All Activity

No, I was looking to make a formaldehyde substitute.

Yep. Are you interested in its theoretic role in abiogenesis?

That's the real crux a total lack of evidence.

Lorentz theory is ad-hoc. There’s no independent evidence of an ether. Are we moving with respect to the ether, or are we stationary with respect to it?

Assumptions. I do have some understanding of what formal logic is, I am not good at using it to be fair to you, but I know what it is and most of the time when I've seen others use the term "pure logic" they aren't referring to formal logic but their own intuitions. I agree with you. Which is why they should read Cohens preface to logic, as a start. Since you mentioned intuition though, I'd be interested to hear your viewpoint on the phenomenology of intuition. What is intuition to you? Avoid the magical thinking type definitions or explanations, obviously.

Anyone know how to make Glycolaldehyde? thanks

Ok, I can't edit it to place the word "animal" on the first line of the text. I understand that my comment seems confusing. On the other hand, why do you say that, are you religious? I understand that it's probably a figure of speech, but I don't understand why you have to write it.

No I'm familiar with the research that went into Lorentz ether theroy I also know it's transformation rules including many of the other variations . The thing is the physicists performing those Lorentz invariant tests are also well aware of neo-lorentz. So they also conducted tests for that in that article. Here is the detail many miss. In Lorentz time the only known particles were the photon the electron and the proton. That was at that time the entire standard model. The neutron wasn't even discovered until the mid 30's. So it was quite natural to think there was am ether. Modern physics has gone beyond that including particles that are so weakly interactive they could pass through a chunck of lead one light year in length without a single interaction. (Neutrinos). However it's also well known every particle species contributes to the blackbody temperature in particular the CMB including those neutrinos. So why do we not detect any temperature contribution from the Lorentz ether ? Why does it have no influence on universe expansion ? Every other particle does. The way is if you have a static 100 percent non interacting field but then it wouldn't even interact with gravity let alone photons. Or any other particle. We can certainly gather indirect or direct evidence of every other particle in the standard model. Why not the Lorentz ether ? Then why would you claim otherwise and argue that c isn't invariant ? Sounds like you don't even understand Lorentz ether theory.... Then why would you claim otherwise and argue that c isn't invariant ? Sounds like you don't even understand Lorentz ether theory.... in point of detail. Had you actually studied its mathematics. It was a valiant effort to meet observational evidence and keep c invariant to all observers. That is actually harder than one realizes when you have light travellings through a medium.

Gosh, I must say either I am not communicating clearly or you have to increase your reading comprehension. He said it is an animal pandemic. Do you understand the difference if he only said "pandemic" without the qualifier? Or in other words, do you think that we can use the terms animal pandemic and pandemic in the given context interchangeably?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2024/04/19/daniel-dennett-philosopher-atheist-darwinist/ Daniel Dennett, the American philosopher, who has died aged 82, was, with Richard Dawkins, a leading proponent of Darwinism and one of the most virulent controversialists on the academic circuit. Dennett argued that everything has to be understood in terms of natural processes, and that terms such as “intelligence”, “free will”, “consciousness” “justice”, the “soul” or the “self” describe phenomena which can be explained in terms of physical processes and not the exercise of some disembodied or metaphysical power. How such processes operate he regarded as an empirical question, to be answered by looking at neuroanatomy – the engineering involved in brains. Darwinism, to Dennett, was the grand unifying principle that explains how the simplest of organisms developed into human beings who can theorise about the sorts of creatures we are. In Consciousness Explained (1991), he argued that the term “consciousness” merely describes “dispositions to behave” and the idea of the “self” was nothing more than a “narrative centre of gravity”. In Darwin’s Dangerous Idea (1995) he went further than any other philosopher or biologist in arguing that the whole of nature, including all individual human and social behaviour, is underpinned by a Darwinian “algorithm” – a single arithmetical, computational procedure. Borrowing Richard Dawkins’s notion of “memes” (“bytes” of transferable cultural ideas encompassing anything from a belief in God to an individual’s fashion tastes), Dennett argued that the Darwinian algorithm also explained, for example, the musical genius of JS Bach, whose brain “was exquisitely designed as a programme for composing music”. Dennett’s philosophy undercut any idea of teleology or “purposive” creation....

in electrodynamics the speed of light was invariant with respect to the ether. The success of special relativity is the success of Lorentz, not of Einstein, the constancy of the one-way speed of light is a useless hypothesis. A change in velocity produces a change in the Doppler effect. My conclusion is absolutely logical. You have no arguments. If you were a little bit impartial, you would pose the problem and study the question of whether Lorentz or Einstein is consistent with physical reality. Einstein's interpretation has been proven false by many scientific papers. I have already cited this one : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228609140_The_twin_paradox_in_special_relativity_and_in_Lorentz_ether_theory Why do you find it exciting to think that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers when there is no proof of this phenomenon? Lorentz theory passes the tests as well without this postulate. I don't think that's the point. Lorentz's theory is an Lorentz invariant theory as well as Einstein's. As for general relativity, the difference between the interpretation of Einstein and Lorentz is that the ether is deformed by the effect of gravitation but remains a privileged reference frame, like a material deformed under tension.

No I know the paper your referring to that proposed that. It was published well over a decade ago. I even recall numerous discussions on its merit on other forums. The claimed that supposed one way speed of light tests were two way tests All that did was motivate the physics community to develop new tests. This paper mentions some of those tests and regularly updated. https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.02029 Though this is the 2021 update. It's not even close to a complete list but it covers some of the major ones.

It’s a postulate. The resulting theory is testable, and passes the tests.

! Moderator Note The topic here is a light clock.

Einstein's postulate on the invariance of the one-way speed of light is untestable as well. The speed of light is invariant only over a round trip to all observers, making it impossible to decide between Einstein's and Lorentz's theories experimentally on this point.

Walking droplets are mainstream physics. Lorentz transformations are classical wave mechanics and it's mainstream physics.

A postulate based on electrodynamics, which has an invariant speed of light. And given the success of relativity, and its experimental confirmation, it is a physical reality. I am reminded of a certain Sidney Harris cartoon Nope. So the Doppler effect somehow know about some prior acceleration? even if the signal isn't sent until after the object starts moving at constant velocity? That's magic, not science. You've made this error a number of times. Changing velocity does not produce the Doppler shift. Repeating the assertion does not make it true. None of which are present in the twins paradox. No. Your conclusion does not follow.

Here is the thing modern physics and research states c is invariant to all observers. The modern tests make the Michelson and Morley experiments look like child's play. It has always been a heavily researched topic. It is far too critical in all major theories for any potential error.

And here you admit that there’s no way to test Lorentz’s theory, rendering it unscientific.

! Moderator Note Responses to posts must be mainstream physics. Keep your own views in your thread in speculations It’s wrong. Perhaps that’s more simple, but since it’s wrong it’s not useful. You’ve not incorporated length contraction.

The term is not from me, the person responsible for the UN on these issues has called it a pandemic. That's the news. https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/04/1148696 It seems that what happened is that you did not read the news, but I am sharing the quote with you this CharonY. From the initial comment I have recognized that it does not directly affect humans, although it could indirectly affect animal production. But, according to the news, there is some risk that it will end up directly affecting humans (Like a pandemic).

The following was posted in the forum announcements AI-generated content must be clearly marked. Failing to do so will be considered to be plagiarism and posting in bad faith. IOW, you can’t use a chatbot to generate content that we expect a human to have made Since LLMs do not generally check for veracity, AI content can only be discussed in Speculations. It can’t be used to support an argument in discussions. Owing to the propensity for AI to fabricate citations, we strongly encourage links to citations be included as a best practice. Mods and experts might demand these if there are questions about their legitimacy. A fabricated citation is bad-faith posting. Posters are responsible for any rules violations stemming from posting AI-generated content ___ We are happy to discuss the whys and wherefores, and consider modifications. In addition, a reminder that accusing people of being bots, or using AI, is off-topic. You are, however, free to ask for clarification in any discussion, including links to any citations. Faking a cite is easy, but a valid link with one is a little harder to manage.

The study adjusted for weight, so that variable being the same from Shaun and Pontzer's point of view, I simply discarded it and was left only to check the fat-muscle ratio and its impact on energy expenditure, which is where Shaun differs. with Pontzer who conducted the study adjusted for fat-free mass. The TEE would depend on fat just like the BMR, since one is total energy expenditure and the other energy expenditure at rest. The thing is, Pontzer was limited only to energy expenditure adjusted for fat-free mass, and that's what Shaun says was wrong in his study.

AI-generated content must be clearly marked. Failing to do so will be considered to be plagiarism and posting in bad faith. IOW, you can’t use a chatbot to generate content that we expect a human to have made Since LLMs do not generally check for veracity, AI content can only be discussed in Speculations. It can’t be used to support an argument in discussions. Owing to the propensity for AI to fabricate citations, we strongly encourage links to citations be included as a best practice. Mods and experts might demand these if there are questions about their legitimacy. A fabricated citation is bad-faith posting. Posters are responsible for any rules violations stemming from posting AI-generated content ___ Discussion of policy is at https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/133849-aillm-policy-discussion/