All Activity

Technically yes, there will be some amount of frequency shift, though in practice the effect is quite small for a weak field such as the Earth’s. That’s hard to answer, since whether something is considered intuitive or not depends on the person. I kind of like the paths lengths way of looking at it, since most people can relate to it. Total accumulated proper time equals the geometric length of the path through spacetime, as I’ve mentioned already. The crucial point is that the two paths are not of equal lengths. I think you should read the article more carefully. I said there’s no rest frame to light, so it makes no sense to speak of “speed relative to waves”. There’s no tidal gravity in an accelerated frame, meaning that \[R_{\mu\nu}=0; W{^{\mu}}{_{\nu\alpha\beta}}=0\] and therefore \[R{^{\mu}}{_{\nu\alpha\beta}}=0\] However, there is a homogenous gravitational field due to proper acceleration locally, according to the equivalence principle. The Riemann tensor vanishes for such homogenous fields, so spacetime remains of course flat as expected. The metric in the accelerating frame, which now contains a term which is equivalent to a gravitational potential, is isomorphic to the Minkowski metric, also as expected.

And a more, shall we say, controversial ( as always ) interpretation of vacuum energy

If your certain of your equations and it's validity I'm sure your going to want to test them. If you think about it I provided the essential equations to do just that with a given dataset such as Planck. I certainly do when I model build or simply test and cross check any new relations/interactions. Those equations apply LCDM. to the cosmological redshift. As far as a new value of G well all I can say to that is good freaking luck on that score with what you have shown so far. this is a listing of the various types of studies and results form them for variations of G tests for spatial dependence is page 200 onward http://www2.fisica.unlp.edu.ar/materias/FisGral2semestre2/Gillies.pdf

His problem when you consider that a 9pi area over the integral of its radius is just 4 which is exactly what he's factoring in for the gravitational constant. And you should really use my optimization of the surface volume about an origin sphere instead because it isn't factoring in 4 it is factoring in 3.87553041018 that's only a 1.3% difference which adds up when you consider all of the angular momenta involved in the observation of gravitational bodies.

fair enough, something to keep in mind if your looking at cosmological redshift is that the expansion rates are not linear. The equation above shows this as the resultant is to determine the Hubble value at a given Z compared to the value today. The relations under the square root is the evolution of the energy density for matter, radiation and Lambda. You can learn these here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) this related to the FLRW acecleration equations. described here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations that link supplies some very useful integrals with regards to the scale factor the evolution of the scale factor "a" using the above relations gives \[\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=-\frac{4G}{3}(\rho+3P)+\frac{\Lambda}{3}\] however to get the FLRW metric cosmological redshift equation you will also need the Newton weak field limit treatments as per GR. Particularly for curvature K=0 if your interested in that let me know and I'll provide more details

I have no argument with that. He was not nearly as hyperbolic as Hitchens, and far more personable in the screen.

A=pi*3^2=9pi; A'=(2*3)^(2-1)pi the integral is (6pi/(1+1))^(1+1)=(6/2)^2 * pi=9pi If you have a radius of R around an inner circle with a radius of r and wanted to maximize the amount of space in that outer ring R and minimize what is in the center circle r you would say lim x->infinity f(R)=r+r/x ; x=r, meaning that R=r+1 I suppose Newton is some shadow program working on maths adjacent to me Also: Having to make some corrections here, the 5.121 number extruded another radius from the original radius of 3 inches. So let's so how close we are with 2.121 (I just went back in and realized I did my own math wrong it was 2.74 something that was the point). And yes I realized you can still fit 9 spheres inside the second iteration without all of their surfaces touching so it is like squaring the volume of a sphere to get a hypersphere. Shouldn't second guess myself.

Really ? Sometimes they seem very appropriate for any geopolitics.

Here is a simple to follow calculation of the expected vacuum energy, and comparison to the observationally estimated vacuum energy which results in the 124 orders of magnitude 'vacuum catastrophe'. It also provides clarification about Cosmology, universal expansion and the Cosmological Principle.

ok First off you have vacuum energy and vacuum energy density confused. The first case though not a useful form for energy density. The VeV is the vacuum expectation value VeV this isn't the density. This is a term describing the effective action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_action for Higgs the effective action is defined by the equation \[v-\frac{1}{\sqrt{\sqrt{2}G^0_W}}=\frac{2M_W}{g}\] here \(M_W\) is the mass of the W boson and \( G^0_W\) is the reduced Fermi constant. These are used primarily when dealing with Feymann path integrals in scatterings or other particle to particle interactions involving Higgs in particular dealing with the CKMS mass mixing matrix. So its not your energy density more specifically they describe CKMS mixing angles or Weinberg mixing angles. for the above without going into too much detail the mixing angles are \[M_W=\frac{1}{2}gv\] \[M_Z=\frac{1}{COS\Theta_W}\frac{1}{2}gv=\frac{1}{Cos\theta_W}M_W\] more details can be found here. Page three I'm starting to compile the previous pages now if you want the vacuum energy density the FLRW has a useful equation. \[\rho_{crit} = \frac{3c^2H^2}{8\pi G}\] if you take the value of the Hubble constant today and plug it into that formula you will get approximately \(5.5\times 10^{-10} joules/m^3\) if you convert that over you will find your fairly close to 3.4 GeV/m^3 which matches depending on the dataset used for the Hubble constant. The confusion you had was simply not realizing the VeV isn't the energy density. hope that helps. I won't get into too many details of the quantum harmonic oscillator via zero point energy but if you take the zero point energy formula and integrate over momentum space d^3x you will end up with infinite energy. So you must renormalize by applying constraints on momentum space. However even following the renormalization procedure you still end up 120 orders of magnitude too high. There has been resolutions presented to this problem however nothing conclusive enough. Quantum field theory demystified by David Mcmahon has a decent coverage of the vacuum catastrophe edit forgot to add calculating the energy density for the cosmological constant uses the same procedure as per the critical density formula.

Your 'connotes' is contradicted in the OP: ... like believing that the Conservative Party are going to win a majority at the next British general election. Or Trump 'won' the last US presidential election. Given the vociferous and frequently malicious nature of the attacks on evolutionary biology by the US christian right in particular, I think Dawkins strikes the right tone. Sufficiently punchy to attract the attention of the uncommitted, yet not sinking to the level of the opposition. Got to remember who the target audience is - it isn't to the regular contributors to scienceforums.net. We more than any should allow him his leeway and applaud his contribution. Personally, I'd have gone for the title 'Satanic Verses' but I understand someone else got there first.

Who cares what wiki states it's never written by a professor in the field involved. It's never been nor will ever be an authority in physics or any other science. Garbage not even close to being accurate regardless if your describing LET or SR/GR.. Tell me do even understand what an inertial frame is as opposed to a non inertial frame ? It's no different in LET and you cannot even describe LET correctly if you don't know the difference. Tell me many more pages will it take before you realize that you never convince anyone that you are correct when you cannot describe the theories under discussions without being full of errors? Everyone is literally forced to correct your errors to the point where discussing the Pros and Cons between the two theories simply isn't happening.

Oh sure, I actually agree here, I did note 'I personally go with "there is none"'. But it's like "proving a negative", hard to be absolute. (Back when I was busy (ha!) dropping out of University I went to exactly 1 philosophy lecture, and this was the topic.)

Hence "connotes" rather than "means". When people talk about delusions, they're not usually talking about religious faith. I do think Dawkins generally overstated the harmful effect of faith - but maybe not by much. It's not simple lack of proof of the existence of god(s): it's a preponderance of evidence contradictory to each particular claim of each particular religion; it's the implausibility of the stories in holy scriptures; it's the whiff of self-interest from the beneficiaries of religious observance. Yes, it can be considered reasonable to cling to illusions when reality is grim, and religion is not the only illusion we cling to.

Lack of proof there is a god of some kind, isn't proof that this god doesn't exist. There are also plenty of reasons why reasonable people find comfort in some kind of belief, including upbringing (indoctrination?) and nervousness at the unknown. Not that I'm agnostic, I personally go with "there is none", but I think it's a bit too strong to say "delusion". It did sell some books, though. (dimreepr, is the incorrect "you're" in your signature ironic?)

Carnivores eat herbivores, and sometimes other carnivores. This notion of producers and consumers seems overly simplistic. Like someone is applying a very rudimentary economic model to it.

Is that the part where it says “Therefore, the twin paradox is not actually a paradox in the sense of a logical contradiction”? Just saying this doesn’t make it so. ”It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility.” doesn’t support that notion neither does “We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it”

There's been a bit of conflation in some replies between A.C. and D.C.. D.C. is conserved but A.C. isn't. So: V.H.F. A.C. whose effects are more obvious than 50Hz. You could have 100 meters of 50 ohm coaxial cable with 10db loss per 100 meters. Connecting A.C. power at say 100MHz 100V to the (resistive) cable gives I =V/R = 2 amps input (200W). Connect a 50 ohm resistive load to the far end and you'll get ~ 31.6V at 0.632A i.e. 20W output. If you use a 200 meter cable you'll get 10V at 0.2A i.e. 2W. The input is still 200W into 50 ohms. The current drops exponentially along the cable. The main power losses are I^R losses in the conductor, dielectric (insulator) heating and radiation from the cable. There is no A.C. current conservation; some of it charges and discharges the dielectric and current is also involved in creating magnetic and electromagnetic fields. One way of dealing with reactance is to consider the effect of a load impedance mismatch. e.g. terminate the cable with 25 instead of 50 ohms. This will cause a power reflection back into the cable to compensate for trying to connect a 50 ohm cable to a 25 ohm load. If 20W output then 20 *(50 -25)/(50+25)W i.e. 6.7W is reflected back into the cable and after attenuation 0.67W reaches the source. You'll get standing waves on the cable; every half wavelength (About 1.5m) you'll get maximum voltage and minimum current; between these nodes you get a minimum voltage, maximum current node. A.C. current can be created and destroyed without breaking conservation laws. Some energy is stored in various fields and doesn't reach the load; sometimes it's called imaginary power(it can be treated as 90 deg or sqrt(-1) out of phase with 'real' power) or reactive power(capacitors and inductors have reactance). This is sort of real; there are meters which measure forward and reflected power in coax cables... I didn't want to oversimplify too much; this post ended up much longer than I intended.

This is the FLRW metric \[d{s^2}=-{c^2}d{t^2}+a({t^2})[d{r^2}+{S,k}{(r)^2}d\Omega^2\] \[S\kappa(r)= \begin{cases} R sin(r/R &(k=+1)\\ r &(k=0)\\ R sin(r/R) &(k=-1) \end {cases}\] This is the redshift equation(cosmological) that gets used at all ranges as it takes the evolution of matter, radiation and Lambda. \[H_z=H_o\sqrt{\Omega_m(1+z)^3+\Omega_{rad}(1+z)^4+\Omega_{\Lambda}}\]

Nope animals are just consumers, it's the plants that are the producers.

Any clues? I was thinking early turkey tail but someone with more experience with turkey tail said it isn't because the underside of early turkey tail is always white Image number 4 is a different tree with earlier stage growth

The redshift has little to do with gravitational constant and we have means of testing redshift by understanding the processes involved. We can for example examine hydrogen which is one of most common elements in our universe and using spectrography. There is nothing random that isn't cross checked by numerous means involving redshift. We don't even rely on it as our only means of distance calculation. Quite frankly no one method works for every distance range. A huge portion of papers can be found studying the accuracy of redshift at different ranges and those cross checks using other means such as interstellar parallax. Same applies to luminosity distance. By the way the redshift formula you find in textbooks is only useful at short distances cosmological scale.

The mathematics simply says that the traveling twin's own time is shorter, it explains nothing. Moreover, the path taken by the twin is longer and not shorter, what is shorter is its proper time. You can call proper time a "path" if you please, that's not why it will be a real one, show me this "path" in the sky if you can. Yet, Wikipedia says that there is a paradox except in the case where we postulate a privileged reference frame. How do you know that there is no preferred reference frame where the light is isotropic? You can't know. There is no gravitational field in an accelerated frame of reference, we are in flat space-time, the distance between the accelerating object and the stars varies unlike in a gravitational field, the Doppler effect is therefore kinematic, not gravitaionnel. ---------------------------- I wrote "This is also how Einstein saw it, he thought that there was an ether which was stationary for everyone." It is called the relativistic aether, but it is also a luminiferous ether, it is the Lorentz ether deprived of its state of motion.

You don't know whether the redshift is higher than it should be or not if the problem is a lack of some sinusoidal application to factor in the proximity values of galaxy A and B relative to the observer as I explained earlier. So you don't even know whether the cosmic event horizon or CMBR is the oldest light that's had time to reach the lens or whether it is just a blending that makes objects invisible as the tip of the cone becomes infinitesimal.

Not really. He concluded that space has properties, but it’s not a medium that represents a preferred frame of reference, or is required for light. The aether he spoke of later is not the luminiferous aether of Lorentz theory.