ScottTheSculptor Posted April 8, 2011 Author Share Posted April 8, 2011 No really this is it this is what he was looking for he was so close if he had just lived a little longer he would have had the whole thing In whatever omnipotent being that you favors name HELP ME! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csmyth3025 Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 HELP ME! If all you need is the slope, then the suggestion from Bignose is all the help you need. Post your equation with the slope denoted by a variable. Is there a reason why you cannot do this? Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottTheSculptor Posted April 8, 2011 Author Share Posted April 8, 2011 (edited) If all you need is the slope, then the suggestion from Bignose is all the help you need. Post your equation with the slope denoted by a variable. Is there a reason why you cannot do this? Chris I do not have the time gradient. it is in the WAAS data I have to take a break for a couple days. That was pretty close to a heart attack. I'm wiped. --- Einsteins logic is so beautiful. I weep to "look" at it and right at the apex he left IT there a perfect pedestal upon an adamantine mountain of logic reaching out into the stars woven in unbreachable logic a lock, just waiting for the tiny key that would mesh the universe in place One tiny missing piece he had all the rest ....I am not worthy . I need 2 days Edited April 8, 2011 by ScottTheSculptor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 To the math question: The speed of light is still relative, it's just that time is a variable now. Leave it at current C and radius from sun and everything is fine. Distance is variable as well. c is constant. If c were not constant, Maxwell's equations would not work — your radio would not work when you were moving relative to the transmitter. I have empirical data that my radio works when I am driving my car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 You're yet to address my concerns. Your discussed equation is phenomenological, which is not a very good thing in physics, we like derived equations from first principles if we can. You have not shown how you predict all of the phenomena you say you can. You certainly have not shown how this is possible with a single equation. You have allured to your equation being a linear dependence equation of the form y = mx + c, yet observationally we know the phenomena you discus are not linear, this appears to be a fundamental flaw in your idea steam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmboy Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Distance is variable as well. c is constant. If c were not constant, Maxwell's equations would not work — your radio would not work when you were moving relative to the transmitter. I have empirical data that my radio works when I am driving my car. This is the point I was going to make. Surely (don't call me shirley lol) there is verified empirical data dating back over a century which shows that the speed of light is absolutely not variable. I'm not a physicist, so forgive me if some of this is wrong, but wouldn't we see a (relatively large) variation in observed values of c at different points in the earths orbit if the OP's ''theory'' were actually true. So far as I know there is no such variation and so his logic is fundamentally flawed, which I suspect may be a bad thing in a theory which is supposedly derived purely from logic lol. To the OP, you have made a lot of bold claims, but so far as I can see there is no evidence to actually back them up. You state that there is hard light and soft light for example, each with different properties, what is the evidence to actually support this? Your logic is fundamentally flawed in that you have identified (what you percieve to be) a problem in physics. You have then made up a theory which if true would perhaps solve this problem and then rather than using it to make predictions you insist that it must be true unless someone can prove otherwise. This is not a logical way to go about things though, there are many thousands of ''theories'' which could potentially solve such a problem but all are equally pointless without strong supporting evidence and a mathematical model which can be used to make verifiable predictions. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 This is the point I was going to make. Surely (don't call me shirley lol) there is verified empirical data dating back over a century which shows that the speed of light is absolutely not variable. I'm not a physicist, so forgive me if some of this is wrong, but wouldn't we see a (relatively large) variation in observed values of c at different points in the earths orbit if the OP's ''theory'' were actually true. So far as I know there is no such variation and so his logic is fundamentally flawed, which I suspect may be a bad thing in a theory which is supposedly derived purely from logic lol. To the OP, you have made a lot of bold claims, but so far as I can see there is no evidence to actually back them up. You state that there is hard light and soft light for example, each with different properties, what is the evidence to actually support this? Your logic is fundamentally flawed in that you have identified (what you percieve to be) a problem in physics. You have then made up a theory which if true would perhaps solve this problem and then rather than using it to make predictions you insist that it must be true unless someone can prove otherwise. This is not a logical way to go about things though, there are many thousands of ''theories'' which could potentially solve such a problem but all are equally pointless without strong supporting evidence and a mathematical model which can be used to make verifiable predictions. Simply put, if c were variable the data that Scott wants wouldn't be available, because we could not communicate with the satellites. Maxwell's equations demand that c be a constant in inertial frames. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottTheSculptor Posted April 9, 2011 Author Share Posted April 9, 2011 Simply put, if c were variable the data that Scott wants wouldn't be available, because we could not communicate with the satellites. Maxwell's equations demand that c be a constant in inertial frames. Inertial frames have time gradients across them. Apologies but I must take another couple days off. My huge logical construct of the universe ended up being but a toy in the logical construct that Einstien had added his huge contribution to. That logical construct goes back millenia and is the ultimate treasure of the human race. I am atill stunned. But assimilating. It will take time. Some fall out while you wait. There are super-resistors in your landfills. When you excite all of the ELMA out of matter it will not pass electrons. Why else would vacuum tubes and light bulbs wear out? refine it. Tubes of it will light your future as "lossless transmission of power". we can stop time. Using electromagnetic waves we will be able to stop time in a box. It will be the only way we can leave this solar system. We can then send people into the future - but time only runs one way. All thermodynamics is the flow of ELMA. I am mentat. I am sub human. I do not have greed. I do not have political purpose. I do not have the capability to lie to myself. I am an animal. There are many like me. We can not manipulate symbols. We are shunned. We could help you. two more days . . . -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Tripolation Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 You should write an angsty, existential, sci-fi novel. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmboy Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 Inertial frames have time gradients across them. Apologies but I must take another couple days off. My huge logical construct of the universe ended up being but a toy in the logical construct that Einstien had added his huge contribution to. That logical construct goes back millenia and is the ultimate treasure of the human race. I am atill stunned. But assimilating. It will take time. Some fall out while you wait. There are super-resistors in your landfills. When you excite all of the ELMA out of matter it will not pass electrons. Why else would vacuum tubes and light bulbs wear out? refine it. Tubes of it will light your future as "lossless transmission of power". we can stop time. Using electromagnetic waves we will be able to stop time in a box. It will be the only way we can leave this solar system. We can then send people into the future - but time only runs one way. All thermodynamics is the flow of ELMA. I am mentat. I am sub human. I do not have greed. I do not have political purpose. I do not have the capability to lie to myself. I am an animal. There are many like me. We can not manipulate symbols. We are shunned. We could help you. two more days . . . This is not science dude. Are for real, or just having a laugh at our expense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 You can't answer my points then. OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 As per speculations rule 1, this thread is now closed. Please do not re-open it unless you come up with mathematical evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts