...in a rotating frame of refererence.
so are u saying that the apparent motion of the observer is due to the motion of the observed ?
Does True Randomness Actually Exist?
Sort:
Nov 17, 2022
0
#123
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
...in a rotating frame of refererence.
so are u saying that the apparent motion of the observer is due to the motion of the observed ?
No.
Glad to clear that up. 
...only cuz the apparent motion of our galaxy is due to the motion of our sun...they say.
(dark chocolate milky ways are sooo good w/ a latte !)
Nov 17, 2022
0
#125
It is insane to believe one is blasting through the universe at the speed of light as well as several other directions at incomprehensible speeds simultaneously.
thats why the big bang may end up being the biggest lie ever-ever told to sapiens...by sapiens !
Nov 17, 2022
0
#127
noodles2112 wrote:
It is insane to believe one is blasting through the universe at the speed of light as well as several other directions at incomprehensible speeds simultaneously.
Yes, it is insane to believe that. To be honest, I have never heard of anyone expressing such a belief but you.
You have no excuse for the claim of moving in "several other directions", as I have patiently explained that any object has a single motion - it is the motion relative to other objects that has multiple values (because each of them moves independently).
For example, if you walk down the aisle of a plane, you have:
- one velocity relative to the plane (walking pace)
- another velocity relative to the stewardess walking towards you (twice walking pace)
- another velocity relative to the air (say airspeed of 500 mph)
- another velocity relative to the ground (600 mph if you are in a jet stream moving at 100 mph relative to the ground in the direction you are moving)
Is it really too difficult for you to understand such multiple relative velocities?
You do believe in planes, don't you? (Or perhaps only biplanes with propellors?)
Nov 17, 2022
0
#128
That is the theory of heliocentrism.
Indeed I understand the theory. Heck, Astronomy was one of my favorite undergrad courses.
I never questioned the theory until 10 years ago.
Since then I have found it to be seriously lacking in empirical evidence.
Nov 17, 2022
0
#129
No, that is the elementary theory of reality. Most kids could cope with the relative velocities I described.
Nov 17, 2022
0
#130
Who could not agree with the planes, trains & automobiles analogy?
For that is indeed .......................................Reality!
Nov 17, 2022
0
#132
google and youtube etc. declared "all out war"..................... on FE several years ago.
Need I prove that to you?
Nov 17, 2022
0
#133
No they didn't. They are, however, interested in enabling people to find correct information rather than the blundering nonsense of anti-scientific eccentrics.
Nov 17, 2022
0
#134
Sure they did. CEO of YouTube went before gov't inquiry/board and was instructed to hinder/obstruct free speech. When it came to FE, they were told to annihilate it........ In no uncertain terms.
Nov 17, 2022
0
#136
noodles2112 wrote:
Who could not agree with the planes, trains & automobiles analogy?
For that is indeed .......................................Reality!
Yes, but you can skip the dots which seem to represent some sort of comatose state.
Nov 18, 2022
0
#137
Yeah, Randomness probably but maybe not. I dunno I guess. As the Wise say we shall see, after further deliberations and continued mulling despite forgone conclusions over coffee it'll shake out.
as the universe gets older it moves toward less & less randomness...its that simple. dont bleeve what those booked-up beazeaus are telling u. its not proportional to entropy. its the opp.
u can see the way its ebb-flowing. but if u measure it in a sapiens lifetime (a hilarious time blip !) u cant see it. u gotta go back. like WAY back. start w/ like a 100MM yrs & go from there....see ?
Randomness exists when r^2 = 0. It is impossible for there to not be a trend, but we can get pretty close, as shown in this graph:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/hjs5z9ul1h