Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
you could as well useWhen doing the calculations, delta is not needed.
No, you need to put it in because the absolute velocities of the bodies are irrelevant.
Because it takes an energy soaked area to make antimatter.
It's a horribly inefficient way to store energy. and you would have to sacrifice them as fuel meaning unless it was awesomely fast, you might as well just use another fuel source like rocket fuel. Or an ion drive.
Thus, I find it hard to believe that our theories give an accurate representation of Nature. They are merely successive approximations to the objective, true nature of the world, but never becoming identical to it. Sort of like the famous argument that 0.(9) = 1, but 0.99...9 < 1. This is why I think that, Logical Rules, as well as any other Law of nature (which is really a Law in our Theory) are essentially product of the human mind and could not exist without it.
The reality is that light must bend or be affected in some way as outlined in EAT or AET. If this is true, then the exact nature and size of celestial bodies cannot be known until these theories are fully worked out.
He found the angle you would have to look at assuming the size of the object and the distance as given in the prompt. I mean, it's not my place to say how you do things or anything, but I don't get what this proves.
If someone knows the EXACT arc distance of the sun and moon, you could compare the two and revise the size or distance accordingly.
And (for the 3rd time so I don't get bitched at) : I don't know if I'm right.
) from a fist glance your calculations look goodWhy lead? What magical properties does it have to interact with neutrinos better than the atoms of other elements?
sorry @ all, completely got that wrong
Emmission of photons is not random either.exactly, distribution of intensity is the same as with scattering
No. Now I know you are just trolling.
Goodbye.
Emmission of photons is not random either.exactly, distribution of intensity is the same as with scattering
Because bending occurs when the light hits the glass at different times, meaning each portion of the light is slowed down at a different time.
whoops, missed that in you're first post, sorry.Oh I see, thats an interesting idea - I was assuming the dark portion was the weather system, but if its luminescent it could be the light portion.
the only thing that strikes me atm is the fact that it only covers the moon if it's full moon. it might be there all the time or randomly pop up but it's only visible at full moon.
Either way, its visible at any time the moon is.
Its cyclical, so I wouldn't say "randomly pops up" either.
Sorry, my fault for not being very specific.in fact every material creates a scattering effect. that's why you're able to see a laser beam from the side if it goes through eg a liquid. the amount of scattering is dependant of the wavelenght and size of the particles. interestingly the distribution of intensity is highly directional - most of the intensity will arrive where you'd expect the ray to leave the material if you assumed a straight line. the math behind these things is very unfunny so don't ask for it
The point im getting at is why would light travel in a straight line through a medium at a slower observed velocity than in a vacuum, if the reason for this is the absorption and almost immediate re-emission of the photons in a random direction.
Wouldn't this create a scattering effect?
(in short: you sum up a lot of spherical waves and end up with something non spherical. but again: that's very complicated, people have won nobel prizes for these things)what you say is correct but that's not what i said. the ! is meant to be a negation. so you say people are scared because your cat is black. if you had no information on the cat but you knew that people were not scared of your cat then the cat could not be black. ofc the implication people scared=>black cat is not true cause it would be circular reasoning.if i understood correctly, if
flat earth=A,
conspiracy=B
then
A=>B
then logic tells me that this is eqivalent to
!B=>!A
i think that's what markjo said
Here's the problem with this line of logic. Let's say that a=My cat is black and b=people are afraid of it. a=>b (ie, people are afraid of my cat because it's black); but it would be nonsensical to reverse that and say that my cat is black because people are afraid of it (or b=>a). This is exactly the same construct as the Conspiracy argument; we know there's a Conspiracy because we know the Earth is flat, but nobody claims that we know the Earth is flat because we know there is a Conspiracy. Hence, there's nothing circular about our reasoning.