Here is a prediction that I agree with, this is testable, and I hold it up to the challenge, so come on.
Also, I gave you the equation, all you have to do is enter a value for ‘n’ and you will have a value for ‘G’. Phi and C are constant, assuming C is in a vacum.
I doubt it on your prediction.
and I can solve for x = 2y… but that doesn’t tell me a think about gravity.
how can I use your calculated G for anything? The formula is useless so far as I can tell.
As has been noted before, it is gonna give G in the units of m/s or whatever units that C is expressed in.
Pretty useless for a G.
Thanks for answering our questions, hero :rolleyes:
Why measure gravity in m/s? No response
Can we talk directly with your mentor, Dan Winter? No response
What about elliptical, cartwheel, and irregular galaxies? They are sick and suffer gravity deficiency
On the plus side, I think I can play with your equation a bit. Since a galaxy should have about 2 turns to it’s spiral, n=2, [sym]F[/sym]=1.618, and C=299,792,458 m/s. Therefore:
G=299,792,458m/s*1.618[sup]2[/sup]
G=784,833,871m/s throughout a typical galaxy. That is one fast force of attraction.
Of course, we have to ignore that gravity is now a speed, gravity is independent of mass, spiral galaxies have multiple arms and do not resemble a single ‘recursive’ spiral, this value matches no predicted or observed data, etc. etc. ad naseum. Speaking for myself, this discussion should be just about over.
I’d like [sym]p[/sym] now. I’m quite sick of [sym]F[/sym].
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Hiyruu *
**
This would be fine, except that big G ought to be a constant too. Unless you’re talking about little g, the force between two objects. And that has to be dependent on mass. There’s no mass in your equation. Plus, as someone already pointed out, if phi and n are unitless constants, you’re measuring G in m/s. This makes no sense whatsoever. And it will continue to not make sense no matter how many times you repeat it.
Well, I have presented the challenge, I put forward the prediction.
Oh, we are supposed to check your prediction for you?
Finally, a testable prediction. Sadly, you’re wrong. Did I mention you’re wrong? Please pay special attention to this:
Can I have some pi now?
No, your source proves nothing.
I am talking about the experiments where light traveled 300 times the speed of light.
Hiyruu, considering all the stuff you want us to swallow whole you seem remarkably uninformed about actual scientific research. The two articles that I linked to discuss the experiments that you refer to – like this news snippet summarizes. Namely, they explain, using CONVENTIONAL RELATIVITY, that light pulses can exceed c as long as no signals do.
I am talking about the speed of the light that actually DOES exceed C. It maybe only does this in a certain context in this experiment, but it does it nontheless.
Under certain conditions the light exceeds C, this is what I am talking about.
I quoted this earlier:
Hiryuu-You have chust dizprooven your “theory” mit your own vords! You say zat ‘Light exceedink ze speed C vill travel at zpeeds vich are multiples of phi.’
But you zen say "Light traveling at 300 times ze shpeed of light." Please be explainink how you haf gotten from a number mit all zose digits after ze decimal point to ze nice whole number of 300.
Another Hypothesis
Hiryuu is not a name but a mathematical equation.
H=iryuu
H is ze amount of posts a troll can post before being banned.
i is ze bps at which ze troll is connected
r is ze number of Clique Dopers currently logged on
y is ze ratio between reader apathy and reader frustration
u is ze hours of sleep ze mods haf missed zo far zis week.
Solving for H, we find H=Phi
I am ending the thread, I have made a satisfactory case, and hope curious people will follow it up.
No, you have not made a satisfactory case, for a myriad of reasons that I and others have brought up. I can only assume that we aren’t lucky enough to not have this thread come up again in a future incarnation . . . maybe you should go read some physics textbooks and practice your math in the meantime.
You CAN’T end this thread. You see this thread is based on Phi and is thus the only thread that will continue into infinity. All other threads will cancel themselves out at some time. But this thread will recurse in to infinity.
Prove it. You won’t be able to, because it’s bullshit. This one more recursion isn’t going to make the whole thing collapse in on itself. The only thing that reaches infinity here is the number of questions you have failed to answer satisfactorily, or even respond to at all. Reposting a quote does not an answer make.
ROFLMAO
Hiyruu wrote:
And the prediction is incorrect. One only needs to do a search for the work of Professor Doctor Nimtz (whom somebody you quoted cites) to find him
[quoted]
(http://www.compu-web.com/nimtz.htm) as saying:
2.46 is not an integral multiple or power of [sym]F[/sym]. It is well over 6% off from the value of [sym]F[/sym][sup]2[/sup], and only 76% of the value of 2[sym]F[/sym].
Prof. Dr. Nimtz also measured pulses travelling at 9c. 9 falls between [sym]F[/sym][sup]4[/sup] (6.854) and [sym]F[/sym][sup]5[/sup] (11.089). 9 is also 5.56[sym]F[/sym].
So, two measured speeds from your own primary source show that the prediction you agree with is wrong.
I predict you will do one of three things:[list=1][li]Not respond,[]claim that those figures were preliminary, and will be refined with future experiments, or[]claim that integral mutliples or powers aren’t necessary.[/list=1]#1 I could understand. #2 is a cop-out available anytime things aren’t going your way, and is a plea for us to wait until there’s enough data to apply the Law of Fives effectively. #3 would mean that any speed would fit the prediction, which makes the theory unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific.[/li]
Please show me where my prediction is wrong.
Hiyruu, you still need to demonstrate how your equation is useful. Waverly has already done this and come up with an answer that is blatantly preposterous. So, please, plug in the appropriate numbers for the appropriate variables and show us what your answer means, and how we can verify it independently.
There is no meaningful prediction, I worked your equation and came up with a nonsense answer. True to form, you gleefully skip over this evidence, refusing even to comment on it, for fear the fantasy you have propped up will collapse under the scrutiny.
You have made no case whatsoever. If you had a modicum of respect for the people on this board, you would have answered direct questions and solved the equation yourself back on page one without withholding the definitions of the terms therin for more than 3 pages. Furthermore, upon finding an absurd solution in meters per second, you would have said, “sorry guys, nevermind.” Your buddy Dan will not be proud, I can only hope you have brought this thread to his attention.
Well, I was wrong.
Earlier, I defended Hiyruu against what I considered to be pointless and cruel ridicule. Even after he rudely and summarily dismissed my support, I hung in there and asked the other posters to please explain exactly what was wrong with Hiyruu’s, um, ideas. I followed this thread, and now realize that y’all were right and I was wrong.
He’s had ample time and opportunity to answer the questions you’ve put directly to him, but in every case, he’s either ignored them or answered with gibberish.
Hiyruu, cut it out. Go home now, or else risk being the object of a Lib Parody® in the Pit.