What is the extent of our communicationss network? I have an idea but only wish to collaborate with

Originally posted by tinhattribunal
this link requires heavy duty thinking

Goodness! Brain bending to begin with, mind blowing half way through....still reading....

This is his confusion. He believes that if you start tracking the object as soon as it leaves Earth you will continue to get "real time" data no matter how far away it is. Now I can understand why he would think that, but it's false.

OP, you would get a constant stream of data from the object, but the farther away the object was the older the data is. By the time it reached it's destination 27 light years away, it would still take 27 years to get the data it sent. A telescope or any other apparatus does not change this. Give it some more thought and hopefully you will see where your logic failed you.

reply to post by lucifer6


No my friend. Itis you who have a flawed understanding of reality. Go back to school

Originally posted by lucifer6
reply to post by H1ght3chHippie

 

what i am saying is that our telescopes can see real time light and waves say in the andromeda galaxy.

No. Light we see from the Andromeda galaxy took 2,538,000 YEARS to travel here. Any light-based communication would take the same amount of time, i,e, 2,538,000 YEARS delay between transmission and reception.

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.'

- Jabberwocky

Originally posted by tinhattribunal
this link requires heavy duty thinking

Tom bearden? Heavy duty suspension of critical thought, more like:

Question
Can you offer the layman an extremely simplified summary of what scalars are, how theyrelate to Maxwell's equations, unified field theory, and the limitations of currently accepted quantumphysics, relativity theory, and electromagnetics?
A:
Whew! You've asked for a complete explanation of how to unify the three major disciplines of physics, specify what's wrong with the three present versions of those disciplines that has preventedtheir unification, and how this was in Maxwell's original quaternion equations (some 200 of whichare actually his theory, not the pale four vector equations written by Heaviside and Gibbs). You alsoasked for an explanation of scalars versus vectors, and how the present vector analysis (of Heavisideand Gibbs) misses the boat with respect to structured scalars. And you've asked me to do it simply, inlayman's terms. To say that that's a tall order is the understatement of the decade!

No, not really. The difference between a scalar and a vector is trivial:

Scalars are quantities that have magnitude only; they are independent of direction. Vectors have both magnitude and direction

0.8 is a scalar v[0.3, 13, 1.4] is a vector. That's it. Elementary linear algebra. No need to try and bombard the interviewer with jargon in an attempt to duck a simple and direct question. Did that take 10 years to explain? Only if explaining it to a rock.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as a "scalar wave", such a term doesn't make sense in the slightest. Sticking two sciencey-sounding words together does not mean one knows what one is talking about. All Bearden is doing is stringing together jargon terms into nonsensical sentences and preying on the reader's ignorance of what such terms actually mean so that is come across like he's making sense and knows what he's talking about. He's not and he doesn't, not in the slightest.

Deny ignorance and all that.