All Activity

Hello, world. I’m eager to share the motivations behind my work with you all. As Michio Kaku points out, we are a level 0 civilization—it’s time for us to advance. I deeply appreciate the monumental efforts and contributions of our scientific pioneers and current researchers. Yet, considering it has been over three centuries since Newton and a century since Einstein, we must ask ourselves: What’s next? Let’s unite our strengths, incorporating AI and interdisciplinary collaboration to transcend traditional boundaries. It’s time to set aside personal biases and collectively push the frontiers of science. Together, we can explore the cosmos and develop new energy sources—not just for us, but for future generations. Sora Tōgo Cosmic Alchemy.pdf

Not in it for the winning, but for understanding. As for learning, I have done a lot of this with our exchanges. Also, with what I have posted so far in Science Forums, i believe that there is ground for reasonable doubt on the current-conventional theory of mind. Sent my application to SpaceX; never got a response 😊

Both velocity and accelerations are boosts in the the Lorentz transforms. Rapidity is just a particular type of boost. I know you and I had tried discussing this in the past. Later on when I'm not at work I will try to get you far better detail on the difference of a boost due to velocity as opposed to acceleration. Part of the confusion is that both velocity and accelerations are also described by rapidity. However the transforms for each slightly different .

He also tried to pawn his mugshot suit, in little squares; it took a lot of shop visits to fence that swag... I wonder if/when people will get the possibility that his business model isn't sustainable/much good...

I doubt using a laser from Earth regardless of how powerful would be of much use. Ideally you would want to use the laser on a side perdendicular to its trajectory. If you fire from Earth you would thr asteroid head on and outgassing wouldn't be as useful.

Not for light, whose speed is invariant That’s not evidence. c is invariant The Doppler effect, which is what I was commenting on, does not rely on acceleration, it depends on velocity, and it is symmetric. The measured frequency changes; that’s physical. No, if the space twin sends a signal to the earth twin, it will be Doppler-shifted. That shift will change when the velocity changes, because the Doppler shift depends on velocity. It will take time for the signal with the new frequency to arrive, but that will be before the end of the trip. What waves do you have, other than the light? “on the way” The signal being sent was already on the way. I don’t think you are representing Einstein’s interpretation faithfully, and in any event it doesn’t matter. The equations tell us what happens, and that’s what’s important. You didn’t say simultaneity jump, you said “jump into the future” Future and past are not part of the discussion Relativity says clocks run slow because time is affected, and lengths contract. Time dilation is not a mechanical effect and objects do not actually compress. Since there is no preferred frame, you can’t say that one observation is the “truth” so any inertial observer can say what they observe is reality. Even within a given frame, you have to account for the time delay from a finite speed of light. You see a signal from a distant clock, but you have to account for the fact that it took a time of L/c to get to you. That still applies in multiple frames. Can you hand me a chunk of space-time?

It would really help if one understands a physics theory correctly before you try to interpret a theory. It's rather pointless otherwise. Anyone that understands relativity by knowing what the mathematics of the theory states. Simultaneaty is of little use in this case as it's coordinate dependent. This is due to time not being constant. For example an observer looks at his watch. However that's simply his coordinate time. The other observer does the same for coordinate time. Due to time dilation regardless of whether it's due to gravity or inertia his clock will appear to run normal. However once you compare clocks then the difference is noticed. The two clocks are no longer simultaneous welcome to relativity and it's time dilation

! Moderator Note Moved to the trash. Codebreaker, this is way too much anger and way too preachy. Please review the rules you agreed to follow when you joined

I fixed everything before your message.

Please use the quote function properly. Hit return to get the cursor our of the quote box before typing your respinse. I can’t easily quote you to respond.

Wiki isn't written by a physicist. It has zero authority in the physics. Any discussion involving physics to have any use whatsoever must always include the math. It's rather useless to discuss interpretations of any physics theory without knowing what those mathematics actually describes.

That's an interesting philosophical question, do you have scientific evidence you do believe in God? Aww bless, you seem awfully confused, are you saying that a belief in god is necessary to not rape women? Is that why some priest's choose to rape little boys?

The Doppler effect is an effect due to waves, so what changes is the speed relative to the waves. Lorentz transformations are classical wave mechanics equations, they cannot exist without a propagation medium. Acceleration causes variation in the Doppler effect and therefore variation in the speed of the waves relative to the accelerating one. The study of acceleration shows that the symmetry is observational but not physical. Only at the end of the trip, until the Doppler effect is transmitted at the speed of light, because it is not light which changes speed in relation to the waves. What do you mean by “en route” What works is the mathematical law, not Einstein's interpretation. Here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#Relativity_of_simultaneity you can see that there is a "simultaneity jump" Its in Lorentz theory you have to disentangle what you observe from what’s happening with the clocks, in Einstein's theory what’s happening with the clocks is considered physical reality, it's the only way to explain the constancy of the speed of light, or else this constancy itself is not physical reality and then it's no more Einstein interpretation but Lorentz. If time is not physical, neither is Minkowski space-time and Lorentz is right.

Well, I had no idea rapidity had a technical meaning in the context of relativity, so I've learned something already! But having looked it up here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapidity, I'm definitely going to leave it to you chaps in long trousers.......

SpaceX employ rocket 'scientists' for the basics, just saying. I hate to be a prophet of doom, but that's the same for most of us, just never forget that this endeavour is little more than a parlour game, it doesn't matter who wins; so slow down and enjoy what you can learn from the view. 😉

I'm not questioning the theory, I'm questioning our ability to deliver; I'm minded of 'the big bang theory', the episode where they try to bolw up the moon with a laser, they needed a photon multiplier to see if they hit the target. Jokes aside, can we confine the beam well enough to a/ hit the correct part of the target and b/ deliver enough energy to initiate the jet, at a great enough distance to effect the necessary change in trajectory; we can put plenty of energy into the beam from earth, but I imagine there would be difficulties in confining the beam through our atmosphere, and a space based laser, I would imagine they'd have difficulty with generating enough initial energy.

Hello, I've had an idea, and I'd like to know what the problems are. The body is capable of initiating the Krebs cycle, i.e. energy generation via 3 metabolic pathways. Glycolysis (glucose → pyruvate) Beta oxidation (lipid → AcetylCOA) And via the degradation of amino acids (most notably Alanine, Serine, Glycine) via transamination. I'd like to focus on the latter. Why can't we give diabetics lots of these amino acids and Alanine aminotransferase capsules or something similar. I know that the body uses glucose a lot, especially for the brain, as it's still the main source of energy, but can we engage a forced functioning of energy formation (ATP) by transamination via the KREBS cycle? This would avoid too high a concentration of glucose, and hence hyperglycemia. What's more, I believe I saw in a study that ALT2, the enzyme responsible for alanine transamination, is more prevalent in diabetics, which could be perfect for my reasoning. In the diagram below, we can see that the pyruvate formed is converted into glucose, why? Because pyruvate can be forced into the Krebs cycle instead of into gluconeogenesis, can't it? These are questions I'm asking myself, I'm clearly lacking in knowledge and I'd love your help in understanding the problems and why this hasn't been done. Thanks you very much Have a good day

I've seen this posted on this site many times over the years and I think it's wrong but never saw a correction or explanation. It's repeated often in posts labelled "expert" but I don't understand what it means. As a Lorentz transformation doesn't a boost imply constant velocity? How can a measure of velocity be called an acceleration? How is a measure of velocity a type of Lorentz transformation? Is there some sensible meaning to what I quoted that I'm just not comprehending?

You are talking about mathematics, this mathematics was discovered by Lorentz, Poincaré and others, and accounts for observations. I talk about the physical interpretation of these equations, and I show that Einstein's interpretation does not work. You are trapped in the idea that the accuracy of SR's mathematical equations necessarily validate Einstein's interpretation. There is no doubt that Lorentz's interpretation works because it uses classical kinematics, but Einstein's interpretation uses a anomalous kinematics that must be proven consistent with the physical world. Look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Twin_paradox/Archive_5#GR_section_removal The GR section of the twin paradox has been removed from Wikipedia because it is invalid. On the other hand, at the end of the article you have a section which explains that the paradox disappears if we assume a privileged frame of reference as in Lorentz theory : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#No_twin_paradox_in_an_absolute_frame_of_reference

This is a misconception which is as common as it false. SR is a model of Minkowski spacetime - it describes the relationship between any set of frames within this paradigm, irrespective of what their states of relative motion and acceleration are. In the special case of inertial motion, this relationship is simply a hyperbolic rotation in spacetime (=Lorentz transformation); if acceleration is involved, the relationship is a little more complicated, but nonetheless well defined: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration_(special_relativity) There’s no “paradox” in the twins scenario that somehow needs resolution, it’s simply a straightforward consequence of the geometry of Minkowski spacetime, which has to do with the lengths of world-lines.

This abusive approach does not seem likely to make a person “repent and turn to Christ”. Surely it is more likely to confirm them in their low opinion of religions and religious people generally, isn’t it? From a stylistic point of view, some paragraphs would help, too😉

Do you have scientific evidence you don't believe in God? Also why are you being a dumb a.? If you choose not to believe females have a right not to be raped because "i don't believe in absolute morals" that doesn't mean "well I don't believe in absolute morals therefore I can't hate that females have a right not to be raped". May I rabidly insult your demonic psychopath self now? Say you have a dad you hate and put him out of your mind, and someone says, "you hate your dad" and you reply in childishness: "how can I hate him I don't think of him!" And if you love someone, you think of them. Are Satan's blinders coming off yet? Seeing your immaturity now? It's really bad man, it's stinking childishness. "But God how could I hate you I only said you didn't exist despite endless evidence, I didn't believe in you that is why I hated on your messengers and rejected Jesus' Golden Rule which I chose to reject and not lying, stealing and murdering." Good luck with that on Judgment Day, your "but God I chose not to believe and stay ignorant and stubborn". Try it, see if your rotting flesh isn't shredded with flails. Bless you.

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.

Not only that, The Donald now wants 5% of any funds raised by candidates using his name or likeness... https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-republican-campaigns-fundraising-name-face-5-percent-2024-4?op=1

How is it possible to hate something that you believe doesn't even exist?