|
0 members (),
388
guests, and
4
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209 |
. . . Thank You Very Much Mr Orac from this forum ( he like doppler but he can not use doppler for two bodies that are moving with the same velocity ) his questions and problems and resistance for new are inspiration for me to create. Below I showing new system end experiment that can be done in space ( gravition can show Us constant velocity ) (as You know I'm making my test with light ) square law for signals have also application for gravitation !!! http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=49961#Post49961NEW SYSTEM HOW TO CHECK COSTANT VELOCITY please see very important animation ( not my own it is physics that we use right now - please notice what is is apparent point ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aberrationlighttimebeaming.gif Gravitation signal from big mass M ( below picture ) also is isotropy ball respect to point where was in past mass M  link to above picture >>> click - big size author Ytube about my system http://youtu.be/DUW3zDAUksc Why above post = new physics Einstein not recognize what is it gravitation mass and inertial mass for him it is the same below very important paragraph GALLILEO and Einstein below paragraph is right now in each books ( many authors change only words and form - the sense is the same we can not recognize constant velocity if we not have windows - it is old physics above I showed very simle test two mass and tensometer ) " Galileo postulated his relativity hypothesis: any two observers moving at constant speed and direction with respect to one another will obtain the same results for all mechanical experiments (it is understood that the apparatuses they use for these experiments move with them). This idea has a very important consequence: velocity is not absolute. This means that velocity can only be measured in reference to some object(s), and that the result of this measurment changes if we decide to measure the velocity with respect to a diferent refernce point(s). Imagine an observer traveling inside a windowless spaceship moving away from the sun at constant velocity. Galileo asserted that there are no mechanical experiments that can be made inside the rocket that will tell the occupants that the rocket is moving . The question ``are we moving'' has no meaning unless we specify a reference frame (are we moving with respect to that star'' is meaningful). This fact, formulated in the 1600's remains very true today and is one of the cornerstones of Einstein's theories of relativity." I waiting for any cooperation ofer ( universities or single reaserch - we can cooperate in web ) below I showing link to this forum where I explain two important methods Electric and Light system ( absolute zero velocity masters) http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=49959#Post49959 my imagination work very good for people who have time to read and confirm this what I showed ( my bad english ) I need condition to research ( we have new physics each step looks crayzy but all have sense many facts cooperate FUNDAMENTS have got HUGE GAP right now I see this Gap I wait here for others people ) Br Maciej Marosz engineer and inventor http://tesla4.blogspot.com/
Last edited by newton; 10/11/13 02:18 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
.
Thank You Very Much Mr Orac from this forum ( he like doppler but he can not use doppler for two bodies that are moving with the same velocity ) his questions and problems and resistance for new are inspiration for me to create.
If your are going to reference me at least get what I say correct ... you do like stretching the truth you ignoramus. You are as glib with the truth as you are science but I am comfortable people can read.
Last edited by Orac; 10/13/13 07:44 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
Megastar
|
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209 |
DEAR ORAC PEOPLE ON THIS FORUM CAN BE SURE THAT YOU ARE EXPERT
"IF WE SPEAK ABOUT DOPPLER FOR LIGHT"below picture You very good know it is doppler efect for light I add to oryginal picture two masses PLease notice that mL=mR BUT !!! mL is moving opposite to waves mR escape . Big mass M is sending ideal isotropy signal from each new poitnt in space. Very importnat different is distance R ( please measure distance from point where signal started to point where signal hit mass mR and mass mL  Above I showed oryginal drawing doppler's efect for light  Grawitation = Waves gravitation need time for distance M-mR or mL-M . During signal is going mL --M-- mR ---> are moving 220 km/s ??? 30 000 km/s ??? ... distance is very important for gravitation ( Intensity of signal is different ( square law - I showing below definition)  Mass M is radiating equally in all directions gravitation signals. The amount passing through an area A varies with the distance form Mass M center. BELOW VERY IMPORTANT ANIMATION ( big mass M and ( mL + mR ) are moving and have got the same velocity distance to apparent point ??? ( signal started in past in apparent point 1 ..2 ..3..4...) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aberrationlighttimebeaming.gif SIMILAR "APPARENT DISTANCE PROBLEM " FEEL ELECTRON THAT IS MOVING AROUND CENTER e---c----e zero motion e----c--------e exist motion There is no any secret why atomic clock slow down inside airplane !! it is clear old classical mechanic ( apparent distance is important ) situation A e---c----e zero motion situation B e----c--------e --------------> 30 000 km/s elelectron's velocity is constant and the same in situation A and in situation B but electon in situation B has got not the same distace around center inside absolute space !!! that is the reason why atomic clock slown down ( period is longer if we compare to stationary sytuation ) Apparent distance is also very important for Each internal forces inside athom !!! BR MACIEJ MAROSZ engineer and inventor ( before all I love design not make theory ) http://tesla4.blogspot.com/
Last edited by newton; 10/14/13 08:12 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
Yep I am happy for them to judge ... nothing really more to say  I rest my case let the jury decide ... oh wait everyone else ignored this thread ages ago .. wonder why  That's sort of why I am ignoring this now because it is so obviously flawed you can't even get a debate going and it is just keeping this thread going. Worse for me now you have resorted to lies and misrepresenting the argument against you which is science is a very bad to ones credibility and reputation. As you are not a scientist you don't conform to that normality and you think it's fine but I am sorry if you can't be honest why would I bother discussing anything with you, you have now crossed that line and I won't interact with you. The whole thread has just become you and I arguing over something that neither of us will change our view on.. When you have your Nobel Prize, come back I will have to accept you were right 
Last edited by Orac; 10/14/13 08:31 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
Megastar
|
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209 |
mL ---------150 000 000 km ------------ M ----- 20km/s --> .........................................(point1) where mass mL will register signal that startet in point 1 ? point 1 is moving with mass M or it is stationary point ? what is it for You apparent point ? can You imagine what will be after 6 months M----------150 000 000 km/s --------mR -----> 20 km/s many years ago some astronomers ( not me prepare below Map )  and other person 1730 J. Bradley described aberration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aberrationlighttimebeaming.gif Space can not change size solar system velocity is constant 6 months later or 12 months later we can measure almost the same speed !!!
Last edited by newton; 10/14/13 08:37 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
There is no point discussing anything you just lie about what I say.
I really don't care anymore you can't even be truthful about arguments against your idea.
If you can't do that then you can't discuss science.
I should also add I have answered almost every question you ever asked you have answered still exactly ZERO that I have asked.
Last edited by Orac; 10/14/13 08:37 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
Megastar
|
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209 |
I very like Your Idea about anisotropy resistance
medium ----> 30 km/s <<<<Light
or
light >>>> medium ----> 30 km/s
light feel not the same resistance if want to cross medium that is moving !!!
it is very good idea !!!
Inertia of medium ? can we say absolute medium's motion ??!
Last edited by newton; 10/14/13 11:19 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
Megastar
|
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209 |
very good idea I will made test cold and hot water inside pipe + the same camera sets camera1-(pipe and water) Bulb(pipe and water)- camera 2 ----> 30km/sIf Your idea about medium is true I will register bigger brightnees of picture different !!! http://youtu.be/74TwfhzJnIA
Last edited by newton; 10/14/13 08:47 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
Your experiment is so controlled and refined I am sure science would be definitely swayed by the result You really are dropped on your head as a child crazy aren't you. Anyhow test whatever you like you as they say knock yourself out I am sure science will be swayed 
Last edited by Orac; 10/14/13 08:59 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
Megastar
|
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209 |
below I showing You target of my test 400 years old problem !!! nobody explain how to measure constant velocity !!! constant velocity !!!  Bulb -----air--------camera -------> motion apparent point 1 camera see abberation reason is motion if motion not exist camera see real bulb position we can measure on the Earth electric power of bulb and distance bulb----camera we can easy evaluate veocity !!! DEAR ORAC ( below not my own THEORY but link to PHYSICS other people confirmed these facts ) WHAT IS IT ABERRATION ?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_lightWHAT IS IT APPARENT POINT ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aberrationlighttimebeaming.gif SQUARE-LAW ?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_lawAFTER I SAW ABOVE FACTS I STARTED THINK ABOUT BELOW PICTURE  AND I MADE TEST THAT COOPEATE WITH ABOVE  Right now I'm making test with water http://youtu.be/74TwfhzJnIA I'm 100 % sure that square law work similar for gravitation http://youtu.be/DUW3zDAUksc
Last edited by newton; 10/14/13 11:26 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
Megastar
|
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209 |
for You my test is stupid ???
Newton Gallileo , Einstein ..... they didn't explain what is it motion
" Galileo postulated his relativity hypothesis: any two observers moving at constant speed and direction with respect to one another will obtain the same results for all mechanical experiments (it is understood that the apparatuses they use for these experiments move with them).
This idea has a very important consequence: velocity is not absolute. This means that velocity can only be measured in reference to some object(s), and that the result of this measurment changes if we decide to measure the velocity with respect to a diferent refernce point(s). Imagine an observer traveling inside a windowless spaceship moving away from the sun at constant velocity. Galileo asserted that there are no mechanical experiments that can be made inside the rocket that will tell the occupants that the rocket is moving .
The question ``are we moving'' has no meaning unless we specify a reference frame (are we moving with respect to that star'' is meaningful). This fact, formulated in the 1600's remains very true today and is one of the cornerstones of Einstein's theories of relativity."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
for You my test is stupid ???
Newton Gallileo , Einstein ..... they didn't explain what is it motion
That's two centuries ago .. science has long since settled a lot of this Good luck with it all I have nothing to add you are simply to hard to work with.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
Megastar
|
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209 |
In my post I showed You FUNDAMENTS for PHYSICS
Exist absolute zero motion !!!
this is fact that I can confirm
absolute zero motion ! = we have to rebuild all in physics !
above I showed mistake that made each optical tool on the Earth
motion change this what You see in micro or macro scale
( aberration and apparent distance problem )
Physics = Energy and energy exchange process
constant motion will help us recognize direction where energy more easy escape from our own coordination system
I started many new facts by my test
people can travel very fast and not use fuel we must slwon down or stop rocket Earth and Sun will be continue moving rocket will wait many years without fuel consumption
Last edited by newton; 10/14/13 02:19 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
You forgot to put AMEN after that. I have seen the light the great Maciej Marosz has shown me the way ... praise be Marosz. I mean that is the background isn't it your just another religious nutcase. http://www.meetup.com/The-Nordic-Spiritual-Research-Center/member/41209862/All hail the great Maciej Marosz our new GOD. I am telling you Paul is your man .. talk to Paul you can convert him.
Last edited by Orac; 10/14/13 03:11 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
Megastar
|
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209 |
Dear Orac everytime when You are using microscope or photocamera or other optical tool please remember about aberration ( 1730 J.Bradley ) and constant Earth's motion Somtimes You will see circle but it will be ellipse Somtimes You will think that it is doppler ( but is not ) AMEN
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
I actually thought you just had ADHD many of which I have worked with at university .... but now I realize you are just a crazy religious nutcase. The moment you started lying I should have realized that this is about religion ... seems to be a trait of most of that group bar a few exceptions like Rev K. Lets cut to the fast version of this ... you don't agree with the BIG BANG that's why you want to rewrite science.
AS I SAID YOU SHOULD TALK TO PAUL ... YOU HAVE MORE IN COMMON THAN YOU REALIZE.Paul dismissed you before (well it is all crazy) but now we understand the objective in all this, I am sure he will want to talk to you .... now the why is clear. Poor Maciej Marosz doesn't like the big bang and that is what all this crap is about ... LOL So why create the charade you too gutless to discuss your real agenda. I might not get along with Paul at times but at least he isn't spineless like you he is up front about his objectives. For me I have TWO RULES
RULE 1. Never try to tell a crazy person anything. RULE 2. Goto Rule 1. I believe whatever you want ... I will believe in santa clause is GOD if it helps ... now go away. 
Last edited by Orac; 10/15/13 06:53 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
Megastar
|
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209 |
I don't know what is it BIG BANG ?
I don't know Paul !
I know that ORAC don't understand doppler efect and not like learn more . In books we have red/ blue ( I like also other fact
for photography distance is very important each camera measure distance and brightness )
red = that source escape ( intensity of signal is going down )
blue = that source is closer and closer (intesity is rise up )
I respect Orac Idea about that medium not give ideal isotropy reresistance for light if exist motion .. ( It is not Orac Idea but other person ... Orac only inform me about fact unknowed for me )
I can not undersdand why he not or not like understand more ...
We can not find in books how to measure constant velocity !!!
sensor --->V1 source V1----->
I cnfirmed very important and simple fact
if V1 = V1 we not register Red/Blue shift
but we can measure "apparent brightness" of the source ( brightness has got strong relation with velocity and distance)
if V1=V1 = ABSOLUTE ZERO
sensor will register brightness that is real
if V1=V1 > zero
sensor see aberration ( James Bradley 1730 )
AMEN !!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
Megastar
|
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209 |
Dear Orac to help You study ( elementary physics ) below link for You WHAT IS IT APPARENT POINT ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aberrationlighttimebeaming.gif a) not exist C + V b) signal ( bule arrow ) started in past from apparent point SQUARE-LAW ? ( how look hot edison bulb ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law WHAT IS IT ABERRATION ? ( 1730 J.Bradley ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
I don't need to study I have a two degree's in science and that's all wrong so now I have you Why read because I will get it wrong I just believe what you tell me. I believe in Santa Claus and anything you tell me too ... now off you go and convince all the other science sites ... I am a believer. Maciej Marosz is the MESSIAH .... now take you meds for the day and off you go.
Last edited by Orac; 10/16/13 04:10 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
|
