All Activity

Agreed, though more immediate procreation I would be welcome

No doubt, the US provides the best education. But it depends on different factors, such as personal perspective and specific fields etc.

@iNow Thanks for sharing this potential resource. I am happy with your response.

Leibnitz and Newton are thought to have independently developed calculus at around the same time, though I think it was Leibnitz who published first. As so often with science and mathematics, the idea was germinating at the time and trying to determine who got there "first" is rather debatable and of limited value. Both men most certainly existed, though. I can't make sense of the rest of your post.

Sure, I just meant it as an example of where factors other than technical superiority have determined the technology chosen. Thinking about it more, I suppose @TheVat's point may not actually be a technical one really, but more an economic one, viz. why spend limited resources on a "sticking plaster" technology, rather than on those that address the problem at source? But again my view would be the amount of resources is not really fixed. Some governments, corporations/societies may be willing to devote funds and effort to a "sticking plaster" technology that they would not be willing to expend on, say hydrogen, or nuclear energy, in which case I would say let them do that then, at least to see how far it can be made to work, while others pursue the more fundamental solutions.

You do realize the fine structure constant applies directly to the couplings strength of charged particles. how can you believe that wouldn't be carefully examined ? In point of detail we would need to know how well the neutron and proton couples to the EM field. So it's quite accurately examined. One of the precision tests of the fine structure constant is atomic recoil. The highest precision test involving rubidium atoms.

There are two issues that I am concerned. Probably paranoid? 1. Wireless charging 2.Magnetic Will it generate more radiation or anything around that could increase health risk? On the other hand, if my hand gets wet and I use the magsafe powerbank, could it lead to any danger?

No worries, I don't disagree. But expertise (at least in science) tends to coalesce around some kind of firm consensus, surrounded by wobblier, but still fairly bits and then areas where experts should state that things are speculative. I do know (especially with recent experience) that this is not always the case and some folks really are loud outside their field. So in that regard I understand that folks can be uncertain regarding who they should believe. However, that there is more recent trend to ignore consensus and expertise altogether and treat even the most ridiculous things as equivalent to even minimal levels of expertise. We went from opinions with insufficient data/understanding straight to 5G aliens did it. And that part worries me, as it essentially renders facts entirely non-relevant.

As far I can discern when inventing combinatorics I also found the product rule for differentiation and derivatives. Not "Isaac Newton" or some other name that I can't confirm ever existed. When pertaining to the scientific method, empirical evidence is based on observation which I don't rely on as heavily as mathematics for separating fact from fiction. I know I don't get anything out of sharing an arithmetic that can literally be used to earn a person money for cracking a password combination or solving any type of Rubiks cube. I should be retired for this alone. I only share it because I know some things that are potentially worth a lot more. Just realize whenever I post one of these there's an implied expectation somewhere in there for doing so.

I don’t think it was. Life back in hunter-gatherer days would have been much simpler, but also brutal, painful, and generally short. There’s nothing wrong per se with technology and civilisation, it’s alleviated a lot of unnecessary suffering, and - broadly speaking - freed up resources that enabled us as a species to pursue things other than immediate survival and procreation, at least potentially. I for one wouldn’t want to go back to the dark times. The problem is only that one has to have a certain degree of wisdom with it, and that’s where we seem to be lacking. We’ve become completely dependent on our own creations, and in some sense relinquished our freedom to them. That’s problematic, but also inevitable I suppose, since our basic instinctual-psychological patterns have remained the same.

What you’re referring to is the instant that the camera crosses the event horizon. The reading on the bottom clock (“External time”) refers to what an external observer who is at rest far away from the BH would see. But the problem is that from such an observer’s point of view, the falling camera never reaches the horizon at all; just before it gets there, it will appear to fall slower and slower, and will visually appear redder and dimmer, until it fades into invisibility. There is no instant on the distant observer’s clock at which the camera is reckoned to have crossed the horizon - the entire region of the horizon and below cannot be mapped into the external observer’s coordinate system at all, because from his point of view such a region cannot be accessed (and vice versa, the falling camera cannot get back out either). Thus, once the horizon is reached, the times on the falling camera’s clock no longer correspond to any times on the external clock, even though the camera continues to fall and continues to accumulate time normally on its own clock. There simply is no longer any meaningful notion of simultaneity at all, whether relativistic or not. So you see, time on its own in GR is a purely local concept, specific to a specific observer. It may not be shared by others. In order to ensure agreement between observers, you must now use covariant quantities instead.

What is the fine structure of the proton and neutron in the Standard Model? I just gave values for different fine structures for the proton and neutron, which differ from the electron. Precise measurements of the fine structures of the proton and neutron have not been pursued. Please read my words carefully and don't assume things.

All these methods are already employed to test the fine structure constant. Quite frankly the precision of the collective results of all the different tests gives an extremely high precision. Any process that involves the fine structure constant can be used to test it. As a fundamental constant its continuously tested as its far to important not to. Every fundamental constant included in that regard.

In the APM, the electron fine structure constant (α) is given by the ratio of the electrostatic charge squared (e²) to the magnetic charge squared (eemax²), multiplied by a factor of 8π: α = (e²) / 8π * (eemax²) Applying the same principle to protons and neutrons, we can express their fine structure constants as: p = (e²) / 8π * (epmax²) n = (e²) / 8π * (enmax²) where epmax and enmax are the magnetic charges of protons and neutrons, respectively. Using the known values of the electrostatic charge (e) and the proton and neutron magnetic charges derived from the APM, we can calculate the theoretical values of the proton and neutron fine structure constants: p ≈ 3.974 × 10-6 n ≈ 3.969 × 10-6 These values are significantly smaller than the electron fine structure constant (α ≈ 7.297 × 10-3), indicating a weaker coupling between the electrostatic and magnetic forces for protons and neutrons. Experimental Tests: To verify the predicted values of the proton and neutron fine structure constants, I propose the following experimental tests: High-energy proton-proton scattering: By measuring the angular distribution of scattered protons in high-energy collisions and comparing the results with QED predictions using different values of p, we can determine the best-fit value for the proton fine structure constant. Neutron interferometry: Applying carefully controlled electromagnetic fields to a neutron interferometer and measuring the resulting phase shifts can provide a sensitive test of the neutron fine structure constant (n). Spectroscopy of exotic atoms: Measuring the transition frequencies between energy levels in exotic atoms containing heavy baryons can yield information about the fine structure constants of the constituent particles. Precision measurements of nucleon magnetic moments: Comparing high-precision measurements of proton and neutron magnetic moments with APM predictions can indirectly test the validity of the derived fine structure constants. In my work, I also present a slight correction for the NIST neutron magnetic moment based on theoretical analysis by quantum measurement units.

It sounds like Walter white downplaying the plane that crashed over Albuquerque because there had been bigger plane crashes in the past that killed more people.... Dear Neil; often people respond to what is in front of them. Not what is behind them. If you're pissed that different data was put in front of people then get into news publishing instead of selling overpriced planetary society gold plated pens or pins or whatever it was. Oh and one more thing; the insensitivity displayed could have been avoided by ending on a call to help reduce those deaths or a moment of silence but instead, snarky comments about emotions to death.

Has anyone ever read this series of books? Or even better, has anyone ever heard the amazing Sir Ian McKellen reading this on audiobook? This series has been on my mind a lot recently. It's set in pre-hunter gatherer times. Very primal. Sometimes makes me wonder if modern technology was a mistake.

Scars by Krizz Kaliko. My man's got a voice like red velvet cookies and cream lol Hip-hop is so underrated because the cream doesn't rise to the top that's where you find the shit instead.

Defining objective expertise on the matter is difficult as well. Take law degrees for example; You've got your Ruth Bader Ginsberg's and your Clarence Thomases. In Philosophy you've got people like Saul Kripke being published in peer reviewed journals before going to college and people with PhDs in some branch writing weird utilitarian arguments for why people should eat their babies, just for for the sake of being contentious. I'm at least an expert in following curiousity to the core root and how polymathy works, if nothing else. Yet I'm a highschool drop out who works on a farm. I mean you've got paid credentialed experts in most fields hired by some industry to downplay some messed up bullshit they are doing. Add to that algorithms kicking people toward what it thinks their preferences are anyway. I mean when you think about it, it's easy to understand why people either completely lack trust in or wholly believe whoever fits their idea of what an expert is. When you're online too it's hard to even know who to trust when they say they have college qualifications, behind a screen. so I've just gone with a mix of observing consensus, observing dialogical behaviour and fact checking when given keywords. And we all know some people lie about it. I've done it or been purposefully vague about my educational background. Not proud of lying about it in the past but I dunno, always regretted leaving school and was ashamed of being a drop out. Now I don't care who knows and life's too short for living with lies. I can't even always tell when threads get thrown into speculations because you've got high level physics debates raging in them so from my perspective someone is either crazy, too personally invested in their hypothesis or is actually ahead of their time and onto something I'd have no ability to understand or accept even if I had the PhD. Sorry for the tangents Charony. Just difficult to hide my despair and disappointment at how segregated everyone has become ideologically because of how the internet works now and my own lack of ability to really do jack shit about it other than do what I've always done. Learn stuff and work.

Really then how is it one of the common examples with regards to Maxwell equations include impedance. Via the wave equations ? inclusive of the transverse components ? It will also provide that value in ohms \[Z=\frac{\mu\omega}{k}=\frac{\mu\omega}{\sqrt\epsilon\omega}=\sqrt\frac{\mu}{\epsilon_0}\] then its not curl by any definition curl doesn't include any particular value Its literally a spinor that commonly describes angular momentum. However it can also describe any relation that has symmetry of change to angular momentum . Good example amplitude of a sinusoidal wavefunction, a probability function such as the Delta function for Fourier transforms, curved spacetime. Polarity and even the circle U(1) group of particle physics In particular describing electrons and photons. That is literally why the SM model tensors include the inner product. You can arbitrarily describe that curl in numerous methods such as the tangent or via parallel transport. You can arbitrarily use integrals or derivatives. simply put its a complex vector. So what possible use could assigning a standalone unit to curl be ? that makes no sense whatsoever. To put it bluntly every mainstream physics theory involves the dot product (vectors) and cross product (curl) Maxwell is simply one example. Every particle of the standard model uses those relations to define every particle type, its scatterings, its probability functions. Its even included in String theory. Also applies to everyday classical physics.... Also QM as well as QFT includes Maxwell equations they are integral equations in both fields and inclusive in String theory. Physics has a key principle. All Physics models must be reducible to classical physics. For example f=ma still applies in GR. Maxwell equations still applies in all major physics theories. After all, physics Theories need to account for all levels of Observational evidence. QM isn't restricted to the quantum realm there simply put isn't a need to use QM to describe the macro regime.

I second this; even outlining some suggestions for an experiment that would test the hypotheses would be a start. @Aetherwizard What research could be done to prove the validity of your claims in laymans terms?

Hi again I was trying to say that : Two systems (objects) are observed at the same time by pedestrian 2. Object one : pedestrian 1 moving up and down on road. Object two: road moving in direction to the right (pedestrian 1 is located on the road and he is not moving relative to the road) The road is transporting pedestrian 1 to the right direction and away from pedestrian2 So pedestrian 2 observes in case 1 (system 1) only movement of pedestrian 1 (up / down) In system 2 pedestrian 2 observes movement of road- and the pedestrian 1 is stationary only to demonstrate that pedestrian 2 is not observing road - he is only observing pedestrian 1 . He is not aware that road is moving. system 3 Both road moving to the right away from pedestrian 2 for 2 seconds and pedestrian 1 moving on the road (first second away in vertical direction and back for another second) The pedestrian 2 is not aware that road is moving. These two separate movements are cratering chevron like trajectory. The length of trajectory is 1.42m- this is hypothenuses of triangle with sides of 1 m each. d total =2.84m The time is is the same triangle and t total =1.42 s x2=2.84m These are scalar quantities and we can do these calculations. The observed speed is vtotal=dt/tt=1 m/s Triangle with vertical speed v1 and horizontal v2 can not be cretaed because These are vectors of two separate - not related systems (or phenomena ) the pedestrian 2 is not aware of this . He just sees the movement of pedestrian 1. If pedestrian 1 has a jet pack and his thrusters are pushing him at the same time at horizontal and vertical direction with speed v1=v2 =1 m/s than we would be able to say that speed is v3=1.42m/s This is the most important thing. If the speed v=1 m/s is the maximum speed than the speed v1=v/3x10e8 =0.3x10e-8m is the speed of road . so vertical speed of pedestrian 1 is huge compared to the movement of road . This movement is insignificant.The pedestrian one is 0.7 m wide. If the road speed is 0.1m and up - all the way to 1 m/s we will see effects of speed on observed distance and time . This was supposed to make you think speed of light vertical ,up 2 down movement ,of light dot in light clock and movement of train at speed of 1 m/s away from observer beside the train tracks in original tile dilation experiment . I hope that those other things look a bit less silly now. Again the biggest confusion is that trajectory of pedestrian 1 , light dot in the train,baseball in the car, astronaut in space shuttle , observed by not moving onserver (or pedestrian 2 ) Is created by two movements of two different objects. So again for time dilation (Lorentz transformation) to apply to all of these objects , these objects need “Jett pack “ to push only the observed object at vertical and horizontal speed vectors v1 and v2 That is so easy to overlook and so hard to see after 120 years. Cheers

All neutrinos are weakly interactive [WIMP] the M for massive simply denotes it has an invariant mass aka rest mass. We hope they can but we only have theorized cross sections to know where to look in terms of mass.

So does that make RHS neutrinos WIMPs or when you say more massive than the LHS do you just maen relatively more massive but still not WIMPs? Are the states of the LHS and RHS correlating toward them being an entangled pair or does that just not come into it at all? Are some of the bigger colliders that are allegedly in the works going to be capable of detecting them?

Are they rivals, though? VHS and beta were rivals because you would only use one, but if two approaches can be used in different situations they are complementary, at least to some extent. If approaches have strengths and weaknesses you can tailor your system to what works best in your location or situation.

Just to add more detail as it involves my points as well in regards to vectors/spinors the angular momentum has both magnitude and direction. The principle quantum numbers are n for principle quantum , (0,1,2,3) allowed values. "l " for angular quantum number it can be any number between 0 and n-1. m_s for spin projector m_l for angular momentum projection. "m" for the magnetic quantum number allowed values can be any integer between "l" and "-l". So for an electron the spin quantum number 1/2 is the magnitude the +- sign is the direction component. The spin quantum number \[ ||S||=\hbar\sqrt{s(s+1)}\] With z as the axis of rotation analogous to. Also keep in mind the above is a classical treatment. The big thing is the above works great on the z axis or any other axis of choice however the Pauli matrices along with the Schrodinger equation for the electron probablity cloud works well regardless of axis. Edit just noticed Swansont already has the last equation