Leaderboard

1. It is not an assumption, it is a conclusion from observations. 2. It is not random. Quantum effects are deterministic, but only in a probabilistic sense. It is like tossing a coin: you know (deterministically) that you will get a head or a tail but you only know with a certain probability that you will get a head. 3. It doesn't suppose any "intelligence" in matter. So, nice three-fold straw man argument.

Looks like it might be more than a bit weird!

Here's another visualization of what walking around the spinning square would be like, showing 1 full side and part of two others:

New tech always makes old tech obsolete. As that applies to the global arms race weapons and the threats they pose grow exponentially with each generation.

You could claim the loser in every war defeated themselves.

...off to the basement to get some exercise in the "weight room"

It does not make sense. It is not that light selective activates or inactivates genes rather there are specific genes responsive to them as there are typically enzymes that can be activated by light and then control gene expression. None of the things proposed in the last two pages make any sense for bacterial inactivation.

The efficiency of removing germs are primarily dependent on the use of soap and the length (and thoroughness) of your wash. Warm water increases the likelihood of compliance (i.e. washing your hands longer) as with cold water it may become uncomfrotable for some folks.

Well, the field IS space. (And time.) Distances and times. Surprisingly. BTW You might find John Baez's pages on the Einstein Field Equations helpful. They do go into the maths in a little detail but most bits are understandable even without fully understanding the maths. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/

I would add that if you find different levels of gravity desirable, a circular cross section could still provide that. You could simply go up a flight of stairs, to a level closer to the centre of rotation, and feel lighter. So just like on Earth, we would probably go upstairs to bed. In space stations on a gigantic scale, you could maybe go upstairs to lower gravity levels as you get older, or if you're not well.

That's awesome Janus. There should be a slight effect from which way it is spinning. So walking one way would have some different effects from the other depending on your speed.

OK so if it is an identity the equation asserts that this is true for any value of phi, lambda and alpha so let us try some [math]{\left( {\cos \frac{\varphi }{2}\sin \frac{\lambda }{2}} \right)^2} + {\left( {\cot \frac{\varphi }{2} + \cos \alpha } \right)^2} = 1[/math] Put [math]\varphi = \frac{\pi }{2}\quad \lambda = 0\quad \alpha = \pi [/math] This computes to [math]{\left( {\sqrt {\frac{2}{4}} *0} \right)^2} + {\left( {1 + \left( { - 1} \right)} \right)^2} = 0 \ne 1[/math] OOps so the equation is not an indentity.

Micro black holes in just all of the baryonic matter & energy could account for all mass in the universe, including that of dark matter. Higgs field demystified. In teleparallel gravity, they could account for the other three fundamental interactions, or eigen values, as well. & so much more involving LIGO's detection of gravity waves.

Okay, stochastic gravity theory is for sub-planckian gravity https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5660882/ But those are gravity fields, not waves (frame dragging). Waves would be superluminal & an entire microverse would have bodies that abruptly accelerate & decelerate constantly, also teleparallel gravity would make it synonymous with atomic charge. This would allow the polarity of one particle to influence that of another particle beyond the speed of light, faster, via commutation of sub-planckian gravitational interactions. No superposition or non-local action between particles that are in two places at once...again because C covers 1 planck length in 1 planck, it will cover 1/n planck lengths in 1/n planck times even if n>1 This is within parameters of special relativity, or scale relativity, acting beyond the planck length.

I definitely take your point, and overwhelmingly agree. It’s troubling how tribal and polarized we’ve become and how our shared humanity is so often discarded and replaced by vilification. With that said, there are some rather remarkable differences in both approach and response that would be foolish to dismiss as mere whataboutism. Take just this one in-context / thread-relevant example: Leader of the Democratic Party, Nancy Pelosi, a few days after allegations were made against the longest serving House Democrat, John Conyers, and more information became available: “Congressman Conyers should resign. The allegations (snip) are serious, disappointing and very credible. It's very sad. A brave woman came forward...Zero tolerance means consequences for everyone — no matter how great a legacy is no license to harass or discriminate." ...And compare that against leader of the Republican Party, President Donald Trump, a few MONTHS after allegations were made against Alabama Senate candidate and judge, Roy Moore, and more information became available: “Roy Moore denies it. That’s all I can say. He denies it. And by the way, he totally denies it.” One of these is not like the other, and I’m not saying this to distract or deflect or protect “my side.” See also: Republican Senator, Lindsay Graham, today: “What concerns me about the American press is this endless, endless attempt to label the guy as some kind of kook not fit to be president. It’s pretty frustrating for most Republicans, quite frankly, that it’s 24/7 attack on everything the president does or thinks. It gets a little old after a while.” Versus that same Senator, Lindsay Graham, only about 18 short months ago: ”I think he's a kook. I think he's crazy. I think he's unfit for office. I'm a Republican, and he's not. He's not a conservative Republican, he's an opportunist. He’s not fit to be president of the United States." My intent is not to to vilify, but to illuminate.

Bilbos Danny!!! I said Bilbos!!!

Your above post just like the rest of your posts in this thread are an extremely weak attempt at sarcasm meant to discredit a political party. Its so weak that democrats should be thankful for such a clumsy attempt. Hint for the future - try to be at least a little funny when doing this.

You need to watch some video tutorial on YouTube, so you will grasp idea what to do, which tools press to have certain effect. Try this for lesson:

Here is a link I found http://www.sciencealert.com/how-graphene-could-help-solar-panels-produce-energy-when-it-s-raining

Indeed: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/K/Kerr_black_hole.html And Kerr-Newman for a rotating charged black hole: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr–Newman_metric And then there is charged but not rotating: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/R/Reissner-Nordstrom_black_hole.html

Mapping the members of the set doesn't necessarily imply that relationships within a set can be mapped to the other.

Who says it would be?

Citation needed.

Can you demonstrate that the Lorentz transform "is a relationship that occurs in R3 that ... cannot be mapped to R2"

Given the lack of mathematical knowledge you have admitted to before (you have struggled with simple trigonometry) I find it rather implausible that you have a good grasp on differential geometry and pseudo-Riemannian manifolds. Well, for one thing, the Lorentz transform I am aware of only applies to one dimension. So perhaps you could explain how it is applied to 2 or 3 dimensions and what sort of mapping it provides between these. Giving your statement immediately above, perhaps you could explain how the Lorentz transform relates to the intrinsic curvature of pseudo-Riemannian manifolds? And, as you are making the claim, it is up to you to show that it is correct. As you are the one who is making assertions about some such relationship, it is necessary for you to identify the specific relationship you are concerned about (and what it means).

Of course you are. OK. Then you should be able to demonstrate this, rather than us having to rely on your assertions (after all, it's not about you or what you believe).

Don't speak for me. The 3/5 of a white person rule was an anti-slavery position. To count slaves as full persons would have given the south more political power by giving them a higher population. Anti-slavery proponents didn't want slaves to be counted at all. There argument was that if a slave is simply property like a horse why should they be counted? Had they gotten there way, slavery would have likely ended sooner. The 3/5 of a white person rule as a compromise that anti-slavery proponents felt they lost. https://americanvision.org/3918/the-original-constitution-and-the-three-fifths-myth/

The anti-slavery faction felt they lost in the 3/5 compromise because they wanted slaves to count for zero. Any counting of slaves gave slave holding states more power in the federal government. If slaves had counted for zero, slavery could have easily been contained within the existing slave holding states and then later been abolished through legislation. The 3/5 compromise did in fact limit the power of slave holding states, just not enough.

When subatomic particle waves of the protons interact, they feed each other their collective material, collapsing wave functions. Like bug rips & big bangs in the microverses of most all subatomic particles. The neutron flies apart because, as I said, it's between the up quark & down quarks matter jets @ poles of the BH atom held together entirely by it's gravity underneath or adjacent to the proton quasar discs. Gravity is a lot stronger near the planck scale, resembling bthe other forces of the quantum world in it's strength: https://phys.org/news/2009-05-mini-black-holes.amp

What on Earth does this mean? How does a variable "exist in three dimensions"? But lets assume you mean that none of the variables can be equal to zero (so the equation is not an identity). If we set all three to 1 then the result is approximately 5.798 which, it might surprise you to know, is not equal to 1.

How is this represented in the equation? In other words how do you (or, more importantly, the equation) know if these three scalar values are co-planar or not?

All elementary particles are point-like. What was measured was the electron dipole moment.