All Activity

I came up with one more thought experiment - this time there is 3 observers but instead of light clock that have flash lights and stop watches. The speed of light is the only speed we observe. The observed distance- trajectory is changing . speed is always constant . The time change is directly proportionate to change of distance - always . And there is no time change ,or speed change without change in distance (different trajectory)

No they weren't. FFS, read some Civil War history.

Sugar a most dangerous chemical??? You people have a weird notion of what a dangerous chemical is. I'm going with the stuff that burns through concrete.

For a start, the battles were considered a fine days entertainment, that seems to answer most of this; as for the rest of your question, it's a case of economic need; the south needed it's slaves/property, more than they needed a clean moral conscience, the north didn't. The English avoided the need for a battle, by paying compensation to the slave owner's; a debt BTW that lasted well into the 1990's.

Okay by me, but you're going the wrong way around. You have to know the land and its economic potential, the population, its culture and its needs before you can design a government that will work in the long term. You've seen enough conquering nations try to foist their own idea of governance on other countries and it doesn't take. The successful countries have had a stable population for centuries and longer, and they hammered out their present system slowly, over time. If that's the way you intend to go, read their history first. Or any history.

The closest I can come to a formal definition is a 'joke', one form of intelligence makes a joke for another form of intelligence to laugh, if they don't laugh they're not cognisant of the intention, a computer won't ever laugh, however intelligent we make them.

This figure is also incorrect. If the mass of CBH and its distance are such that the accelerations are almost parallel, then these mass and distance would make the accelerations almost equal. I.e., \(ra_1 \approx 0\).

I've corrected the dotted lines. I suppose that the CBH is so massive that the values of the accelerations are different. The new figures for absolute and relative accelerations are: I have the following problem: In my last figure, S1 is accelerating away from the Earth, but it is outside of the cones A and B. How can this be explained ?

Australian magpies are known for there swooping behaviour which, on the face of it seems territorial, but they can be persuaded to leave some alone or to become a sought out target. They can also get our intentions wrong, one person tried to save a chick and failed and has been terrorised ever since by the parents. How close they are to our level of intelligence can never be known, bc we aren't capable of walking a mile in their shoes or suckers.

Any theory which does not explain how we have life can really not see itself as complete. The theory is that it takes a long time for things to evolve. An example might be initially there is a faint light for 1 million years. Then this transforms into spherical globules for the next 500,000 years. Then becomes globules with spikes for the next 200,000 years. I am in agreement with the scientists roughly about rapid expansion, reconstitution of particles etc. Mainly because it would have been rigorously researched etc. Where I disagree is that the process is very mathematical. My proposal is that our current universe began with a "birth". Similar to how a person is born. The singularity is probably some kind of "wierd" state very foreign to us. Not really just a plasma. The universe had a "birth", involving tremendous forces - exploding a lot of past time. The theory is that this "time" is caught in all matter. What we see and know is the main reconstitution. But the theory is that time is caught in this reconstitution. The time itself is a living thing that evolved prior to the singularity. If it is not possible to consider that there MAY have been time previous to the BB then it is hard to work through the following stuff. The basic tenet is that life is somewhat "mechanical", once you know the process. It is interesting to know about the different inflationary models. But you guys MAY be missing a key piece.

To elaborate ... The Big Bang was everywhere.

Do you remember what happened to 'Jarvis' ? ULTRON ... ( or were you serious ? )

Every "ideal' system is wonderful. Democracy, dictatorships, even a monarchy; as is capitalism, communism and even fascism. They all have 'advantages', and while you can try to minimize the disadvantages, some unscrupulous people always choose to take advantage of those disadvantages for their own gain. Unfortunately 'ideal' is not attainable.

I’m unclear what you’re planning to compare, and what “its” refers to here. Will you please clarify?

Hardly. Big Bang is not a point.

I’m sorry. I have no idea what you’re talking about, and I believe the core explanatory reason is because neither do you.

Referendum decision making in governance is the fastest way to agree to increase government spending on social programs by 5,000% or more while in parallel agreeing to bring taxes down to zero. Because magic is how things get paid for apparently.

Now I feel guilty. One of my favorite Greek dishes is grilled octopus tentacles, ( and their Italian cousins, 'calamari', also ) I hope they grow back.

Infinity is not a number, and has certain specific rules that must be followed. For instance, if you add to infinity, or subtract from infinity, you still have infinity. Doesn't matter if you add 1 or 1Trillion; if it changed after the addition, then you didn't have infinity to begin with. IOW, you can 'add' as much extent as you want to an infinitely extended universe, an it will still be infinite.

how about we start thinking about what type of government/economy/geography it should have im going to spend some more time to figure out what i want for these (im not looking to replicate successful countries but to improve on them)

I was trying to find ways to identify a point anywhere, anytime, any dimension and any universe. Seems the big bang was a good starting point and I think (0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0) or (0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0) might reference it. Hey, it's a possible beginning and I wonder if anyone out there thinks I might be onto something.

@Max70, you appear to have the view that the expansion of the universe can be explained by the tidal effect external to a gravitational source. No, such a tidal effect has the property of being "volume preserving". In other words, a free-falling sphere distorts into the shape of a prolate spheroid of the same volume. On earth, this ideally gives rise to two antipodal high tides separated by a ring of low tide. By contrast, the universe is expanding in all directions. A free-falling sphere becomes a larger sphere... not volume preserving. It's worth noting that the flat-space FLRW spacetime that ideally describes our universe is entirely devoid of the type of curvature associated with a black hole.

Hi Everyone, Does anyone have experience with caping the outlet of sterivex filters without the luer-lok? Looking for a way to do this to avoid leaking. I am trying to extract DNA from the filter, without removing the filter from the capsule. I have tried parafilm and leaking has still been occurring. I also need to be able to open it again to push out the lysate. Thank you,

Here is the closest situation of two Newtonian events happening at the same time . The fast flying aircraft can be seen as a light dot of second (observed light clock) speed is max.(we can see it as c) The slow flying aircraft is seen as a mirrors of second observed light clock. his speed is v2 This situation is the second half of chevron trajectory of light dot. The shortest distance betwen aircrafts (red line ) is L=distance between mirrors of both clocks. We can see that these two aircrafts are traveling at their own trajectories- not related to each other. When fast aircraft travels on red trajectory it travels at max speed (c)and it takes time t1. d1 =cxt1 When fast aircraft travels in angled trajectory it will move at max speed (c) but the trajectory is longer . The time t2>t1 the distance d2=cxt2 we observe the fast aircraft- we do not observe the slow aircraft at all. the slow aircraft always travels at speed v2 and it will be at colossi on point x in time t3 And distance d3=v2xt3 From these totally not related distances and times we can calculate and confirm that speed of fast aircraft on angled trajectory is max speed (c)

Is that actually workable? How many decisions are made in government every day? I used to work for the government - would my decision to buy some widget have to go through a referendum? What good is a system that’s unattainable? So democracy wasn’t possible until the last couple of decades? Does everyone have internet, and if they do, do they all have the ability to do this?