error analysis.

When you measure something you also have an associated error. The "real" value falls somewhere in your measurement plus or minus the error. Therefore you can say whether an experiment is consistent with non null or not based on that, not just the measured value. Therefore I suggest you go read about the various experiments, the results and their errors to see what they tell you.

What mathematics died he present to explain the movement of Foucault's pendulum? If its none he immediately fails the test of providing better explanations. The same goes for all the other claims. Just shouting that your idea explains it doesn't hold much water. Modern physics is about making accurate predictions that requires maths. Without the maths you cannot show your idea is better there's no way to compare the ideas. Our mainstream science has amazingly accurate predictions for the pendulem, planetary orbits, the curve of cannon balls etc... Anyone would need to better those predictions to hope to claim to have a better idea, geocentric theories fail to do this.

Don't forget to be concise.

I'd recommend you post your idea in the speculations area and read the relevant special rules and guidelines. Science is by trial, people will expect extraordinary evidence for extraordinary ideas. They'll also expect accuracy, that requires mathematics.

Given the space limitations on an arduino I'd probably opt for PID.

In your first example your fourth line is incorrect. In your second example your are missing that one third is 0.333 reoccurring. Your error is a rounding error. Based on this I see no point in reading the rest of your thread.

I was thinking something similar.

I see. Are you planning to mount a camera? My limited experience suggests that an arduino doesn't deal too well with video or audio (not designed for it and doesn't have the power to just throw processing power at it). I'm asking purely for interest. I like the idea of building a quadcoptor but it's about 15th on my microprocessor projects at the moment if only because of cost.

I tend to use Google site search for every website, you can never trust local searches.

What microcontroller are you using?

How experienced are you with SQL? What progress have you made thus far?

You can't take single years if you want to talk about climate, the atmosphere is too variable.

That is certainly something to be wary of. A good data set will explain how they've tried to account for such biasing. In geophysics, with earthquakes, this is done by putting an artificial limit on the sensitivity of the modern instruments (by say ignoring all of the events before a certain magnitude from a given distance) to maintain a well defined data set. This isn't arbitrary but requires some quite careful analysis of the data sources. Reviewing the web page I'd start with the papers they reference when talking about this bias.

60 years isn't that long in climate timescales. I'd suggest looking at something like this: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html It's not a graph but I'm sure one could be found or u can plot one from this. Might be easier to compare to your solar cycle data then. But to be clear, I think that more energy in the atmosphere (warmer) = more energetic weather = worse storms on average.

Sorry, brief reply limited on time. Read the abstract. It's taking about group velocity. They normally means (in previous reports of this nature) information transfer is still limited to c.

I agree with this. I always find it amazing that some people think they fully understand a topic after watching a couple of YouTube videos that takes very clever their while life to try and understand. Part of my education was certainly appreciating just how little I fully understood but that that is not something to be ashamed and is the base position of everyone. I'm an expert in a couple of very specific things but again I know that there is a massive amount I don't know even in those areas (else what would be the point of my research?).

Asking background questions when someone unknown presents an idea is an expected aspect of communicating science. Even journals so it in requiring an introduction/lit review. Out shows you understand what you're taking about so people don't waste their time trying to pick through the rest trying to work out what the terminology means and how it fits into what is known. Dismissing this does not bode well for a background understanding of science. Trying to understand what you're saying in context of the existing work is the first step to a critical review. Often on these fora or becomes apparent that when you do this the existing evidence precludes the proposed concept.

When dealing with visible light you need to be precise to tens of nanometers, this is not easy. I've not watched your video, could you post a schematic, maybe a photo of your kit and set of results from your experiment? I suspect what you're seeing is a combination of an artifact of the set up and the job linearity of your eye.

How can units be irrelevant for a velocity. Measuring something in m/s gives a completely different answer to measuring the same thing in inches per decade. This kind of statement completely discredits you're whole idea.

Qm has the entangled parameter undefined (in a superposition) until it is measured not set at the source. Qm also does not require hidden variables nor information exchange. That's what you would find out with further reading on the subject. Shockingly, since Einstein made his famous statement science has moved on.

Entanglement has been shown by many experiments. Superposition of states has been shown by even more. Your sim ignores both of these. Whilst out is of course possible to generate radiation with well defined polarisation that isn't what is required for a entangled system where you need (photons used as an example) two photons which are entangled together each being in a superposition of states. Oh and nothing in my previous posts was a personal attack, just an honest statement on how I thought or was best to resolve the problem. I was basing my recommendation on the apparent misconceptions you have about entanglement and constant mentioning of videos.