Thank you, that's helpful and interesting to look at. FYI:  I presently am stopped on the project because I bought have kelvin clips for the inductance meter, that were delivered; but somehow they have gotten buried/lost in the mail that arrived around the same time.  I'm still waiting on a ferrite core having the dimensions of the one Amidon core that my equations failed on; so I can study it and see if my equations are wrong, or perhaps Amidon's data sheet is wrong.   The original core is no longer produced, and is labeled "obsolete"; so the best I can do is buy a core w ..read more

Binomializing the normal curve's 'x' axis. Essentially, I need a correction of some kind that insures that 'like' binned probability does not mix with unlike binned probability during x axis shifting of probability locations. The local correction ought to allow:  normal_apx( n-1, x+offset ) + normal_apx( n-1, x-offset ) = normal_apx( n, x )  Convolution techniques (hopefully) should not be required. Attempting the summation steps, explicitly, with a naive AKA not-x-linearized normal distribution gives a cosh()-distorted result: (   1/2 e^( -(2/(n-1))(x+o)^2 + 1/2 e^( -(2/(n-1 ..read more

First attempt at breaking the continuous normal distribution up into a more exact binomial distribution. Pairs of Gaussians add up to a Gaussian.  Can I exploit this to find the exact location of the center-most binomial 'bin'? It occurs to me that the Normal approximation to the nth binomial distribution, must be *exactly* the sum of two (halved height) n-1 Normal approximations;   In Pascal's triangle, adding up two copies of the previous row (n-1), shifted by half in each direction, is how each new (n) th row is generated. This causes the total of each successive row's value ..read more

Well my contention with M&M is that the Aether I envision has a density value far lower than the density of air.  In such a situation the Aether material would be subject to the Law of Buoyancy and thus propelled upward out of the atmosphere, likely at incredible speed. I would agree then that the best place to search for the Aether material itself would be outside of the atmosphere, but a better place would actually be outside of the heliosphere of the sun entirely, out where voyager 1 and 2 are located currently... In truth the "Aether-wind" has already been detected though....it ..read more

Still thinking about it.... Stay tuned.... :) It looks like for the variables x and y one can't prove that x = 3y, but one can generate a unique Godel number for the formula. So variables make Godel formulas "unprovable", but when x=6, y = 2  the system is "provable"? (i.e, one can't assign a unique Godel number to a variable so the system is incomplete? Or if one assigns a unique Godel number to a variable, it is no longer a variable? Duh!) That is, variables are the meta-language in an arithmetic, not the arithmetic itself. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems like BS.  Or re ..read more

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... tary_Space This is not my article but someone else's. Here is the abstract: This paper supports those who have proposed that a Michelson-Morley type experiment (MMX) be performed in outer space. It predicts results that will falsify the foundational postulates of Einstein's relativity and it explains why these these unexpected results are predicted. The prediction is that a Michelson-Morley type experiment performed in low Earth orbit will show an unambiguous non-null result with a fringe or frequency variation proportional to the square of its or ..read more

Hi, so I was recetnly reading Carlo Rovellis Book "Helgoland" and "Order of Time", I found that both were neither too speculative or speculative enough at the right moment/ always being in the context of "this is an ongoing possible interpretation". Then also recently I found Lisa Randalls critic of Rovellis book "Reality is Not What it Seems". The ciritic can be found on the NYT but it reads really superfical. She found a few banal issues/ typos which Carlo admitted to but her basic premis was a disagreement about how Carlo is depicting his interpretation. Again I did not read the criticised ..read more

Another fundamental error lies in the relation x = vt.  The definition of x as a prime number x = x(x/x) means that x cannot be divided by either v or t if it is to retain its identity:  x/t = v(t/t)  That is,  ct = (ct)(ct/ct) but (ct)^2 <> (ct) (Russell's Paradox: 1^2 <> 1) so that dividing both sides by t is dimensionally inconsistent. The Theory of Relativity is a BS twittering machine, trying to map areas back into lines while ignoring pi, (So are Maxwell's equations).  Both are based on vectors.  But to see why, one must understand why group the ..read more

On my journey to reverse engineer the Standard Model from its mathematical foundation(s), I confused the volume of a cylinder (3rd order) with its surface area (second order) in some of the pdf.  I have corrected the context in some of the recent pdf's, but when it's late at night and things get blurry, there might be other instances, since my focus has been mathematical rather then geometric (although the latter important).  But as I continue, I get more and more of (what I think is) insight into the various different branches of physics and how they relate to the real and imaginary ..read more

Take a look at that : https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/133 ... nt=1265241 statistics: Posted by externo — 10:55 AM - Today ..read more