Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum expanding space theory debunked

One man keep LED bulb (120 Mhz , Ideal 3D signal )
next man keep detector

Detetor and Bulb are moving in space

p1..p2..p3..p4..p6...p7...Bulb >>> motion

bulb started 3D wave in past in point p1 ..p2......p7..
detector can not register light from "fresh bulb position L1 distance "
light need time to touch the detector !!!

for distance L3 light need time T
during the same time T Earth made distance L2


Intensity of the signal = Joules/ mm^2



Inverse Square Law
( exist strong relations between distance
and Intensity ) !!!

More far from place where signal started = lower intensity of signal

( "lower brightness" )

1R = X , 2R = X/4 , 3R = X/9


X- brightness, R- radius


the same energy portion but different area


Person that keep detector is able recognize how far from place where signal started he is registering the signal

Above test we making on the Earth we are sure about bulb's power and size ( we can measure all bulb's electric variable)


Above test have smaler verion ( very important is dark filtre
virtual distace can be equal 150 000 000 km or more ... )
Camera--- bulb distance is 100 mm but dark filtre simulate long distance




Marosz
Light it is not single flat line --- it is always 3D signal
Energy is going isotropy 3D respect to point where wave started. Not exist C +V or C -V exist only C !!!

The kicker for you is that therefore you are saying you can't say anything really at all about anything. You want to know you know everything before you begin the process, that is after all what you statement above translates too.

So my question to stay on rules would be Paul how will you know if a device to detect "linear constant motion" is actually possible or not to make your decision as to how to resolve the issue and adhere to the way you want to do physics?

Orac,

Ok, I'll go with choice A (I believe you can't detect constant linear motion).

But now the definition of energy, as given in this thread, seems incomplete.

Bingo you got it ... and now you understand the relevance.

I would say more than incomplete I would say undefined and meaningless at that point. So it needs to be fixed doesn't it.

That is the real problem and why when Paul makes motion as the only definition of energy I have more than a little confused unless he is going to invoke absolute space and that is going to hit a very large wall.

That is why I actually needed an answer to that question from Paul to understand his idea because I assume he has to invoke absolute space.

If you are interested in how science starts to resolve the issue you have to follow the energy story and that starts with Max Planck and light but you need energy outside just motion.

Orac,

"If you are interested in how science starts to resolve the issue..."

Actually I'd be more interested in how they finally resolved it!
But I assume that hasn't happened yet.

Typical of the modern era everyone wants spoilers to the ending of the story

What I will say is whether the story is complete ultimately ends in another A/B question and so the end or not depends on your choice.

I am all for choice I am not here to convert or give the answer, make your choices and follow the implications.

no thats not how the below translates , orac.



the above translates into "constant linear motion is most definitely not a problem to real science"

perhaps it may translate that way to you, however.



its constant linear motion , orac.

I guess I'll have to wait for the tv ads or make sure I
keep up with the daily mail.

BTW , I dont do the philosophical stuff orac , I leave
that type of stuff to others.

so Im not going to do the "invoke absolute space" bit with
you nor will I do the absolute time bit either.

I try not to get caught up in that type of stuff.

but since you have already broke it out of the box , why
do you think that I would need to invoke absolute space?

why would you think that there would even be a need to?

and why would you think that my definition of energy
needs to be fixed?

are you saying that my definition is too simple?
and that it needs to be obscured in order to fit into
science?

No Paul it implies you have to have absolute space because the answer is totally inconsistent with any form of relativity and that is what it took around 5-6 pages of posts to get too. Your idea has a lot in common with Marosz.

You sort of got there in the end you even setup the defense that maybe we haven't discovered the device that can detect motion and so maybe we have absolute space.

I will leave Bill to explain Bill and Rede to explain the problem of absolute space because they are right into GR and after that effort to discuss the most basic science I am worn out.

It was pleasing to see at least one person in Pokey got the problem instantly once it was broken down.

Anyhow I will leave you gurus to it.

perhaps that's why my answer is correct !

obscuring it by making it incorrect in order to "fit it into"
relativity should not be scientific.

but since you don't really do scientific stuff , I can understand why you would believe that correct just will
not work with incorrect so as usual in order for it to
work in relativity you would first need to destroy it
so that it becomes useless in reality.



Im not going to fall for that , orac.

I really don't think you know very much about anything , and
mostly what you do is you allow others to provide any content
other than your consistent boasting about how your at a much
higher level of intelligence than they are.



I can tell your worn out , "bill to explain bill" LOL

but I cant understand why physics would wear you out if you understand it.
I can understand that if your mind has to constantly find work
arounds in order to pacify the fake science , well that could
quickly and easily wear anyone out , and that's the reason why
I don't even take any of the fake science serious , its just to
damaging for the brain.

lets list a few motion/power observations of motion in reality.

the motion of water = water power
the motion of wind = wind power
the motion of light = solar power

now a list of a few motion/power observations of motion using fuels.

burning coal = the motion of wind ( steam )= coal power
burning gas = the motion of wind ( explosion) = gas power

by replacing the word motion with the word energy
in the above there is no change because energy is motion.

every type of power plant that I can think of uses motion
as a means of generating electricity.

energy is motion

no matter how you look at it.

why is it that I can so neatly and correctly define energy
but you cant?

is it that your poisoned brain is keeping you from understanding that energy is motion because it is simply
maintaining a work around to pacify the fake science?

but you haven't given your definition of energy yet , orac.

have you considered that energy is a part of reality
and that is the reason why you cant give a definition of energy
as your brain is rejecting reality in order to pacify the
fake science?




can you explain why reality allows this man to power his home this way using the fake science in your brain?