existoid

• 218
Re: Electromagnetic Acceleration Formula
« Reply #20 on: May 18, 2020, 12:43:35 AM »
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....

Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15944
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
Re: Electromagnetic Acceleration Formula
« Reply #21 on: May 18, 2020, 08:57:24 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2020, 09:10:54 AM by Pete Svarrior »

If we are not speculating then we must assume

JSS

• 1618
• Math is math!
Re: Electromagnetic Acceleration Formula
« Reply #22 on: May 18, 2020, 10:46:37 AM »
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.

Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15944
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
Re: Electromagnetic Acceleration Formula
« Reply #23 on: May 18, 2020, 09:11:52 PM »
Could you please define "proportional relations" if you disagree with my description?

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.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2020, 09:19:12 PM by Pete Svarrior »

If we are not speculating then we must assume

JSS

• 1618
• Math is math!
Re: Electromagnetic Acceleration Formula
« Reply #24 on: May 18, 2020, 10:07:12 PM »
Could you please define "proportional relations" if you disagree with my description?

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.

existoid

• 218
Re: Electromagnetic Acceleration Formula
« Reply #25 on: May 18, 2020, 10:55:09 PM »
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.

« Last Edit: May 18, 2020, 10:57:27 PM by existoid »

Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15944
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
Re: Electromagnetic Acceleration Formula
« Reply #26 on: May 19, 2020, 09:07:36 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2020, 09:18:48 AM by Pete Svarrior »

If we are not speculating then we must assume

JSS

• 1618
• Math is math!
Re: Electromagnetic Acceleration Formula
« Reply #27 on: May 19, 2020, 09:23:49 AM »
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.

Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15944
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
Re: Electromagnetic Acceleration Formula
« Reply #28 on: May 19, 2020, 09:37:25 AM »
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!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15944
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
Re: Electromagnetic Acceleration Formula
« Reply #29 on: May 20, 2020, 09:33:41 PM »
Apparently you guys can't behave even after you killed your own thread. All cleaned up and locked.