The results of the Michelson Morley experiment explained without relativity, shrinking dimensions.

[Peeples]

Assuming that what Michelson was really measured was a a cycloid motion, and the "The universal cycloid motion through time" thread proposes that, and the measurements are at the contact point, ( it was a time comparison after all) then all measurements are the same.
If you live in the northern latitudes you will have ample proof: some fresh wheel tracks in the snow show that the tires seem to have been standing still, no matter the speed or direction of the vehicles movements . so:
does electro magnetism work as a cycloid ?

The analogy requires that the passing vehicle is moving at a relative speed such that debris striking front are back are at the same speed. Any deviation in the velocity of the vehicle being struck would result in the relative speeds of impact of the debris being different. Therefore the hypothesis would only hold for those specific velocities of the impacted vehicle relative to the debris. As suggested, even a broken clock can tell the correct time twice a day (or once if it's 24-hour clock).
For example, looking at the analogy, if the passing car was travelling 10mph quicker, the debris striking the front would impact 10mph faster, the debris striking the back 10mph slower. Different relative speeds. Therefore either your analogy is broken for all other relative velocities than the specific one that works, in which case you need to provide actual detail as to what you are proposing - preferably with examples - or your theory is broken.

 

[beil]

The analogy requires that the passing vehicle is moving at a relative speed such that debris striking front are back are at the same speed. Any deviation in the velocity of the vehicle being struck would result in the relative speeds of impact of the debris being different. Therefore the hypothesis would only hold for those specific velocities of the impacted vehicle relative to the debris. As suggested, even a broken clock can tell the correct time twice a day (or once if it's 24-hour clock).
For example, looking at the analogy, if the passing car was travelling 10mph quicker, the debris striking the front would impact 10mph faster, the debris striking the back 10mph slower. Different relative speeds. Therefore either your analogy is broken for all other relative velocities than the specific one that works, in which case you need to provide actual detail as to what you are proposing - preferably with examples - or your theory is broken.

The theory broadly is that we live in a universe of cycloid motions. , rotations, revolutions, that of course s relativistic, because it depends on the reference frame, whether you view the wheels in forward motion or not.

 

[Peeples]

The theory broadly is that we live in a universe of cycloid motions. , rotations, revolutions, that of course s relativistic, because it depends on the reference frame, whether you view the wheels in forward motion or not.

None of which is supported by testing that does not already satisfy far simpler theories. Occam's Sandwich might seem tasty, but those empty calaories are a lifetime on the hips!

 

[beil]

For example, looking at the analogy, if the passing car was travelling 10mph quicker, the debris striking the front would impact 10mph faster, the debris striking the back 10mph slower. Different relative speeds

well, let us assume then that it really is only one, a rally car, and the open tires throw the debris up and forward, hitting the hapless driver at equal speeds front and back.
The Cleveland experiment dealt only with one aspect of relativity. The wheel analogy used here is just part of the "Moving through time apparently as a cycloid theory"
theoretically

 

[Peeples]

well, let us assume then that it really is only one, a rally car, and the open tires throw the debris up and forward, hitting the hapless driver at equal speeds front and back.
The Cleveland experiment dealt only with one aspect of relativity. The wheel analogy used here is just part of the "Moving through time apparently as a cycloid theory"
theoretically

Maybe you should post something more than an analogy, then, as it seems I am at a loss understanding how you think the analogy you propose relates to what you are trying to get across. Maybe give a worked example?

 

[exchemist]

Maybe you should post something more than an analogy, then, as it seems I am at a loss understanding how you think the analogy you propose relates to what you are trying to get across. Maybe give a worked example?

God luck. I gave up with this guy some years ago, under his previous handle of "nebel". Nebel seems about right, in view of the nebulous nature of his ideas. It seems to be little more than numerology, as far as I can see. It is unclear what the idea is and no physical mechanism is proposed. But maybe you will have more luck than I did.

 

[Peeples]

God luck. I gave up with this guy some years ago, under his previous handle of "nebel". Nebel seems about right, in view of the nebulous nature of his ideas. It seems to be little more than numerology, as far as I can see. It is unclear what the idea is and no physical mechanism is proposed. But maybe you will have more luck than I did.

Thank you. I don't see it as numerology: there's nothing suggesting that he thinks numbers are somehow mystical. I do see it as an unformed idea that someone may have had in a dream, that they can't express adequately to convey to others, most likely because the idea is nonsense. However, until/unless the member is able to express their idea clearly, we'll never know for sure. So the onus is on him to at least do that, and I'll leave him to it.

 

[beil]

Thank you. I don't see it as numerology: there's nothing suggesting that he thinks numbers are somehow mystical. I do see it as an unformed idea that someone may have had in a dream, that they can't express adequately to convey to others, most likely because the idea is nonsense. However, until/unless the member is able to express their idea clearly, we'll never know for sure. So the onus is on him to at least do that, and I'll leave him to it.

Thank you for that expression of confidence. I think E C was not referring to this unfortunate thread in particular, ( It is not based an any published data after all). Should have paused to think before pressing the send button).
The use of numbers that better workers have published is a honored tradition, J. Keppler using Tycho Brahe's tables is a great example. That he first tried to squeeze polygons into the planet orbits was just a step to the triangles that were precursors to Newton's brilliant clarification.
just pointing out these fascinating ratios, natural cycloid motions.

 

[Pinball1970]

Thank you for that expression of confidence. I think E C was not referring to this unfortunate thread in particular, ( It is not based an any published data after all). Should have paused to think before pressing the send button).
The use of numbers that better workers have published is a honored tradition, J. Keppler using Tycho Brahe's tables is a great example. That he first tried to squeeze polygons into the planet orbits was just a step to the triangles that were precursors to Newton's brilliant clarification.
just pointing out these fascinating ratios, natural cycloid motions.

So you're not "Nebel?"

 

[DaveC426913]

Thank you. I don't see it as numerology: there's nothing suggesting that he thinks numbers are somehow mystical.

It doesn't have to be mystical to be numerology.

It's really just about playing with numbers for their own sake, in a very primitive, naive way, and then jamming explanations on top, after-the-fact.

 

[beil]

It doesn't have to be mystical to be numerology.

It's really just about playing with numbers for their own sake, in a very primitive, naive way, and then jamming explanations on top, after-the-fact.

Your attempt at mindreading is totally wrong. Your life would be richer if you appreciated results, rather than making insulting personal comments imho

 

[exchemist]

It doesn't have to be mystical to be numerology.

It's really just about playing with numbers for their own sake, in a very primitive, naive way, and then jamming explanations on top, after-the-fact.

Weeell………..actualy I think Peeples is right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerology

I was stretching a point.

 

[DaveC426913]

Weeell………..actualy I think Peeples is right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerology

I was stretching a point.

Technically, yes. But id say it's reborn as a new hobby without the occult overtones

 

[beil]

It's really just about playing with numbers for their own sake

 

[beil]

If you took the time to really look at Nebel/Beil's topics you will discover that all the numbers come from NASA websites, well established astronomy archives, no number without meaning, grasped out of thin air. are often rations, not results of our measuring systems. so,
you are absolutely proven wrong,
Not numbers for their owns sakes, but for the sake of showing the fascination in nature.

 

[Peeples]

Technically, yes. But id say it's reborn as a new hobby without the occult overtones

What we have here, with beil's idea, seems to be more like pseudo-science: something claiming to be science but, well, with none of the actual science. Afterall, he's come up with a theory to explain something, and then tried to give it credibility through, perhaps, cherry-picking some numbers, or numerical relationships (the broken clock idea). Basically, it's pseudo-science, and not even that good as the "theory" is still so unclear. But the numbers themselves would not provide meaning - an aspect of numerology - just credibility. So pseudo-science, not numerology. (IMO).

 

[beil]

funny that you mentioned that. It just occurred to me, that
Michelson measured c with and against the orbital velocity of the earth, and the c/Vo ratio is 1/ 10 000 -- 30 versus 300 000 km/sec. from the
'Doing the numbers on Number . 1' thread.

 

[Pinball1970]

funny that you mentioned that. It just occurred to me, that
Michelson measured c with and against the orbital velocity of the earth, and the c/Vo ratio is 1/ 10 000 -- 30 versus 300 000 km/sec. from the
'Doing the numbers on Number . 1' thread.

Wow. And it's the 9th of Feb, so that is 9 and 2 which gives 11, add those gives 2. Exactly the number of Jaipur I have just drank after a hard day's work. Also, 2 is my favourite colour in July which incidentally is the 7th sign of the zodiac. So 2 + 7 is 9 plus another random 2 from some other random shit and we are back at 11.
Coincidence? I don't think so.

 

[beil]

Wow. And it's the 9th of Feb, so that is 9 and 2 which gives 11, add those gives 2. Exactly the number of Jaipur I have just drank after a hard day's work. Also, 2 is my favourite colour in July which incidentally is the 7th sign of the zodiac. So 2 + 7 is 9 plus another random 2 from some other random shit and we are back at 11.
Coincidence? I don't think so.

You should have posted that in the humor forum. gaslighting perhaps. really:
All what was proposed here: that you could in your mind construct a Rube Goldberg device that measured incoming velocities at par. using cycloid motions.