Hypography Science Forums: LaurieAG - Viewing Profile - Hypography Science Forums

LaurieAG, on 28 February 2012 - 02:57 AM, said:

If the universe is detectably expanding then someone must have developed a true answer. What type of observational constant or other immutable yardstick could be used to detect this?

This link points to a bit of light reading in google books .

http://books.google....size%22&f=false

Quote

I take it that falsifying the 'Is it False' bit is actually proving that the remainder of the conjecture is actually true.

Dimensionless constants have some very interesting characteristics.

http://math.ucr.edu/.../constants.html

Quote

In 1964 G. Schlesinger asked Is it false that Overnight everything has doubled in size. If the universe is detectably expanding then someone must have developed a true answer. Could a trio of dimensionless constants be used as an observational constant or immutable yardstick?

This 'thought experiment' shows one possibility. All of the constants on the 3 ratios below can be regarded as time or distance (based on the distance travelled by light in the time). Mass is not part of any ratio used in this 'thought experiment'.

If I started photographing a light around 6 and a bit feet away, and the light was being spun in a circle 2 feet in diameter and I captured the light from the spinning light source in one complete circle the ratio (A) of the time between the rotating source and the observer over the diameter of rotation would be roughly equal to Pi.
In this case the ratio ( B ) of the actual distance between source and observer over the distance travelled by light in a year would be very small and the ratio ( C ) of the observation period over the time it takes for the light to be rotated once will equal one. All observations should have a width of field that covers the complete diameter of rotation of the source being observed.

If I halve the exposure period I get half a circle and capture half as much light and when I double the exposure period I get 2 circles over each other and twice as much light in my photograph. If the light is rotated twice as fast I would expect something that looked similar to when I doubled the exposure period but I would also expect to capture the same amount of light as the original one rotation despite the doubling of the speed of rotation. If I put two lights together I could halve the exposure time and double the speed of rotation to capture a similar amount of light from the original 1 light doing 1 complete rotation. If the light moved at an angle to me I would observe an oval instead of a circle but the amount of light captured would remain the same as in a complete circle.

In this simplest base context A = Pi, B = tiny, C = 1 and the observer will capture one complete cycle. On any scale where C >= 1 the observer will capture at least one complete cycle despite the size of B.

On any scale where A = Pi * x, B >= 1 and C < 1 the observer will only capture the light from B * C = x of one rotation during any observation regardless of the speed of rotation of the same object.

On a galactic year scale where A = Pi * x, B = 230 million and C = 1/230 million you would expect to capture the light from B * C = x rotations or roughly one rotation regardless of the speed of rotation.

On a galactic year scale where A = Pi * x, B = 4.2 billion and C = 1/4.2 billion you would expect to capture the light from B * C = x rotations or roughly one rotation regardless of the speed of rotation.

Only changes in brightness can really make a difference on any scale as the speed of rotation does not change the total amount of light captured from the same source during any similar observation period. I have used figures for convenience, put your own figures in and keep ratio A as Pi * x and you will have a base point to compare observations.

Moderation note: the first 5 posts of this thread were moved from Antimatter, (Where has it gone?) because they are not related to that thread's topic



Hi all,

Isn't the ratio of anti/dark matter to matter the same ratio as that between the mass calculated from observations of the visible spectra to the mass calculated from observations made of the x-ray spectra?

This ratio is just the average number of complete rotations of all the large rotating bodies captured in a visible set of astronomical data with the same depth of field.

The glancing incidence mirror structure of a modern x-ray telescope means that other parts of the wave path that are in phase but out of cycle are ignored.

http://en.wikipedia....olter_telescope

Will we ever see a correctly transformed image of a spiral galaxy with the spin removed?

Moderation note: the first 6 posts of this thread were moved from the thread "Proof of My Fundamental Equation" because they are about different topics.

Hi Qfwfq,

Qfwfq, on 25 February 2011 - 05:01 AM, said:

Maybe if the hippy had a working feedback loop he might have decided otherwise.

 00aPoincareSection.jpg (23.57K)
Number of downloads: 15

1. This a basic graphical representation of an optical feedback loop.

 00lorenzside.jpg (19.39K)
Number of downloads: 20

2. This is a graphical representation of a Lorenzian loop.

 0-Setup.jpg (52.9K)
Number of downloads: 22

3. This is the equipment for a feedback loop.

 Riemann_Sphere.jpg (6.03K)
Number of downloads: 13

4. This is a graphical representation of a Reimann sphere.

 Riemann_Sphere02.JPG (15.32K)
Number of downloads: 18

5. This is a screen capture (Poincare section) captured from the feedback loop using 1 mirror.

 core misconceptions.jpg (27.25K)
Number of downloads: 17

6. This why they look very similar but not quite.

With the northern Hemisphere suffering snow storms in winter, flooding rains in summer and the southern hemisphere suffers heat waves and flooding rains surely there is a possibility that something else man made might be actively contributing to the Global Warming phenomena?

Here's a couple of interesting observations:-

(1) About 2 weeks ago in Queensland we had a Cyclone cross our northern coast and continue in a southerly direction spreading widespread flooding and storms to well past our southern border. Normally cyclones turn into rain depressions but they don't usually continue travelling once they cross the land. In the past week we've had storms and constant rain from the north east, South east, north west and south west, in my local area, all 4 angles of the compass.

(2) The last time we had many cyclones in Queensland (up to 9 per season) was in the late 60's and early seventies. We then didn't have any for about 15 years and have only had a couple since. This morning the local paper reported many sightings of what people thought were emergency flares out in the ocean around 9:30pm and it also said that the Brisbane Airport officials reported seeing Space Junk burning up around that time.

(3) The spawning zone for Typhoons appears to be a roughly 1000 square mile area off the Phillipines while the spawning ground for Caribbean Hurricanes is on the opposite side of the world in a similar zone a similar distance above the equator. The spawning ground for our southern 'eastern lows' (dry cyclones) is a similar size and distance from the equator as the one that produces the same atmospheric phenomena off the east coast of Brazil (which there scientists have no explanation for). These 'eastern lows' are interesting as they tend to pick up rain bearing clouds and throw them with mighty force onto our coastline. All 4 zones together create a neat quatropole of spawning zones spanning the equator and the globe.

(4) Around 4-5 years ago we had a huge storm that created cyclonic wind conditions (I was driving west and straight ahead the clouds were heading south, I turned south and the clouds straight ahead were heading east) that culminated in a massive lightning strike that rattled the foundations of the house I was in at the time of the strike. The next day it was reported that we had a 2.3 magnitude earthquake 200km directly off our east coast.

Has anybody done any reasearch about the impacts of dumping space junk (and third stages of the Apollo program) in the pacific, the impacts of both polar and geostationary satellites (Hmm El Nino/La Nina), not to mention incoming rogue satellites (and the occasional space shuttle) on our global weather patterns?

Pardon me for being an ignorant small town banana bender (whose small hometown had municipal street lighting within 8 years of the major european capitals) who lives in the arsehole of the earth (as stated by ex PM Paul Keating) and lies under the incoming flight path of the dumping ground for all kinds of space junk, please don't come the raw prawn with us as it bloody well stinks.