Eise

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

(Bold by me) What does 'stationary' mean? Against what? The Lorentzian aether? How can that be, if the LTs do not contain any reference to the velocity of light measured in this 'aether'?

I think I found an even better challenge for you, @externo because it seems you have problems with even simple math. This is the formula for the Doppler effect in a medium: vr = is the speed of the receiver relative to the medium, added to ± (above the division) = if the receiver is moving towards the source, subtracted if the receiver is moving away from the source vs = is the speed of the source relative to the medium, added to ± (below the division) if the source is moving away from the receiver, subtracted if the source is moving towards the receiver And last, but not least: c = is the propagation speed of waves in the medium Now this is the Doppler formula for light, assuming the source and the receiver are moving in a straight line from/to each other: where ß is the usual v/c. Now tell me, where do you see the speed of light in a medium? How do you explain that it does not appear in the formula? The above formula, AFAIK, can be derived from the Lorentz transformations, in which, you probably noticed, the speed of light in a medium does not occur either. Another problem I seem to see, is that you are thinking that relativity has something to do with signal delay. It hasn't. So the blueshift that the observer on earth sees after the traveler has turned around, of course takes time to reach earth. That is just signal time delay, nothing special.

Nope, did not work

Except one (or two?) episodes of 'Tales from the Loop' playing with time, it is not the essence of the series, as it is in 'Dark'. The episodes of 'Tales' are relatively independent, but there are a few running threads through the episodes. But maybe this is not the place to discuss that. Maybe the admins could open a new forum for discussing movies and series? Ups, I did not say that!

Again, no answer. Plugin the LTs in the Minkowski metric, and see what you get.

I had no derivation to check, so I could answer very quickly.

The answer is in your question: animals being eaten are producers and consumers. Pretty useless question.

Did you try 'Tales from the Loop'? Beautiful SF series.

Again no answer. Bye.

Just a tiny remark. As Swansont already said, it is like a chain. Now just 'zoom in into' these chain: it is all EM fields. But you do not ask how all these do work. But the macroscopic magnetic field is not different in this respect. It is just the intermediate of the force, but does no work itself.

Lorentz transformations were derived with the idea that there was an aether and that the speed of light was constant relative to this aether. In order to remove the idea of the ether or at least remove its state of motion, we must add the condition that the speed of light is constant in both directions of motion, unlike classical kinematics. This condition allows us to get rid of the idea of a fixed frame of reference for the universe. Einstein's interpretation is therefore eroneous if there is a preferred rest reference frame for the universe. You did not answer the questions. Looking at all your other postings here, I can only conclude you are discussing here in bad faith. Either answer my questions (and all others that were posed to you...), or I am 100% sure of that.

I am following the discussion a bit, but not precisely. In the end, I am not the expert. Still, I have a question for @externo: Assuming that you agree that the Lorentz transformations are correct, how could they have different results when interpreting them with a Lorentzian aether on one side, and no aether at the other side? Minkowski derived his spacetime metric from the Lorentz transformations, not from Einstein's interpretation. You can try it. Take the Minkowskian metric for spacetime distances: (ct')2 - x'2 = (ct)2 - x2 And then plugin the Lorentz transformations. Do it! It is not too difficult. And? Did you need an aether for that?

Most of Dennett's books, can be read by laypeople, but they are still quite an intellectual challenge. Better to do 'spiraling-in reading': first reading about Dennett, and then read his own books on the topics that interest you. Just to avoid a disappointment. And I completely forgot to give TheVat 5 ups for his OP. As I can only give one point, and I got 4, those 4 van give them to TheVat too. His summary is also great. And without his OP, I might still not have known about Dennett's death. PS Now downloading his book I've been thinking.

This presentation is just a week old: Daniel Dennett Presents the 4 Biggest Ideas in Philosophy in One of His Final Videos (RIP). More links in that page. It nearly hurts, his illness must have been very short.

This is sad news. He was one of the great philosophers of our time. He belongs to one of the most science oriented philosophers and one of the most honest thinkers I have known during my philosophy study. He didn't spare anybody with too naive ideas, be it materialistic or dualistic, but he always was kind, never attacking people personally, but critical reflecting on their ideas. He was able to show that it is possible to have a theory of consciousness, without leaving a physicalist ontological stance. Many people thought that his book 'Consciousness Explained', should have been titled 'Consciousness Explained Away', but I certainly do not agree with that. Consciousness exists, but it can be explained. Same for free will. He could explain how a personal and societal relevant concept of free will can go perfectly together with determinism, where others keep sticking to either 'magical free will', or denying free will altogether. In his broader ideas, he was an atheist and humanist. I do not know much about his personal life, but at least I know he also knew how to enjoy the pleasant sides of life. Enjoyer of (red?) wine, making his own cidre, harvesting the apples himself. I remember I once saw a video, where he was sitting on his tractor. I think he lived a very fulfilled life. We should all be glad that he lived his life as he did. I will miss the many new ideas he could still have found, even in his higher age. A loss for the philosophical world and many other people who are, and might still be, inspired by his thinking.

Obviously, you do not know what formal logic is. It is a mathematical description of how 'truth can be conserved', and on the other side to recognise where chains of argumentations are invalid. Proposition logic and predicate logic are just as established as 1 + 1 = 2. But when you start with propositions of which the truth is debatable, which is more often than not (as in science, philosophy and daily life as examples), the usefulness of formal logic is (very) limited. Everybody with at least a modicum of knowledge of what logic is, would immediately agree. The point is that many crackpots call 'logic', is in fact nothing more than intuitions put in words. Without any knowledge about (established) science (and logic), their minds are free to create ideas out of thin air, and think they have some revolutionary and correct ideas.

Full ack (of course). Some kinds of philosophers, e.g. some outgrows of post-modernism, have still not understood that. For them everything is a a 'narrative'. Another kind is self-proclaimed philosophers who think that philosophy is another way to the same 'truths' that science is investigating. By 'pure logic' they think to be able to refute even established science (like GR). Nearly always this 'logic' is both based on false assumptions and confused 'logic'. I like Swansont's comparison with Zeno's paradoxes.

And I would suggest not to quote a complete posting... What I would do:

I think there are many ways to see c (do not pronounce that sentence). Just to mention a few: speed of light in vacuum speed of gravitation the speed limit of every object with mass the only speed massless particles can have maximum speed of causality the conversion factor between time and space, so that they can be used on equal footing Surely you could draw a spacetime diagram with another speed as conversion factor (you need it to get a distance, as you can only 'make distances' on paper). However for calculations you would still need c, and if you would like to derive formulas from the diagram, they would be awfully complicated. The Minkowski diagram, with c as conversion factor show everything much more directly. This might be a bit over-precise, but I would have written something like 'was historically (or originally) derived'. Logically seen, the values of e0 and µ0 'must adapt' to 'the only speed massless particles can have', not the other way round. Maxwell took 'the empirical way' based on Faraday's results, and so was the first to derive c, however without knowing how fundamental c is for the structure of spacetime. And that is why I like the last description of c best.

Eh? I thought QED describes perfectly how bosons and fermions interact? And there is no empirical evidence that the brains 'special capacities', namely to create a mind, are mandated by quantum processes. That is not Occam's razor. Occam's razor is about explanations, not about nature. 'Explanations' are the ways humans understand nature. It is a heuristic principle for choosing possibly best theories: if you have several theories that explain the same phenomenon, then the theory that presupposes the least of number of ontological entities is probably the correct one. Do not forget this 'probable': Occam's razor is far away from 'dictating' anything, not even a rigid principle for choosing 'the correct theory'. Nice, but it does not mean that sciences are therefore wrong. It only means what it says: that many scientists are not aware of the philosophical presuppositions of their science. I cite it, because of the disdain many scientists have for philosophy: it is not meant as an invitation to propose new, wild, freewheeling, metaphysical speculations.

So what is the relation between a neural firing rate somewhere between 1 - 200 firings per second (how many depends among others on what the part of the brain where the neurons are localised are active), and the translational speed of light? 300,000 km/s? Or should I express it as 300,000,000 m/s? Or 300 Mm/s? What has a clock frequency to do with a speed?

I think you can rule out O and B type stars. They live too short that life on a planet orbiting such a star can develop:

Interesting, I've never heard of Yeshu but you would need to start another thread to explain it to me. Not needed: 'Yeshu' is just the (possibly) original name of Jesus in Arameic. Yes. In those days astronomers did not even know that other galaxies existed. They assumed that the universe on grand scales did not really change, and therefore had no beginning. When Einstein discovered, when applying his general theory of relativity to the cosmos as a whole, that the universe could not be stable, but had to expand or shrink, he introduced his 'cosmological constant'. Later Edwin Hubble discovered first that the spirally 'nebulae' were other galaxies on their own, and later that galaxies were receding from ours, the farther ones receding the fastest. Lemaitre was the first to propose, based on Einstein's general theory of relativity, that all the mass and energy of the universe once was concentrated in a 'cosmic egg'. This was not generally believed, and e.g. Fred Hoyle proposed the 'steady state theory', in which the universe is expanding, but that constantly new matter and energy is created, so that the universe does not really change on the grand scale. He coined the term 'Big Bang' to ridicule the idea that the universe started in a highly concentrated state.

At least for Pakistan I know the answer. Abdul Khan was a Pakistani who worked at Urenco in the Netherlands in the 70's. This company built ultracentrifuges to enrich uranium. Back in Pakistan, they were able to build them themselves. The greatest technical obstacle for building a bomb is not to construct a bomb, but the capacity to enrich uranium enough for the bomb. Really? So poor that they always already had to import their food? Don't do so ridiculous. @zapatos is perfectly right in his reaction. For modern technologies you might be right, but not for producing their own food. I would suggest, instead of just venting some opinions based on a few (alternative...) facts, read some books about the history of WW-II and about the development of the atomic bomb. Your posts show a gigantic lack of knowledge about, and understanding of history.