Light speed, and time?

[Captainzen]

Hello to everyone

This is my first time here (or anywhere for that matter) as an observer of our science community. I crave for knowledge, develop my own theories, and I am certainly curious about what the general circulating beliefs are in relation to what surrounds us.

So I will start by saying, that my intention is to start a thread on a very controversial subject (in my perspective) theorized by Newton. And I aim to smash the idea that you can not travel faster than light, and the association of light-speed to time. This may be an extended discussion, so I first want to know if there is interest to get into this before I spend any time on it, so I don't end up talking to myself. Thanks.

 

Zen

[Klaynos]

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.

[xyzt]

Hello to everyone

This is my first time here (or anywhere for that matter) as an observer of our science community. I crave for knowledge, develop my own theories, and I am certainly curious about what the general circulating beliefs are in relation to what surrounds us.

So I will start by saying, that my intention is to start a thread on a very controversial subject (in my perspective) theorized by Newton. And I aim to smash the idea that you can not travel faster than light, and the association of light-speed to time. This may be an extended discussion, so I first want to know if there is interest to get into this before I spend any time on it, so I don't end up talking to myself. Thanks.

 

Zen

 

 

Before you "develop" a "theory" you need to LEARN the EXISTING ones. Have you studied physics?

[Klaynos]

Don't forget to be concise.

[Strange]

I first want to know if there is interest to get into this before I spend any time on it, so I don't end up talking to myself. Thanks.

 

As long as you are not going to get upset when people point out that:

1. Your "theory" is not a theory.

2. You have misunderstood some basic physics.

3. Your conclusions are not supported by any evidence or theory.

 

Of course, I might be wrong. You might not be just like all the others who post their ideas on science forums. So let's see...

[Captainzen]

Ok......

 

So I have stirred some nests. Sounds fine. Although I did not get "yes I am very interested in the subject" but "are you a mathematician" and "you can't develop a theory without mathematics", I am not put off. Thought and logic can be sufficient to develop a theory. After all a theory is simply someone's idea of something, whether they arrived at it with mathematics or logic. And you can not prove everything with mathematics. Although it can help to explain a thought. By the quotes I have seen here, I sense fear and superiority complexes.

 

Lets get into it. First of all I would like to address the idea that you can not go faster than the speed of light.

Light is launched into space, so there is an energy involved that determines it's speed, and since space is empty (lets not get into the "dark matter" please) light will travel at the speed it was launched until it hits something that will absorb it. Of course not necessarily in a straight line, because there are forces that can act upon it.

When we launch a probe into space we use a certain amount of fuel, and use the gravity of planets to sling-shoot it so it will reach the set calculated speed for the objective. And because there is no resistance in space, we count on that probe to keep going at that speed, essentially forever (until it hits something). So lets say we have built an energy source that can propel a ship that could accelerate to light speed ( hypothesis). So 186,000 mps in round numbers. When we reach light speed, because there is no resistance, we would continue at that speed even after we stop burning fuel correct?

So because there is no resistance, even though you are traveling at the speed of light it would feel like you are standing still would it not? So logically if you apply more fuel you would go faster than the speed of light. I understand that CERN has not been able to make anything go faster than light, it does not mean it is not possible logically.

 

Time association to speed of light is hogwash. Time is nothing more than a measure of passing created by man . A system of measure, nothing more. If you accelerate at say 20,000 mph and go two weeks into space, then turn back at the same speed, you would have been gone a month, so you would be one month older as well as back here on Earth we would also be one month older. The theory that as you reach the speed of light time slows is ludicrous. I don't care how much mathematics you apply to it, you are just inventing. Time as a THING does not exist except in dreamer's minds.

 

Pore it on guys.

[xyzt]

My initial sense was that the "theory" belonged to Trash. Turns out that I was correct, thank you for confirming it.

[StringJunky]

My initial sense was that the "theory" belonged to Trash. Turns out that I was correct, thank you for confirming it.

Why do people hate Einstein and Maths so much? it's a fairly constant theme I've noticed.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Please follow the guidelines we've set up for discussion here

[Janus]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok......

 

So I have stirred some nests. Sounds fine. Although I did not get "yes I am very interested in the subject" but "are you a mathematician" and "you can't develop a theory without mathematics", I am not put off. Thought and logic can be sufficient to develop a theory. After all a theory is simply someone's idea of something, whether they arrived at it with mathematics or logic. And you can not prove everything with mathematics. Although it can help to explain a thought. By the quotes I have seen here, I sense fear and superiority complexes.

 

Lets get into it. First of all I would like to address the idea that you can not go faster than the speed of light.

Light is launched into space, so there is an energy involved that determines it's speed, and since space is empty (lets not get into the "dark matter" please) light will travel at the speed it was launched until it hits something that will absorb it. Of course not necessarily in a straight line, because there are forces that can act upon it.

When we launch a probe into space we use a certain amount of fuel, and use the gravity of planets to sling-shoot it so it will reach the set calculated speed for the objective. And because there is no resistance in space, we count on that probe to keep going at that speed, essentially forever (until it hits something). So lets say we have built an energy source that can propel a ship that could accelerate to light speed ( hypothesis). So 186,000 mps in round numbers. When we reach light speed, because there is no resistance, we would continue at that speed even after we stop burning fuel correct?

Except. no matter how much energy you had, you could not even reach the speed of light. The amount of energy needed increases to infinity as you approach the speed of light. One way to look at it is this,the faster the object moves, the more energy it has, but it turns out that adding energy to an object has much the same effect as adding mass does. The more massive an object is, the more energy it takes to change its speed by a given amount The same happens with energy. Add energy to an object and you increase its inertia and its resistance to further changes in speed. It becomes a vicious cycle: You have add energy to increase speed, but that added energy makes it harder to increase the speed further, requiring even more energy than it did before to increase the speed by the same amount. More and more and more the energy you add goes into overcoming the inertia of the energy already added and less and less goes into increasing the speed. As a result you can get closer and closer to light speed, but no matter how hard you try you can never reach it.

 

So because there is no resistance, even though you are traveling at the speed of light it would feel like you are standing still would it not? So logically if you apply more fuel you would go faster than the speed of light. I understand that CERN has not been able to make anything go faster than light, it does not mean it is not possible logically.

Yes it does. You have to understand why particle accelerators cannot get particles up to light speed. It goes back the what I said above. They can keep increasing the energy that they pump into a particle, but no matter how much they add, it never reaches light speed. And we know that that energy used to accelerate the particle actually goes into the particle, because when it slams into a target it is all there in the collision.

 

Time association to speed of light is hogwash. Time is nothing more than a measure of passing created by man . A system of measure, nothing more. If you accelerate at say 20,000 mph and go two weeks into space, then turn back at the same speed, you would have been gone a month, so you would be one month older as well as back here on Earth we would also be one month older. The theory that as you reach the speed of light time slows is ludicrous. I don't care how much mathematics you apply to it, you are just inventing. Time as a THING does not exist except in dreamer's minds.

Pore it on guys.

 

Except it isn't just the math, real life experiment has verified this conclusion.( in fact the GPS system had to be designed with it in mind in order to work properly.)

 

In your example, you would actually return having aged a little under 2 min less than everyone on Earth.

 

Nobody argues that this happens just because it is what the math says, they argue that the math is correct because it matches what we actually measure in the world around us.

[ajb]

Thought and logic can be sufficient to develop a theory. After all a theory is simply someone's idea of something, whether they arrived at it with mathematics or logic.

Well, in physics theory is usually synonymous with mathematical model. Without a model you cannot calculate what you would expect to see and so cannot make predictions that can be tested.

 

By the quotes I have seen here, I sense fear and superiority complexes.

I would not say that. Rather we do get lots of wild claims on this forum and so people get naturally dismissive quickly. I would say they are usually right to be dismissive. Anyway, on to your claims...

 

So lets say we have built an energy source that can propel a ship that could accelerate to light speed ( hypothesis).

This is an assumption that has no physical basis. In fact it goes against what we know from special and general relativity. While it can be useful to think about some unphysical situations to aid the understanding of what is physical, one cannot draw true meaning out of these situations. In short, as you have broken the laws of physics as we understand them any of your conclusions from this step are unfounded.

 

So because there is no resistance, even though you are traveling at the speed of light it would feel like you are standing still would it not?

I am not sure how to deal with travelling at light speed, it is unphysical for massive bodies and one has to take care when thinking of such a perspective. You need to define with what that speed is measured with respect to. Anyway, travelling at any constant speed feels like you are standing still. You do not have some universally defined speed that everyone will agree on.

 

Think about when you travel on a train. When the train is going at a constant velocity (so the track is straight) there is no way to tell if you are moving or not, unless you look out of the window. Locally, meaning don't look out the window, you cannot preform any experiments that would tell you that you are moving, and then we have to decide with respect to what.

 

Now if we allow looking out the window then you can observe objects moving at a constant velocity with respect to you. For example, you could fix some point on the ground, say a station or a telegraph pole, and then you can measure the speed at which that object is moving away from you. This you define to be your velocity as measured with respect to that object. Now let us suppose that there is another train on a parallel track. This train is moving along side you at exactly the same velocity relative to the object defined earlier. What is your speed relative to this second train? What if the train was travelling in the opposite direction?

 

Anyway, as far as you can tell you are the one that is at rest and everything else is moving!

 

When forces act this is different. You can notice accelerations. Again, think about your train journey and the sensation you get as the train accelerates or decelerates.

 

 

So logically if you apply more fuel you would go faster than the speed of light. I understand that CERN has not been able to make anything go faster than light, it does not mean it is not possible logically.

It is not that simple. First as already stated, massive objects cannot be accelerated to the speed of light (as measured in any inertial frame of reference). This is a result of special relativity which has been tested in one form or another to a high degree of accuracy. We have no reason to think that massive bodies can be accelerated to the speed of light nor past it.

 

 

Time is nothing more than a measure of passing created by man . A system of measure, nothing more.

Sure, but it is a concept that allows us to accurately describe nature. Just as length, mass and electric charge etc do.

 

If you accelerate at say 20,000 mph and go two weeks into space....

As measured by whom? This is the point, as well as speeds being relative, lengths and durations are also relative. They depend on who measures them.

 

The theory that as you reach the speed of light time slows is ludicrous. I don't care how much mathematics you apply to it, you are just inventing. Time as a THING does not exist except in dreamer's minds.

We have experimental evidence of time dilation, as it is called. First we have evidence from cosmic rays and decay rates in the lab. We know that the particles that form cosmic rays 'live longer' when travelling at high speeds as we measure them. This is also taken into account with collider experiments.

 

Time dilation effects, both from kinematics and gravitational physics are taken into account by the GPS system. Without taking these corrections into account the system would soon be inaccurate.

 

In conclusion, it maybe worth you reading up on the ideas of special relativity more carefully.

[Strange]

After all a theory is simply someone's idea of something, whether they arrived at it with mathematics or logic.

 

1. That is not what theory means in science. A theory is an explanation that is able to provide quantitative, testable predictions and that has beed repeatedly tested against the evidence.

 

Light is launched into space, so there is an energy involved that determines it's speed

 

2. Light is not "launched" and its speed is not determined by its energy. It always travels at the same speed (the energy corresponds to its frequency).

 

So because there is no resistance, even though you are traveling at the speed of light it would feel like you are standing still would it not? So logically if you apply more fuel you would go faster than the speed of light. I understand that CERN has not been able to make anything go faster than light, it does not mean it is not possible logically.

 

3. This is the problem with deriving results using "logic" when you don't know the basics. You get the wrong answers.

 

If you accelerate at say 20,000 mph

 

That is a speed, not an acceleration.

 

and go two weeks into space, then turn back at the same speed, you would have been gone a month, so you would be one month older as well as back here on Earth we would also be one month older.

 

Except that this prediction of the theory has been tested and found to be correct. (That is how science works.)

 

The theory that as you reach the speed of light time slows is ludicrous.

 

And this prediction of the theory has been tested as well. As a practical example, you might have heard of GPS?

 

I don't care how much mathematics you apply to it, you are just inventing.

 

Here's the thing, science doesn't just make things up. It tests each idea to make sure it works before it is accepted as a theory. Which is why you don't have a theory: your predictions are contradicted by evidence.

[Captainzen]

My initial sense was that the "theory" belonged to Trash. Turns out that I was correct, thank you for confirming it.

 

I don't know how old you are, but please grow up. Take that chip off your shoulder.

Why do people hate Einstein and Maths so much? it's a fairly constant theme I've noticed.

 

People don't hate Einstein. It is human to question status quo. And why must science be buried in the maze of math? When all the mind sees is numbers, logic gets cloudy.

 

1. That is not what theory means in science. A theory is an explanation that is able to provide quantitative, testable predictions and that has beed repeatedly tested against the evidence.

 

 

2. Light is not "launched" and its speed is not determined by its energy. It always travels at the same speed (the energy corresponds to its frequency).

 

 

3. This is the problem with deriving results using "logic" when you don't know the basics. You get the wrong answers.

 

 

That is a speed, not an acceleration.

 

 

Except that this prediction of the theory has been tested and found to be correct. (That is how science works.)

 

 

And this prediction of the theory has been tested as well. As a practical example, you might have heard of GPS?

 

 

Here's the thing, science doesn't just make things up. It tests each idea to make sure it works before it is accepted as a theory. Which is why you don't have a theory: your predictions are contradicted by evidence.

 

What evidence. A theory is a theory not a proven fact.

So no one so far is willing to discuss my ideas. Only to criticize. Well I will criticize back. Seems that this is just a forum of the books, and no one is interested in debating with logic. Where did our minds go? Buried in numbers I guess.

 

Is there no one really interested in pursuing a real discussion? Is this forum really filled with skepticism?

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Captainzen

 

XYZT commented on your theory - that is acceptable. You insulted and negatively characterised XYZT - that is unacceptable.

 

Do not continue to insult those who criticise your ideas . Do not respond to this moderation in the thread

 

 

[Captainzen]

 

 

 

 

 

Except. no matter how much energy you had, you could not even reach the speed of light. The amount of energy needed increases to infinity as you approach the speed of light. One way to look at it is this,the faster the object moves, the more energy it has, but it turns out that adding energy to an object has much the same effect as adding mass does. The more massive an object is, the more energy it takes to change its speed by a given amount The same happens with energy. Add energy to an object and you increase its inertia and its resistance to further changes in speed. It becomes a vicious cycle: You have add energy to increase speed, but that added energy makes it harder to increase the speed further, requiring even more energy than it did before to increase the speed by the same amount. More and more and more the energy you add goes into overcoming the inertia of the energy already added and less and less goes into increasing the speed. As a result you can get closer and closer to light speed, but no matter how hard you try you can never reach it. Yes it does. You have to understand why particle accelerators cannot get particles up to light speed. It goes back the what I said above. They can keep increasing the energy that they pump into a particle, but no matter how much they add, it never reaches light speed. And we know that that energy used to accelerate the particle actually goes into the particle, because when it slams into a target it is all there in the collision.

 

Time association to speed of light is hogwash. Time is nothing more than a measure of passing created by man . A system of measure, nothing more. If you accelerate at say 20,000 mph and go two weeks into space, then turn back at the same speed, you would have been gone a month, so you would be one month older as well as back here on Earth we would also be one month older. The theory that as you reach the speed of light time slows is ludicrous. I don't care how much mathematics you apply to it, you are just inventing. Time as a THING does not exist except in dreamer's minds.

Pore it on guys.

 

Except it isn't just the math, real life experiment has verified this conclusion.( in fact the GPS system had to be designed with it in mind in order to work properly.)

 

In your example, you would actually return having aged a little under 2 min less than everyone on Earth.

 

Nobody argues that this happens just because it is what the math says, they argue that the math is correct because it matches what we actually measure in the world around us.

 

In your example, you would actually return having aged a little under 2 min less than everyone on Earth.

This is the best response I have received so far. Alright, can you please elaborate on this? I need it to be logical. You see I am a problem solver, majored in mechanical engineering, and I depend on logic to make things work.

 

!

Moderator Note

 

Captainzen

 

XYZT commented on your theory - that is acceptable. You insulted and negatively characterised XYZT - that is unacceptable.

 

Do not continue to insult those who criticise your ideas . Do not respond to this moderation in the thread

 

 

Touchy are we? So I can be insulted, but can not criticize back?

Edited February 8, 2015 by Captainzen

[Strange]

What evidence. A theory is a theory not a proven fact.

 

There are no "proven facts" in science. Just theories support by a lot of evidence. There is a mountain of evidence for the predictions of special and general relativity; far too much to go into here, or even list (a few examples have been mentioned).

 

So no one so far is willing to discuss my ideas. Only to criticize.

 

That is what science does: tests ideas. IF you think you have a theory (more accurately, hypothesis) then you need to show that (a) it makes predictions (b) those predictions are confirmed by evidence and © ideally, show that it makes better predictions than existing theory.

 

Just saying "time dilation is ludicrous" is not science.

 

Seems that this is just a forum of the books

 

Gosh, that's original. But I don't understand this criticism. is it that you haven't bothered to learn anything so no one else should either?

 

, and no one is interested in debating with logic.

 

Can you define what you mean by "logic"? If you mean making stuff up (like "time dilation is ludicrous", even though we use it in technology every day) then we don't need that sort of logic.

[Phi for All]

Touchy are we? So I can be insulted, but can not criticize back?

 

Please, calm down.

 

Moderator notes are supposed to be a one-way interjection to remind folks of the rules. We don't encourage commenting on them because it derails the discussion. Nothing more. If you feel the modnote was wrong, Report it, we have a process for dealing with that.

 

Right now you're in the phase where you've given us an overview of your idea, and we're helping you with some foundational science. This isn't picking lint off a mostly clean suit, you're talking about overturning heavily evidenced scientific theory but you've obviously misunderstood some of the basics.

 

Why come to a science board like this to present your idea if you didn't expect some sort of review? This could be a good opportunity for you, but you can't take criticism of your idea personally. We attack ideas here, not people, because that's what science does. It huffs and puffs and tries to blow your theoretical house down. If it can, great, you don't need to waste your time. If it can't, great, let's see if this explanation is better than what we've been working with.

 

The help folks are trying to give you is all "inside-the-box" stuff. We use the box because it's filled with all the stuff that actually works. Not everyone understands it, and some of those folks even conclude that it's wrong without understanding it, but mainstream knowledge is the way we measure any explanation of a natural phenomena.

[xyzt]

 

Time association to speed of light is hogwash.

Others have already pointed out the multiple mistakes in your "theory". Let me point out another one:

The way GPS works is that it needs to take into consideration the relativistic time dilation: [math]\tau=t \sqrt{1-(v/c)^2}[/math] where "c" is ...the speed of light. Do you have GPS in you car? Does it work?

[Ten oz]

Ok......

 

So I have stirred some nests. Sounds fine. Although I did not get "yes I am very interested in the subject" but "are you a mathematician" and "you can't develop a theory without mathematics", I am not put off. Thought and logic can be sufficient to develop a theory. After all a theory is simply someone's idea of something, whether they arrived at it with mathematics or logic. And you can not prove everything with mathematics. Although it can help to explain a thought. By the quotes I have seen here, I sense fear and superiority complexes.

The math is very important. How else can you show us your theory?

 

Lets get into it. First of all I would like to address the idea that you can not go faster than the speed of light.

Light is launched into space, so there is an energy involved that determines it's speed, and since space is empty (lets not get into the "dark matter" please) light will travel at the speed it was launched until it hits something that will absorb it. Of course not necessarily in a straight line, because there are forces that can act upon it.

When we launch a probe into space we use a certain amount of fuel, and use the gravity of planets to sling-shoot it so it will reach the set calculated speed for the objective. And because there is no resistance in space, we count on that probe to keep going at that speed, essentially forever (until it hits something). So lets say we have built an energy source that can propel a ship that could accelerate to light speed ( hypothesis). So 186,000 mps in round numbers. When we reach light speed, because there is no resistance, we would continue at that speed even after we stop burning fuel correct?

So because there is no resistance, even though you are traveling at the speed of light it would feel like you are standing still would it not? So logically if you apply more fuel you would go faster than the speed of light. I understand that CERN has not been able to make anything go faster than light, it does not mean it is not possible logically.

All matter is made of energy. The amount of energy/force you are describing to be used to "launch" a probe would also destory that probe and turn its matter back into energy. In other words; the probe would go boom!

 

 

Time association to speed of light is hogwash. Time is nothing more than a measure of passing created by man . A system of measure, nothing more. If you accelerate at say 20,000 mph and go two weeks into space, then turn back at the same speed, you would have been gone a month, so you would be one month older as well as back here on Earth we would also be one month older. The theory that as you reach the speed of light time slows is ludicrous. I don't care how much mathematics you apply to it, you are just inventing. Time as a THING does not exist except in dreamer's minds.

 

You are made of atoms. Those atoms move. You should study up on that.

[ajb]

And why must science be buried in the maze of math? When all the mind sees is numbers, logic gets cloudy.

The first question is interesting. At the basic level we need mathematics in order to compare results. We use basic mathematics when we measure things, take averages and so on. A little more high brow, we use statistical analysis to do help us understand results of experiments.

 

Beyond that I don't think is understood why mathematics has been so powerful in the physical sciences. We all accept, based on previous experience that mathematics and physics are deeply intertwined.

 

Now, your last comment here is also interesting. Many people will state exactly the opposite; mathematics can help us think logically. Moreover, some would claim that it is essential in our thinking.

 

 

 

 

So no one so far is willing to discuss my ideas. Only to criticize.

Discussion and criticism are not mutually exclusive. I thought I had discussed your ideas and how they are at odds with what we do know about nature. What was you actually expecting?

 

Is there no one really interested in pursuing a real discussion? Is this forum really filled with skepticism?

Generally people here are willing to engage in a discussion, but it is a two way thing. My question to you is what are you looking for here? If it is for people who know a little physics to point out the errors in your thinking, then you have come to the right place. If it is just to be praised for how great your ideas are, then you should try another forum.

Edited February 9, 2015 by ajb

[Captainzen]

Well it has been interesting to say the least. Obviously I had no idea what to expect when I decided to stir up this forum. Being a mechanical engineer, I depend totally on logic to solve problems so I wanted to get some views on current thinking of the theories that confuse me.

I am intent on all that goes on with the scientific discoveries as they are brought to the public knowledge base, like the idea of the black matter, space warp, possibility of another universe on the other side of of a black hole, and the continuous expansion of our universe. I have dug into some of Albert Einstein's available material as well as Isac Newton to try to comprehend some things. I purposely attacked what I believe to be the most significant theories to see what you guys would through back at me. I expected pros and cons, but I mostly got a closed defense of what is known. I expected more.

I want to thank especially Janus for his contribution and all others to have put up with me. This concludes my short adventure here.

 

Thank you all

 

Zen

[Strange]

I mostly got a closed defense of what is known. I expected more.

 

I'm not sure why. There are good reasons why theories are accepted.

 

 

I wanted to get some views on current thinking of the theories that confuse me.

 

Maybe you should have just asked some questions, instead of starting with an attack...

 

 

I want to thank especially Janus for his contribution

 

He's great, ins't he. (He? I have no idea )

[Bignose]

Time association to speed of light is hogwash. Time is nothing more than a measure of passing created by man . A system of measure, nothing more. If you accelerate at say 20,000 mph and go two weeks into space, then turn back at the same speed, you would have been gone a month, so you would be one month older as well as back here on Earth we would also be one month older. The theory that as you reach the speed of light time slows is ludicrous. I don't care how much mathematics you apply to it, you are just inventing. Time as a THING does not exist except in dreamer's minds.

Please explain the Hafele-Keating experiment then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele–Keating_experiment

 

Why do otherwise identical clocks tick at different speeds when they move at different velocities? Why are the time corrections necessary on GPS satellites?

 

Look, I've written this many times now. And as an engineer, you should directly appreciate this:

 

If you don't like the currently accepted idea, just propose one that makes better predictions. The one we have right now, it actually pretty good. It is a link I post a lot, but it is good: take a peek at http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2014-4/. It is a review paper demonstrating just how accurately the predictions agree with what is measured.

 

So, as an engineer, you know that the model that makes the best predictions is the one that gets used. So, just show us that your idea makes better predictions. Publish a paper blowing the one above out of the water. And receive just gobs and gobs attention. I guarantee a lot of people want to read your paper if you can make better predictions.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Bignose

[ajb]

Being a mechanical engineer, I depend totally on logic to solve problems so I wanted to get some views on current thinking of the theories that confuse me.

I don't see that you asked any questions. You just made some assertions and we pointed out that these were unphysical and so great care needed to be taken in trying to extract some science from these.

 

If you have questions then please ask them. It maybe more prudent to start a new thread.