The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: JSS on May 17, 2020, 03:41:04 PM
-
I have many questions about the EA formula from the Wiki listed below. If you're going to respond, this is what I would like to have explained.
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/9/92/Bendy.png)
y = 3/4 * root((b*x^4)/c^2,3)
It does not make any sense as it includes the speed of light, which is a velocity, so the answer will also be a velocity, not a position. It's actually worse as it uses c^2 so what does that even mean in the context of calculating a position? What's a square second? This makes the formula unusable for it's intended purpose, and I'd like an explanation.
I can see it is meant as an approximation of some more complicated math, but there is no information on what those are, how they were derived or what data was used to do so.
It also includes an undefined term "Bishop Constant" with little indication what it is, or how big. A fraction? A large number? Small?
The rest of my post is examining the Wiki page for any clues as to how this formula can be used to back up any of the claims, listed for reference.
I'm sourcing my information from here - https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration
1. Theory
This seems to say that light must bend and curve because cars don't go in straight lines. It then uses the Moon Tilt Illusion as evidence, but this is an illusion so isn't a real effect, so I'm not sure why it's being used as evidence. Nothing about how to calculate or describe the bending.
1.1 Approximation
This is where an approximate formula is described, but without any references on what data was used to construct it, or what more complicated equations it is derived from.
It is the only place any numbers are presented.
2.1 Clouds Lit From Underside
This says that light curves to hit clouds from the underside. It's just a simple statement that once again boils down to "bendy light".
2.2 Horizon Dip
Again, claiming light bends up and so this can kind of explain the horizon but not really. Once more, just a statement that "light bends".
3.1 Nearside Always Seen
This says that light not only curves, but curves in different directions based on where the observer is? Again, it simply states that "light bends" but doesn't explain how all this bending still keeps the sun and moon looking like perfect spheres.
3.2 Lunar Phases
This is also extremely vague. It just states that curving light causes the phases, somehow. I see a picture of bendy lines and one of moon phases in a circle but this lacks any detail other than that the Sun sometimes can shine in ways to make shadows and then the light bends so everyone sees the same shadow. Nothing on how this can be plotted.
3.2.1 Moon Position Table
This just renames the lunar phases, it's not data.
3.3 Lunar Eclipse
This states that eclipses are caused by the moon moving above the Sun, so light must only go down from the Sun. No reason given.
4 Evidence
4.1 Celestial Sphere
This says that EA makes the sky look like it does, and so evidence is, the sky looks like it does. This again boils down to just a claim that EA is correct.
4.2 Moon Tilt Illusion
This is an illusion. It's not a real effect. Zero relevance.
In summary, all the 'theories' presented just say how "bendy light" could cause all kinds of effects, but nothing at all on how all these very different effects could work together or how. As I stated in another thread, I could claim bendy light makes all squares look like circles, and have about as much evidence to back that up as I found in the Wiki. Since I did not get any answers in this thread (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16282.0) I've started one focused on my question to hopefully get some answers.
-
Does x and y have units m (metres)?
-
Does x and y have units m (metres)?
Yes, the x is in length which we can assume meters since c is m/s but it's also got an exponent so its m^4 / c^2 and then you take the cube root of it so your y units would be something like m^(2/3)/s^(2/3) which still makes no sense.
-
If the Bishop constant had units m s-2 then i think y would have units in metres.
Still doesn't make any sense though ::)
-
Still doesn't make any sense though ::)
What, exactly, "doesn't make any sense" in a simple statement of proportionality?
-
Still doesn't make any sense though ::)
What, exactly, "doesn't make any sense" in a simple statement of proportionality?
The unit's don't make sense. Can you show me a ruler that measures in m^(2/3)/s^(2/3) for me? That's what Y is.
-
The unit's don't make sense.
How did you conclude what the units are for this equation? And why do you think units matter in a simple explanation of proportionality? I cannot correct your error when you refuse to state it.
-
The unit's don't make sense.
How did you conclude what the units are for this equation? And why do you think units matter in a simple explanation of proportionality? I cannot correct your error when you refuse to state it.
It's algebra. I'm not refusing to state anything, don't be so dramatic.
The speed of light c is in length/time units, commonly m/s.
So c2 is in units of m2/s2.
X is defined as "x, y - co-ordinates in the plane of the light ray" in the wiki, which is length, which we are already using meters for.
So x is in units of m4.
x4 / (m2/s2) = m2 * s2
Then you take the cube root and get m(2/3) * s(2/3)
Looks like I typo-ed a division for a multiplication earlier, but that doesn't make it make any more sense.
At what point do you disagree? Is the speed of light not a speed or meters not a length?
-
At what point do you disagree?
Your response is incomplete. For some reason, you chose to ignore one of the factors. What is that reason?
I already hinted at this multiple times. You're looking at a proportional relation.
-
At what point do you disagree?
Your response is incomplete. For some reason, you chose to ignore one of the factors. What is that reason?
I already hinted at this multiple times. You're looking at a proportional relation.
It would be nice if you quit playing games and just said what your problem is. Do we get points for drawing things out and avoiding answers?
If you think I am ignoring something, just say it. I'm looking at an equation that gives weird units. What do you think we are looking at?
-
It would be nice if you quit playing games and just said what your problem is.
Likewise. I can't tell you what is wrong about your reasoning when you keep not simply laying it out.
I'm looking at an equation that gives weird units.
Yes, if you choose to ignore some parts of the equation, your units will probably not match up. Doubly so if you ignore its intended purpose.
-
It would be nice if you quit playing games and just said what your problem is.
Likewise. I can't tell you what is wrong about your reasoning when you keep not simply laying it out.
I'm looking at an equation that gives weird units.
Yes, if you choose to ignore some parts of the equation, your units will probably not match up. Doubly so if you ignore its intended purpose.
I swear it's like pulling teeth trying to get actual answers out of you. :)
Ok... baby steps. So you say I ignored parts of the equation? Simple question... WHAT parts? What missing units fix this?
And please explain it's intended purpose. How is it used? Thanks.
-
So you say I ignored parts of the equation? Simple question... WHAT parts?
Okay, baby steps.
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/9/92/Bendy.png)
Let's see. You need to identify the units for:
y - check
x - check
c - check
β - ???
Why do I have to hand-hold you through this? Groit even already told you this. You might recall that it was him I was responding to.
And please explain it's intended purpose. How is it used? Thanks.
That's explained directly above the equation. Let's quote it for your benefit:
As there has been a long wait for a conclusive equation describing the Electromagnetic Acceleration theory, an approximate formula for large-scale bending has been authored and proposed by Parsifal. This is a limit of a more complex (and not yet final) expression as x approaches infinity, so this will only work when y is much greater than x - that is to say, when the vertical distance travelled is much greater than the horizontal distance travelled. Put another way, its accuracy will improve the closer the light ray is to vertical. Therefore, while it is not valid for short-range experiments, it can give an idea of how much sunlight would bend on its way to the Earth, for instance.
Again, why must I hand-hold you through reading?
-
So you say I ignored parts of the equation? Simple question... WHAT parts?
Okay, baby steps.
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/9/92/Bendy.png)
Let's see. You need to identify the units for:
y - check
x - check
c - check
β - ???
Why do I have to hand-hold you through this? Groit even already told you this. You might recall that it was him I was responding to.
And please explain it's intended purpose. How is it used? Thanks.
That's explained directly above the equation. Let's quote it for your benefit:
As there has been a long wait for a conclusive equation describing the Electromagnetic Acceleration theory, an approximate formula for large-scale bending has been authored and proposed by Parsifal. This is a limit of a more complex (and not yet final) expression as x approaches infinity, so this will only work when y is much greater than x - that is to say, when the vertical distance travelled is much greater than the horizontal distance travelled. Put another way, its accuracy will improve the closer the light ray is to vertical. Therefore, while it is not valid for short-range experiments, it can give an idea of how much sunlight would bend on its way to the Earth, for instance.
Again, why must I hand-hold you through reading?
Perhaps you might benefit from reading too. I mentioned that β constant in my very first post, right at the front. This is the opposite of ignoring it.
It also includes an undefined term "Bishop Constant" with little indication what it is, or how big. A fraction? A large number? Small?
Please fill me in, what units are β measured in? I know you can't put a number to it but you have to know WHAT it's measuring, right? Cube inches? Pounds? Joules?
If you can't tell me what β is measuring, then how can you claim that formula has any value at all? It's just producing a meaningless number with crazy units that don't make sense.
I asked for it's purpose and how it's used. You answered the first, but ignored the second. Just how do you put numbers into that thing and get anything out of it?
-
I mentioned that β constant in my very first post, right at the front.
Mentioning it doesn't quite excuse you from including it in your units, does it?
As for the rest of the questions - if you don't want to read the writeup on EA, I won't do that work for you. You'll get there when you're ready.
-
I mentioned that β constant in my very first post, right at the front.
Mentioning it doesn't quite excuse you from including it in your units, does it?
As for the rest of the questions - if you don't want to read the writeup on EA, I won't do that work for you. You'll get there when you're ready.
I'm beginning to suspect you don't actually know what it is either and are just stalling. Why spend a hours writing a dozen back and forth messages when you could have just answered the first post?
For now I'm going to assume β is in m/s2 as that's the only thing that gives an answer in length. Maybe you can write it plainly in your Wiki.
That only leaves that the value β is undefined and still makes the equation unusable. You can't prove or disprove it, or EA without it.
-
Why spend a hours writing a dozen back and forth messages
Hours? Christ, how slow do you think my typing is? I've spent a few minutes here at best.
As for the reason, it's very simple. I am an idealist interested in people sorting out their cognitive abilities. I don't give a hoot if you find the answers you're looking for, but I sure am going to punish you for being intellectually lazy. All the information you want has already been laid out for you, but you're too busy complaining about your lack of ability to just sit down and work through it. But it's okay, you're learning, even if more slowly than the average noob here.
That only leaves that the value β is undefined and still makes the equation unusable. You can't prove or disprove it, or EA without it.
I already told you it describes a proportional relation. Several times, I recall. The article also clearly states that the value of β has yet to be derived experimentally. You don't need strong deductive skills to conclude something that's been said to you multiple times.
As for its usability, you can make accurate predictions based on the proportion itself. It's not particularly difficult to derive an approximate value of β, but that's not quite what you do if you want to perform Zetetic inquiry. Notably, plugging a placeholder value into the equation does not increase nor reduce its predictive capability, given the equation's intended purpose. You did read the snippet I quoted for you, right?
-
That only leaves that the value β is undefined and still makes the equation unusable. You can't prove or disprove it, or EA without it.
I already told you it describes a proportional relation. Several times, I recall. The article also clearly states that the value of β has yet to be derived experimentally. You don't need strong deductive skills to conclude something that's been said to you multiple times.
As for its usability, you can make accurate predictions based on the proportion itself. It's not particularly difficult to derive an approximate value of β, but that's not quite what you do if you want to perform Zetetic inquiry. Notably, plugging a placeholder value into the equation does not increase nor reduce its predictive capability.
Uh. The only value of a formula is that you can use it to test predictions and observations. If you don't know what numbers to plug in, it's completely useless.
The only thing that formula shows is that you can write an equation to make a line curve. Congratulations, I can write a million others. Now which one is true?
Calling it a "proportional relation" is just a fancy (or simple) way of saying you have an equation. It's the same thing, but if you don't know ANY of the numbers then how do you expect to model it? How can you tell people "We know for a FACT that light curves!" if you can't even say how it curves in ANY example or measurement?
You not only have no idea if this equation is true, you have no idea how to even figure out what β should be. That's a far cry from a theory you claim proves a flat earth.
You say you can make accurate predictions with an equation where you don't know any of the numbers? I'd like to see the results of that.
-
It would seem that you ran out of valuable things to say. If you don't like using proportional relations in science, so be it. There's nothing I can do to help your wilful ignorance.
As for having any idea if this equation is "true" - you really should read the snippet I've quoted for you. You're woefully confused about the level of precision and intended purpose here.
-
It would seem that you ran out of valuable things to say. If you don't like using proportional relations in science, so be it. There's nothing I can do to help your wilful ignorance.
As for having any idea if this equation is "true" - you really should read the snippet I've quoted for you. You're woefully confused about the level of precision and intended purpose here.
You keep using "proportional relations" like it means something special. It's just a long winded way of saying equation.
There is no ignorance of EA on my part, because you haven't provided anything, either here or the Wiki.
You have a few vague statements about light curving in ways you can't describe and an equation, sorry, a "proportional relation" that doesn't actually show a relation because you can't even fill in all the numbers. Or any of them.
I can't even criticize that equation because you just claim it's not really meant for precision tasks like, using it or talking about it.
I could say all squares are circles, and bendy light just makes them look like squares because y=x*z^5/p+17mpg/6Hz. And that has as much evidence as you've managed to show.
-
I struggle to understand this level of math, but I believe I can follow this conversation.
In the EA formula Y refers to the location on the flat earth where the bended light ends up. It’s a location, (or position), as JSS said.
A proportional relation is just saying that when one variable changes, so will another. So saying it’s that is not an explanation of anything at all.
The original post says that in finding Y, it would be a velocity because c is part of it (I dont know why this is, tbh, I cant math). Assuming this is true, this is the issue Pete has yet to explain (not wonder, his SOP is to deflect and ignore).
In any case, a velocity is not a place where something (light in this case) ends up. So how could it be used to determine where on the FE the light from the moon lands? Seems problematic....
-
You keep using "proportional relations" like it means something special. It's just a long winded way of saying equation.
No, it doesn't mean anything special, and no, a proportion is not an equation.
an equation, sorry, a "proportional relation" that doesn't actually show a relation because you can't even fill in all the numbers. Or any of them.
You... think I can't fill in c, x, or y? You realise that one of them is a constant, and one of the other two has to be supplied by the user, right?
And, yeah, this is another case of you not understanding high school maths. Read up on proportionality and how it's used.
I can't even criticize that equation because you just claim it's not really meant for precision tasks like, using it or talking about it.
I could say all squares are circles, and bendy light just makes them look like squares because y=x*z^5/p+17mpg/6Hz. And that has as much evidence as you've managed to show.
Don't waste hours of your time and minutes of mine with nonsensical rambling. If you don't understand how to use proportions, spend that time on learning.
I'll give you a hint: save for two RE newcomers, people don't run into many issues using EA as it's currently described. You can huff and puff about it all you like, but a tool is only as good as its user. You have, time and time again, shown yourself to be ignorant of even the simplest mathematical concepts. It's not the formula that's the issue here.
A proportional relation is just saying that when one variable changes, so will another. So saying it’s that is not an explanation of anything at all.
This is incorrect. It describes, with some precision, how the variables will change. To know that x is proportional to y is different from knowing that x is proportional to y3/2, or log(y).
The original post says that in finding Y, it would be a velocity because c is part of it (I dont know why this is, tbh, I cant math).
It isn't true. The original "issue" was nonsense, bordering on obvious trolling. JSS chose to ignore a variable while working out his units, had that immediately pointed out to him by Groit, but chose to pretend that it doesn't matter. We're looking at someone who's completely mathematically illiterate, but who's happy to confidently pretend otherwise. Unsurprisingly, it hasn't been working out - so far, he presented three different calculations for what the units would be, each of them containing at least one rookie error.
-
You keep using "proportional relations" like it means something special. It's just a long winded way of saying equation.
No, it doesn't mean anything special, and no, a proportion is not an equation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(mathematics)
I'm sorry but you are wrong here. All "proportional relations" reduce to an equation. Proportionality Relationships are just a 1:1 mapping using a fixed ratio. A proportional relationship is just a line. I'm not sure you are entirely clear on what you think "proportional relations" means. Could you please define "proportional relations" if you disagree with my description?
an equation, sorry, a "proportional relation" that doesn't actually show a relation because you can't even fill in all the numbers. Or any of them.
You... think I can't fill in c, x, or y? You realise that one of them is a constant, and one of the other two has to be supplied by the user, right?
And, yeah, this is another case of you not understanding high school maths. Read up on proportionality and how it's used.
See above, I'm pretty sure I'm not the one who needs to look up 8th grade maths. If you disagree, please explain how proportionality is used to explain EA.
How exactly do you use "proportional relations" to map out the complex curving that bendy light requires? It's just a linear relationship between two sets of data, a simple equation can describe all proportional relations.
You can't fill in any of the values that have to be supplied by the user. If you want to solve for y, you need to provide x and B. You already admit B is unknown, but what is x?
If I want to know what the Sun will look like at 5pm tonight, what value of x do I use to test this? How high is the Sun and how wide? You can't claim EA is a workable theory if you don't have any actual data to support it, no equations or mathematical descriptions of it and no way to test or investigate it. It at best, a rudimentary hypothesis. Theories are testable. EA is not.
I can't even criticize that equation because you just claim it's not really meant for precision tasks like, using it or talking about it.
I could say all squares are circles, and bendy light just makes them look like squares because y=x*z^5/p+17mpg/6Hz. And that has as much evidence as you've managed to show.
Don't waste hours of your time and minutes of mine with nonsensical rambling. If you don't understand how to use proportions, spend that time on learning.
I'll give you a hint: save for two RE newcomers, people don't run into many issues using EA as it's currently described. You can huff and puff about it all you like, but a tool is only as good as its user. You have, time and time again, shown yourself to be ignorant of even the simplest mathematical concepts. It's not the formula that's the issue here.
You keep using "proportions" as some kind of magic deflector shield. It's not working.
EA as currently described are some pictures and an unfinished equation with missing constants. You say only 2 people have problems using EA?
Show me how you use EA. Not just claiming it's true, but actually use it. Nothing you have said here, and nothing the Wiki says is anything but simple claims that it's true. You can't keep saying it's useful and a perfectly workable theory but not show any work done with it.
-
Could you please define "proportional relations" if you disagree with my description?
I already did. Please can you stop wasting everyone's time by asking me to repeat myself ad nauseam? You can patch the gaps in your high school education in your own time.
If you disagree, please explain how proportionality is used to explain EA.
I'd encourage you to read the Wiki.
How exactly do you use "proportional relations" to map out the complex curving that bendy light requires?
"Map out"? What on Earth are you trying to "map out" now? I'm assuming that you're not referring to the actual concept of mapping, so perhaps you could clarify?
It's just a linear relationship between two sets of data
Linear? Where on Earth did you find a linear relation in this?
You can't fill in any of the values that have to be supplied by the user. If you want to solve for y, you need to provide x and B. You already admit B is unknown, but what is x?
...What?
If you want to find out the y co-ordinate for a given x, then x is... given. You know, by definition.
You... you've heard of Cartesian co-ordinates before, right? Should I downgrade my criticism of you from "illiterate in high school maths" to "illiterate in primary school maths"?
If I want to know what the Sun will look like at 5pm tonight, what value of x do I use to test this?
Well, you probably wouldn't be using a two-dimensional approximation for this, but assuming you're a flat person, x will be your current location.
How high is the Sun and how wide?
I strongly suggest you familiarise yourself with the basics of FET before posting here again. This expectation has been set out for you in the "read before posting" thread, which you have obviously read before posting. If you can't follow the forum's etiquette, don't post here. If you can't comply, I will assist you.
You can't claim EA is a workable theory if you don't have any actual data to support it, no equations or mathematical descriptions of it and no way to test or investigate it. It at best, a rudimentary hypothesis. Theories are testable. EA is not.
EA is testable and has been tested. Once again, you are expected to familiarise yourself with the basics prior to posting here.
You keep using "proportions" as some kind of magic deflector shield. It's not working.
No. Telling you that you need to sort yourself is hardly a "deflector". It's an admission. I cannot explain these concepts to someone who somehow managed to escape every maths class in a modern Western education. I do teach those, but I get paid for that. If you want to learn high school maths from me, I'm sure we can arrange something, but I won't be providing that as a volunteer.
Nothing you have said here, and nothing the Wiki says is anything but simple claims that it's true.
This, once again, is a pathetic attempt at reversing the burden of proof here. You're the claimant here. If you want to defend the claims made in the original OP that spawned this discussion, you are encouraged to. If you'd rather not, that's fine, just admit you don't really have a way of doing so.
-
Could you please define "proportional relations" if you disagree with my description?
I already did. Please can you stop wasting everyone's time by asking me to repeat myself ad nauseam? You can patch the gaps in your high school education in your own time.
I'm afraid you may have missed the entire point of that question and left out the important parts during editing. Lets look at the full exchange.
You keep using "proportional relations" like it means something special. It's just a long winded way of saying equation.
No, it doesn't mean anything special, and no, a proportion is not an equation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(mathematics)
I'm sorry but you are wrong here. All "proportional relations" reduce to an equation. Proportionality Relationships are just a 1:1 mapping using a fixed ratio. A proportional relationship is just a line. I'm not sure you are entirely clear on what you think "proportional relations" means. Could you please define "proportional relations" if you disagree with my description?
I said a "proportional relation" is an equation, and you responded with "a proportion is not an equation".
Clearly, we think "proportional relation" means two different things. I explained my side with a reference, and simply would like to hear your definition.
If I am wrong, please explain why or link me to a reference that explains it. Thanks.
-
EA is testable and has been tested.
Wait...what do you mean it is "testable" and has been "tested" ? By whom? Where? How? Can you point to an experiment that shows electromagnetic acceleration or somehow proves it, when you don't even have something more than "an approximate formula" ?
Here's some quotes from the Wiki article on EA (https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration) -
"Therefore, while [this equation describing EA] is not valid for short-range experiments, it can give an idea of how much sunlight would bend on its way to the Earth, for instance." [emphasis added].
"When the theory is complete, attempts will be made to measure this experimentally." [emphasis added].
Searching for any tests or experiments in the EA page of the Wiki turns up nothing.
My guess, based on your posting behavior, is that you'll first belligerently claim that I don't know how to do a search (while not actually giving me any links to an EA test or experiment), and then, in a later post, you'll refer to the "Articles of Interest" section on the EA page.
To jump ahead in the conversation, I'll therefore assume your statement that "EA is testable and has been tested" refers to these articles. Here's my response to that:
Summary:
Those two articles don't show tests of what the EA page depicts or describes at all, other than both have to do with "bending light."
I
The equation that is at the center of this thread defines the Bishop constant as "the magnitude of the acceleration on a horizontal light ray due to Dark Energy." [emphasis added].
Neither of those articles mention anything close to dark energy as a factor in any of it.
II
The first article states that "a specially shaped laser beam [was generated] that could self-accelerate, or bend, sideways."
But the sun isn't a laser and doesn't emit focused light like a laser. Nor does the moon. If you can only find a test that light from this one "specially shaped laser" bends, not unfocused light such as sunlight, you haven't tested EA.
III
The same article then states "The researchers did not bend the laser beam as a whole but rather the high-intensity regions within it."
EA, as described in the Wiki, doesn't say anything about applying to "high-intensity regions" of the light. It describes it as referring to all sunlight and moonlight.
IV
The very first sentence in the EA Wiki states "there is a mechanism to the universe that pulls, pushes, or deflects light upwards. All light curves upwards over very long distances."
The article describes the experiment in these words: "To do this they passed a centimetre-wide ordinary laser beam through a device known as a spatial light modulator that adjusted the phase of the beam at thousands of points across its width. Rather than acting like a lens and focusing all of the beam’s constituent rays to a single point, the modulator instead changed the relative phase of the rays such that their interference produced a region of maximum intensity that curved sideways in the shape of a gentle parabola across the beam as it propagated forward, along with a number of fainter regions on one side."
This is not describing long distances. They had to modify the relative phases of the light rays for the light to bend. EA says nothing about phases (The Wiki on EA uses the word "phase" nine times, but always in reference to lunar phases, not phases of a wave, which is what this article is referring to.).
For this to line up with EA, the "mechanism" that EA refers to which bends light "up" would have to be changing the phases of the rays of light from the sun and moon. The sunlight as depicted in the EA diagrams shows fairly straight rays for 12pm, and more curved ones for 6am. Can't we measure the light from the sun in various time zones and see if something like this is happening with the phases of the light frequencies hitting the earth?
V
The Wiki summarizes the first article as "A University of Central Florida research team demonstrated light beams which could self-accelerate, or bend, and were non-diffracting."
The same article later states "the authors do not make it clear that in their experiments they are not bending light rays themselves but the rays’ envelopes, or “caustics”."
A laser caustic is "The envelope of light rays reflected or refracted by a curved surface or object, such as a lens."
Source:
https://www.ophiropt.com/user_files/laser/beam_profilers/Laser_Vocabulary.pdf
Conclusion
These articles do not describe EA at all.
Maybe I really do just suck at searching. But the EA article does not use the words "test" or "testable" anywhere, and I quoted near at the top of this post the only two times it refers to anything experimental being done.
And this section never refers to Electromagnetic Acceleration even once:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence
Show me the way, Pete.
-
I'll be honest: I'm not convinced either of you are arguing this in good faith. I gave you plenty of opportunities to explain your disagreements, and asked plenty of specific questions to help you with the process. Unsurprisingly, those were all ignored. So far, the best I've got was JSS saying he's now confused by synonyms and existoid complaining that reading a single article didn't give him the same level of knowledge as years of research. I've tried to help, but you can't help those who don't want to be helped.
Best of luck in your endeavours, I'm sure as your education progresses these things will get easier.
-
I'll be honest: I'm not convinced either of you are arguing this in good faith. I gave you plenty of opportunities to explain your disagreements, and asked plenty of specific questions to help you with the process. Unsurprisingly, those were all ignored. So far, the best I've got was JSS saying he's now confused by synonyms and existoid complaining that reading a single article didn't give him the same level of knowledge as years of research. I've tried to help, but you can't help those who don't want to be helped.
Best of luck in your endeavours, I'm sure as your education progresses these things will get easier.
I didn't ask you about synonyms, where did you get that? I said X is the same as Y and you said X is not Y. I'm unsure how to make the following any clearer, my question is extremely straightforward.
I said a "proportional relation" is an equation, and you responded with "a proportion is not an equation". How is it not, please explain.
-
you responded with "a proportion is not an equation". How is it not, please explain.
I did, further in the same post. As I said, I'm done with this conversation, unless you plan to suddenly start grasping basic maths and responding to the many questions you chose to ignore.
In other words: bye!
-
Apparently you guys can't behave even after you killed your own thread. All cleaned up and locked.