All Activity

When we say that the speed of light is invariant with respect to all frames of reference, it is as if all frames of reference were the frame of the ether. This is also how Einstein saw it, he thought that there was an ether which was stationary for everyone. So the observer is always at rest and the object observed is in motion. The relativistic Doppler effect is therefore postulated as always produced by the observed object. LTs do not contain any indication of the speed relative to light because they are symmetrical and we cannot distinguish this speed. I gave the calculations. ----------------------------- I can't stop because you really don't understand relativity. You don't even know that the hypothesis of the invariance of the speed of light is a useless hypothesis for the theory, and that it only serves to get rid of the ether.

Do know Google? https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-m&sca_esv=5d0811d5ae0715ef&sxsrf=ACQVn0-p-z-yyFyMDB0X402732ehGEwd5w%3A1713899584052&q=nanotechnology+books+&oq=nanotechnology+books+&aqs=heirloom-srp..0l5

You guys are too old to be that naive; well intentioned, but naive. You ban handguns, yet criminals still get them. You ban nuclear weapons, yet rogue states still get them. Some people just don't abide by laws, that's why we call them criminals. Is V Putin abiding by international laws ? How about N Korea and Iran ? ( even Israel, Pakistan and India; not actually criminal, simply not signing on to any nuke banning treaty ) At best, you propose a system which ensures continued extortion/blackmail to keep them from developing nuclear weapons ( all the while continuing their development ).

A couple of cannibals are sitting around, and one says: “I don’t like my brother-in-law very much.” The other one responds, “Then just eat the noodles." When I entered high school, I got my sister's hand-me-down calculator that didn't have a multiplication button. Times were hard back then.

It doesn't. There are many topics you can explore, discuss and/or ask about. It is just unlikely that you will find support for supposedly paradigm-changing insights without providing equivalent evidence, if that is your sole motivation. Science is in its core a learning process. Most scientists approach questions with a learning mindset. Starting with an "I got all the answers" mindset just runs contrary to how science works and yes, for that purpose this is likely the wrong forum.

Then this disqualifies me from participation in this forum.

An interesting option is to get hold of a good WYSIWYG editor --there are many--, and generate the LateX code to copy and paste. You only have to worry about the code-wrapping symbols.

No problem the easiest way I find is to use the command tags \[\frac{1}{2}\.] I put a dot in the last command to to prevent activation. For inline ie on the same line use \(\frac{1}{2}\.) What's handy about these tags is you don't need to type [\math] [.\math] [\latex] [.\latex] the inline for these two commands is imath and ilatex

send me a list please

The first thing to do is present clearly what the apple cart is. I.e. provide a clear understanding of the current understanding what is the current mainstream understanding of a topic and not the pop sci or a misunderstood version of it. From there you can point out specific issues. Not just handwavy opinions, but data that suggest serious issues with the prevailing model (and again, this requires a good understanding of the current model). From there you could present publications of alternate views and highlight how those are an improvement over the prevailing one (e.g. better predictions, fewer conflicts with available data and so on). The problem is that this generally requires a fairly detailed knowledge of the current scientific state of knowledge. Reading a few articles here and there won't provide that. Remember, models were built iteratively by hundreds, if not thousands of specialists on the given topics, and toppling that requires hard work and expertise, which is unlikely obtained within a few years without formal training in the basics. Just having a different perspective with not explanatory power is not scientific or even useful. I could propose an unlimited number of ways to categorize species, but we keep using a handful (sometimes conflicting) ones which, even if flawed, have been useful in specific contexts. You have so far not made a case how your viewpoint adds anything to the discussion, nor are the critiques specific enough that would indicate a need in a paradigm shift. While you have cited some folks, much of the arguments you derive from them appear to be your interpretation and/or extrapolations which do not really relate with the actual scientific discourse. Paradigm changes are big things and the effort of tons of work. And there are always folks who think that they can provide that without putting in the work. I suggest not being one of them.

There is apparently a meaning relating to an Ancient Greek theory of sight, in addition to the more, er, Sid James sense of the word.......

Good point! Did not get what Dawkins din't get I think that I got close to the line with my statement about "you are entirely right and I am entirely wrong". I think that CharronY and Phi for All did not like that one. But, my weak excuse is that I was getting exasperated at the null effect that I was having on the conversation. The fault is mine. I listen to these fine people, because they know more than I, but the point is: how can I present a different perspective without toppling the apple cart? I thought that this was also part of science. I'd hate to be banned and hope that they will tolerate my excentric ways. Thanks for the guidance my friend.

Reflection from the retina is what causes red eye in flash pictures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red-eye_effect And you really need to look up what "intromission" means.

Thanks for your proposal, but working all day with computers, and not too far from my retirement (1.5 year), I discover that learning complete new frameworks is a little bit too much. I am working with databases, and am not too bad at it, and in that cognitive frame I am still capable of learning. But for the one or the other formula in Latex, maybe once per 2 months, I would already have forgotten how I did it. But thanks anyway, very kind of you. Best, Eise

Were the retina at the back of our eye like a concave mirror then is it possible the image would be reflected back out the converging lens (under the iris)? So the inverted image above is already formed in front of the retina (B’) and might essentially be re-inverted upright(B): https://www.teachoo.com/10826/3118/Concave-Mirror---Ray-diagram/category/Concepts/ Then the image might be re-magnified on attempting to exit back out the converging lens under our pupil to potentially create a virtual image in the eye to simulate the reality we see: https://www.teachoo.com/10838/3118/Convex-Lens---Ray-diagram/category/Concepts/#google_vignette Cornea face reflection: That way any appearance of eye beams from the eye would be passively reflected rather than actively emitted. However I don’t know the exact focal lengths of a potential retinal mirror to fully work out any resultant image. An alternative theory might be to view the mind as being like a hidden periscope in the brain such that we’re desensitised to having an upside-down vision. Then the retina might function like a concave lens to minimise the image even further in order to reduce contrast with an upside-down version of the image: “A researcher wearing goggles that inverted everything stumbled about wildly at first, but soon enough he was able to ride a bicycle.” https://amp.theguardian.com/education/2012/nov/12/improbable-research-seeing-upside-down

The premise is quite unique for Travelers, a relatively new take on an old trope.

As a massive Dr Who fan, this I can appreciate! Will watch for sure thank you!

Utopia is the clue here, sure take steps towards zero but who cares, as long as it's not the final countdown, bc tomorrow we'll be faced with an even bigger stick and it doesn't matter who wields it, good or evil it's all the same in the end... 😉 For instance, are you sure Utopia is a good guy with a perfect defence system?

Travelers dude! Travelers is the show to watch! Time travel is the bomb!

If anything it's the other way round, if for pop-science we say philosophy; science just wants to get on with it, without all those peskie journos asking personal question's, it only gets heated when god is used as an excuse to not try and understand (edit, gods, something else Dawkins was confused by 🙄); if you make an honest mistake the scientists are quite tolerant and happy to explain why. You, my friend is treading a fine line, as did I when I joined this forum and sometimes continue to do so, the difference between now and then is, I learned to listen to these fine people, before I argued with them. I'd hate to see you banned.

Also an advocate for Global Zero here. The Brookings paper makes some strong arguments for continuing to work on this - the mountain seems steeper now, alas, with Putin rekindling the Cold War and saber rattling crazily. I hugely appreciate your passion on this - the world needs to be aware of that Damoclean sword over its head and agitating for its removal. Bingo. Yep. And that's part of why Global Zero is, however distant, a pragmatic approach to global security and species survival. When the stakes are this high, gambling on continued good luck is a bad idea.

Correction applied lol

The 'only time' it was an effective weapon was in Japan; now, it's just a weapon of revenge, whomsoever pulled the trigger first; it's built into the contract, no one can afford to be seen too flinch. If you're facing who you think is a psycho, would you put down your gun? The best we can achieve is for all side's to take out one bullet at a time, the entropy of collateral damage, we'll just be left with one (probably a secret 10) each.

@externo A solid piece of advise. You really need to stop trying to tell us how SR and GR works or describes. We have gone numerous pages with posters correcting your misunderstandings. Which you continue to repeat. I highly suggest that instead of trying to tell us what SR states that instead you start asking questions concerning SR. Use the math and the knowledge of the posters here and try to properly understand SR. This is article was written by a Ph.D that regularly uses forums. He developed this article to provide corrections to all the numerous misconceptions posters regularly have with regards to SR. http://www.lightandmatter.com/sr/ This article describes the basics of SR in a very easy to understand format and explains the reasons behind its mathematics. Relativity: The Special and General Theory" by Albert Einstein http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30155/30155-pdf.pdf It is an archive reprint.

Post what your trying and we can probably help out