All Activity

Just to add for acceleration involving change in direction will involve transverse redshift. Just to add some useful relations more for the benefit of any readers not familiar with the types of redshift. \[\frac{\Delta_f}{f} = \frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o} = \frac{v}{c}=\frac{E_o}{E}=1+\frac{hc}{\lambda_o} \frac{\lambda}{hc}\] Doppler shift \[z=\frac{v}{c}\] Relativistic Doppler redshift \[1+z=(1+\frac{v}{c})\gamma\] Transverse redshift \[1+z=\frac{1+v COS\theta/c}{\sqrt{1+m-v^2/c^2}}\] If \(theta=0 \) degrees this reduces to \[1+z=\sqrt\frac{1+v/c}{1-v/c} At right angles this gives a redshift even though the emitter is not moving away from the observer \[1+z=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}\]

There have been numerous surveys among natural scientists back in the 90s and 2000s, when teaching evolution was heavily attacked by the conservative establishment in the US. The overall trend was overall lower religiosity when compared to the average population, but also interesting trends depending on discipline. IIRC the questions were more general, like "do you consider yourself religious" rather than asking things specific to a system (e.g. god or gods). I believe biologists had the lowest number of religious folks whereas, mathematicians and medical folks had higher. I am sure they must still be available somewhere.

Could just be a vestigial thing from parents encouraging a clean plate (or no pudding!). Maybe as we get old, ancient memories and responses from early life surface in our minds. And create such peculiar emotions that are hard to identify. (x-post with Peterkin)

Not bleed so much as shade and commingle. Only the very urgent, overpowering emotions are ever pure and simple - fear, rage, grief. Hate is made of several identifiable emotions, plus some personal over/under tones. That feeling of glut when eating more than you really want is accompanied by other things. Childhood guilt over wasting food [undertone] - yes, even the unenjoyment itself produces some guilt: You should appreciate what you have. Rue: Why did I leave this stupid potato till the end? A tinge of shame: Why did I take more than I needed? and embarrassment: "Is anyone looking?" A touch of anxiety: am I becoming a compulsive eater? Will I put on weight? A little bit of anger at the adult who made you feel guilty and at yourself for being unable to resist their influence. I'm not aware that there is an English word for it, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Japanese or Icelanders or somebody had one. For just about everything people can feel, somebody, somewhere has invented an expression. Almost certainly. I know I've had it. I'll respect that, but it's a good one! Now I'll go analyze this feeling I have of wishing I could steal it, even though I have nothing to stick the title on, and resisting the temptation to do something that wouldn't benefit me.

I am curious why you would not answer, if you don't believe in a personal creator being, in the negative? Why not just say that you see God as a human symbol of those moral teachings you see as universal? This whole topic is fraught with multiple definitions, which makes surveys shaky. I wonder if some people who do not believe in a creator being, which would fit the term atheism, call themselves agnostic simply because they can't rule out some kind of pantheism or panpsychism. Or, as iNow likes to suggest, they are afraid of driving away religious people (who dominate their community) by identifying as atheist.

All redshifts and blueshifts ultimately have the same cause: Consider some arbitrary spacetime in which there is an arbitrary trajectory of an emitter and an arbitrary trajectory of a receiver. From the emitter, consider two infinitesimally separated future-directed light-like geodesics that eventually intersect the trajectory of the receiver. Then the ratio of the proper time along the trajectory of the emitter between the two light-like geodesics, and the proper time along the trajectory of the receiver between the two light-like geodesics, is the Doppler ratio (redshift or blueshift) that the receiver observes at the instant of receiving the two light-like geodesics from the emitter. From the above, one may consider more special cases where the cause of the redshift and blueshifts can be differentiated between relative velocity, acceleration, gravitation, or cosmological, as well as combinations of these. For example, constant acceleration in the Minkowskian metric can be considered in terms of relative velocity, whereas the same constant acceleration in its own frame of reference can be considered in terms of pure acceleration. In other words, the change in metric, even though the physics has not changed, leads to a change in interpretation. But in all cases, the above applies. And note that the above has been expressed entirely in terms of invariants.

It seems to me the pew study, like some others asks the wrong question, and consequently the results are too undefined. I've read the report, and it appears they asked whether or not the respondents believed in God. That's a poor question. Were they asking about belief in a Moral Being created by men to guide behavior? Or were they asking about a physical being that created everything? I believe that people created the concept of God to teach moral behaviors, so you could say I believe in God, but I sure don't think there is some creature out there pulling the strings. I make this point because I have been asked by people "do you believe in God" and I answer in the affirmative but certainly don't mean I think there is some creature who created everything.

😀 Yep, global shutter is still pretty high-end for CMOS. Generally, phones have moved away from CCD (which do have global shutter) toward CMOS due to its lower cost and other technical aspects like direct pixel access. Generally phone cameras have a lot of distortion because of both CMOS rolling shutter and the choice of wide-angle lenses which leads to barrel distortion. And also pincushion distortion if a zoom is used.

The time dilation is not simply a function of g; it’s the gravitational potential that’s important. for constant g, the dilation is given by gh/c^2. The distance matters. As md65536 points out, a larger wheel with the same g will have a larger dilation. v^2 is bigger. Or, if you want to view it via the acceleration, ah is bigger.

Are they distinct or do they bleed into one another? The thought occurred to me as I was finishing my meal and my plate was almost ,but not quite empty. I have the habit of nearly always finishing what is on the plate and yet ,in this case I had had enough but still did not want to leave the plate unfinished. So ,I plucked up the remaining half of a baked potato and continued remorselessly to put it into my mouth and chew it even though I took no physical pleasure from the action. I could feel with every swallow that I was increasing my over satiety. What,I wonder now was that feeling? I can't remember having had it before. I was kind of doing something in spite of my inner wishes but nobody was forcing it but myself. Is that a confluence of indistinct emotions ?Does it have or can it be given a name? Is it a kind of emotional syndrome? For my next treatise ,I am reserving the title of "Remembrance of Appetites Past"

Are you claiming the acceleration is a direct cause of the differential aging in the twins' paradox?

What groups are these that American scientists were finding themselves in, in 2009, that would prevent them replying with honesty to an anonymous survey? I cannot envisage how that would work.

What is extraordinary about it? The talking head claims it was flying fast, but there’s no analysis given, and AFAICT no way to validly conclude this. We don’t know how big it is, and so we don’t know how far away it is. The plane is moving (as TheVat points out) so for all we know this was basically stationary with respect to the ground, and the plane flew past at several hundred kph. Perhaps this was a Boeing and something fell off the front. Can we discount this possibility? Same problem as with basically all videos that get posted - there’s no way to get any useful information from them, thus they remain unidentified. So not like this, if it were in the foreground and blurred a little, and at lower resolution? What maneuvers? Joe Rogan even points out that the plane is moving. As for the shape, wind will do that, and phone cameras use a rolling shutter which distorts objects moving with respect to the camera. https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/what-is-rolling-stutter/

! Moderator Note No, I don’t think we do. Your previous thread using this diagram was locked, and you were told not to bring it up again. You say you have math, so you get one chance here to post something that complies with the rules (some combination of a model, some falsifiable claim, evidence). We’re not going to have you string us along as before.

Because humans are weird mostly hairless apes who exist in groups and are wired accordingly

Why would an atheist, in the USA in 2009, have felt the need for courage to respond honestly, in an anonymous survey?

! Moderator Note You posted this in classical physics, about optics. Optics is what needs to be discussed. Not karma or creepiness or arachnophobia (which you had a thread on, and it was closed) or any unsubstantiated musing on any topic.

What biology class was this? I’m guessing it was not college level. I think the food chain is more nuanced than this, once you study in some depth, as TheVat’s and CharonY’s posts would imply.

I’m sure a search engine can shed some light on this

Did he? Where? I can't for a second imagine him saying man/person; it's man or nothing. Not sure he was such a big fan of the kind of 'greatness' that tells others they are inferior. But he did go on with considerable heat about how we ought to strive toward producing true greatness. I don't think Dawkins is opposed to that idea.

That study, it should be noted, is already 15 years old and the number of atheists/agnosticists (aka atheists who lack the courage of their conviction) have only further grown since then across the general population. Religiosity seems to shrink further every year, seemingly to be replaced by nationalism and various other forms of tribal grouping.

But you could easily do studies in liberal democracies where no such persecution or social expectation applies. This would be true of anywhere in N America, W Europe or Japan. There is this Pew study, conducted in the USA for example: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/ What this does not seem to correct for is any correlation between religious belief and level of educational attainment. It may be also that more educated people tend to be less religious, regardless of subject studied.

One can only hope

In essence that's correct without going too indepth on the differences between operators and propogators of QFT. You can accurately treat it as a fundamental constant of the Higgs field with regards to how the field couples to other particles for the mass term I really wouldn't trust Chatgp your far better off in this regard studying the standard model via the Lanqrangian equations. For the W boson it's the SU(2) group and U(1) groups for the relevant details with Higgs. It's also why I recommended starting with Quantum field theory Demystified as it's reasonably well explained for the laymen to grasp.

Seems to me there are three factors here that need defining. Do all atheists/agnostics believe similarly? Do scientists all study the same things? And are there cultural aspects based on the religion(s) in an area that might define "general population" differently? I'm not sure you can get a meaningful answer to this question. Throughout history, scientists have had to bow to the will of the governing authorities. Many attend church just to fit in and not anger the establishment. They were told in no uncertain terms that they would not be successful unless they accepted the church's teachings. Personally, I wouldn't count someone as religious who was just going to church so they wouldn't be persecuted. It might not just be the church. Sigmund Freud was apparently persecuted for early papers on marginalized people where he detailed that many women and children labeled with mental disorders were simply traumatized by the men in their lives. He suggested that's where the fault lies, and apparently was told in no uncertain terms not to pursue that line of research if he wanted to prosper in science. His later works show him steering clear of suggesting that men were the leading cause of trauma.