Klaynos

Theoretical, you're argument about polarisation ignores superposition and entanglement, which is what you're trying to investigate. It's not a personal attack to suggest you read a more formal text on these things, I'm hoping it'll help you. Until you read further into the area you'll continue to have the same arguments which will frustrate and annoy everyone including you.

Placing a polariser at the source would break any entanglement and superposition in the polarisation. Your results would then be meaningless. Also photons do "care" if you put polarisers in the way, even classically that's why you can block light with two polarisers but introducing a third between the first two allows light to pass through. Theoretical, if you're really interested in this, and you seem to be, I strongly suggest you go away and try and learn some more on the topic in a note formal way then videos. Videos are good for wetting the appetite but to really understand this you need to study for a few years learning everything from the basics up. This is probably why you are not getting why people are arguing that your sim isn't showing what you think it is.

I agree. A bug part is finding what evidence he has and showing him what is required to convince others. I actually think the evidence bar here is quite low and relatively easy. Foods are tested all the time.

There are done clear claims made in the opening post. You need some evidence else you'll be competing with my cows from kennford that make you invisible when you eat them on the second Tuesday of the month.

Exeter has a Russell group university. I don't really accept your argument or even know what you're arguing for. Can you cite any publications about your opening post?

My view is that there is a very big difference in meaning between two very similar sentences, "You are ignorant." "You are ignorant of the Hamiltonian formulation of classical mechanics." The first is normally introverted as a personal attack as it is not specific. The second is specific and not in my view a personal attack. The problem with the word ignorant is that people tend to read the first three words of either sentence and get angry. This is exacerbated by them sometimes being ignorant of the proper meaning of the word ignorant.

Did you see the post from elfmotat? I'd review it and again and review the link from swansont. You've not addressed the points made and continued to make the same mistakes (digitally close to infinite has no meaning). It's difficult to critique any science if the language is not clear and concise (another reason why maths is required).

What always amazes me is it takes between 5 and 10 years of post school education to become proficient in one area of science, why should at random member of the public be able to understand it in a few sentences?

I've seen people do similar things with mobile phones, raspberry PiS and gopro type cameras. How are you intending to recover the data, are you only interested in images?

Latex?

Often coloured overlays or coloured paper helps. The best colour changes person to person and can even change over time. Worth trying.

I have a few comments. Science (modern physics which is the topic at play here) is the mathematical modeling of the universe and the testing of those models against the universe. Your idea if it was science should be able to derive the height of a geostationary orbit around earth. Why should the universe obey the logic of a group of ape descendants on a little blue green planet around a rather average star?

Parasitic losses limits the efficiencies of normal antenna as frequency increases. The limit kicks in around a few mm wavelength.

This was a hopeful thread. I'm pretty sure that once you presented your results it went down a traditional path.

Been involved in forums for a long time and I was thinking a physics forum might be fun when I started my degree. Mentioned this to Dave who I knew from another place and he pointed me here. A degree and PhD later I'm still here. Don't get as much time to write posts as I'd like but I still read a lot. I find the forum is a good balance of views, backgrounds and knowledge which makes it work pretty well.

Cite them, read them, it's not a terribly big ask... But if you're just generally reading to find what you want to cite or if a particular question has been answered you'll learn over time what you can reasonably skip, that is something that is best learnt from doing rather than asking someone to tell you. You would often then read the whole thing of it's useful.

I know what wiki says, I wanted to know what you thought. But well done for looking out up, given that definition I wonder what you could mean by life being energy.

JKemp, could you please give the definition you are using for 'energy'?

The ice skater example has nothing to do with there being an atmosphere.

Right... This sounds like philosophy. I'm out.

You're still using a poor nonlinear sensor (human eye). We already have maths to describe this, although it becomes significantly easier it you use a different detector, for example a photodiode.

I don't agree with the premise that this cannot have maths. Thus far every physical phenomena had been modelled extremely accurately with maths.

Logic!=science I've already suggested you stop using a nonlinear observation tool but you've ignored me. What would be the point on continuing if you insist on a flawed measurement system.

Based on what you've said about Lorentz and coulomb in recent threads I fail to see how this could be the case. Your aversion to maths pretty much makes it conclusive that this is either a lie or a complete lack of knowledge on what would be required to make the statement true. Oh yeah the eye is still a terrible sensor, we've much better ones they're what should be used for evidence.

Ignore the human eye. If we have a completely isolated room with no light sources in it and place a photon detector in it out will measure 0. Now we place a single photon source in there pointed at the detector. The detector will detect a single photon. Darkness is not a thing, it's a poorly defined word and should probably be ignored. Ideas are not science. Science is the mathematical modeling of the universe and the testing of those models.