All Activity

Hi, all, I am interested in the mathematical foundations of theoretical physics and gave been posting pdf's to the physicsdiscussionforum dot org I just discovered this forum, but I can try to keep it updated as to progress if allowed (It is too much to duplicate posts; i'm 83+ and don't have much time left. Chuck

Hi, blessing in the name of Yeshu. (It's my way of greeting, it's not exactly procelytism) I have been analyzing an article published by a man called Shaun Ward which is a response to studies on the Hadza by Herman Pontzer. I'm not very good with mathematics, I admit it. I do not rule out that there could be some errors in the text I published. https://wigbertomarciaga.plusstep.org/p/one-more-look-at-pontzers-hadza-study.html In the first link of the article is the study I used, which is one of the oldest published by Pontzer on the subject. In that study there is a table with the percentages of body fat for each group. The conclusions I reached are that the amount of calories burned with exercise is very low, but it seems that it would not be zero as I understand Pontzer has suggested. However, I mention here (although it is in the analysis I do in the article) that I saw the basic data to question Pontzer's version of daily energy expenditure in the article published by Shaun Ward. However, it seems to me that there is a lack of data to be able to determine the matter more precisely, so it cannot be assured that H. Pontzer's position on the matter is wrong. If you could help me by reviewing my analysis, if you want. It's not that extensive.

Look, from all your posts it is plain you have a really unhealthy relationship with food. That previous picture you posted on the 14th of March was positively disgusting. And now you ballock on about eating whole lemons and limes on their own, which is nuts and certainly nothing like part of any reasonable, balanced diet. The acid alone will screw with your stomach. I don't know what you are doing on this forum. You've been given all the advice you need long since. Go and talk to a dietician and act on what they say. Stop trying these random daft things and then coming here to obsess about it. I'm sorry, but I've really had enough of this crap.

The first relativity never used the ether for the observer nor the emitter. It used the ether to describe how photons travelled between the two prior to proving ether wrong through the Michelson and Morley experiments. Those experiments are far far more precise in modern tests. Either way if you look at SR the emitter isn't ether and the observer isn't ether. Nor did Galilean relativity which the Lorentz transforms is simply an extension of (the Gamma factor constant of proportionality)

One reason sweets can be addictive is that healthy food is almost unlimited such that healthier people would still be outcompeted by even healthier people. I’ve never ate a whole raw lemon and lime until now where I had plenty of lemon and lime juices in the past. So many sugary sweets during childhood are almost mere preparation for how extreme it could be to eat lemon and lime slices. I ate the lemon yoghurt afterwards as a recovery warm-down! I put a handful of raw popcorn in my mouth on a drive to the beach and it took the full 30-minute length of the journey for the popcorn to melt in my mouth before it became chewable and ingested. Yet in spite of the blandness the raw popcorn was as great as chewing gum in distracting you from overeating other foods.

The first relativity theory is the Lorentz Ether Theory : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory Only this theory correctly uses Lorentz transformations in accelerated frames of reference, Einstein's relativity only works in inertial frames of reference. Explain to me what happens according to Einstein's theory of relativity in accelerated frames of reference. If you observe an object that is accelerating, you see that the Doppler effect it perceives is due to its change in speed relative to light. If we place ourselves in the reference frame of the accelerating object, what explanation do you find for the Doppler effect other than the same thing, a change in the speed of light? During inertial phases, it is impossible to know who is moving and who is stationary relative to the ether, but during acceleration it becomes visible, because the one who accelerates is the one who changes speed relative to the ether and who produces the Doppler effect. In the twin paradox, the traveling twin ages less from the Earth's point of view during the outward and return journeys, and from the traveling twin's point of view it is the Earth that ages less during the outward and return journeys. This is because each assumes that it is the other who is moving and undergoing time dilation. But this assumption is arbitrary, it could very well be the observer who is moving and the observed who is at rest, the observed Doppler effect would be the same because the relativistic Doppler effect is symmetric. In fact, once the traveling twin accelerates to leave Earth he undergoes time dilation, but due to the symmetry of the relativistic Doppler effect, he can assume that it is Earth that is moving and undergoing the Doppler effect. As I have already explained, the fact that he perceives the effect instantaneously shows that he is the one who is moving and undergoing time dilation. All that I am saying here is nothing more than Lorentz's theory, which claims that the symmetry of Lorentz transformations is only observational and not physical. In fact, Einstein's theory does not work in accelerations, it predicts physical changes in simultaneity that do not exist experimentally. It predicts that the Earth ages suddenly at the time of the U-turn, but this is false because the light signals emanating from the Earth do not undergo a jump into the future, they are entirely predicted by kinematic Doppler effects. The Earth's jump into the future comes only from resetting the clocks. After the U-turn, the clocks are resynchronized because the speed of light has changed and they need to be recalibrated. The estimated time of the Earth is then projected into the future, but the light signals from the Earth are not projected into the future, it is only the hands of the clocks that change. There is no physical jump. ------------------------ Look at this paper : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228609140_The_twin_paradox_in_special_relativity_and_in_Lorentz_ether_theory

Social organization among other species, as well as early editions of humankind, is about what works - what best supports the survival and welfare of the community. In more recent editions, with entrenched elites and non-welfare directed agendas, the social organizations of humans tended toward imbalance of various kinds. War-like nations built their social structure around the needs of the military: produce replacement soldiers as efficiently as the generals could get them killed; indoctrinate the population with patriotic zeal, a habit of obedience and the virtues of self-sacrifice. Agrarian societies valued manual labour, humility and reverence for the landowner class. Each kind of social organization serves a discernible purpose; when it's no longer serviceable, it adapts - but not without strenuous resistance by those who benefit from the status quo.

! Moderator Note Please be in the mood the next time you post

If you look at the equation, you can easily see it’s from the velocity. It doesn’t matter if it’s the source or receiver in motion.

The cmb is sending light through a cone but the galaxy's actual position is about a half sphere When I'm in the mood

Everything in this post tells me you never actually studied the mathematics yourself. Had you ever studied the mathematics You would know Neither theory uses Ether. Nor does it uses the ether for a observer or relative to. Your claims is not what either theory states. Each frame of reference is emitter /observer relative to each other not the Ether. So forget thinking Ether is involved in either theory. That is absolutely incorrect

As I mentioned you would need the math to show this. You keep mentioning your math so you should already have the math handy for us to examine. I can easily show you all the mathematics behind the FLRW metric but that wouldn't help determine why you have an issue with it. If it's an issue with not knowing how to latex the math in let me know and I can demonstrate how our format uses \[\frac{1}{2}\,] I placed a comma in the last part to prevent it from activating. Your description of using spheres for example tells me you should have a spherical coordinate system with some constant of proportionality for the scale factor however that's based on your description. I need your math for confirmation.

I didn't assume anything. This is the Doppler effect solution of the paradox : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#What_it_looks_like:_the_relativistic_Doppler_shift The traveling twin notices an acceleration of the Doppler effect as soon as he turns around, the sedentary twin only towards the end of the trip. This asymmetry cannot be explained by Einstein's SR. Where does the Doppler effect come from if it does not come from the one accelerating? It is the speed of light that is changing relative to the one accelerating.

Conflating cultural and biological aspects generally makes poor arguments as it pre-supposes some natural order that folks should adhere to. While I am not (yet) saying that this is the case here, it is often a tactic used to push a narrative under the guise of "just asking questions", as we have seen in the past. So far OP seems to continue to ignore clarifications and counter arguments, though.

It is not just the curvature being wrong due to a miscalculation of how the grav const is effected by range due to perspectives. The positions of the objects in question (receding galaxies) effects this, why my math differs for these positions is that it takes into account not only the position in the half sphere as it curves representing the entire volume of space observed, it also adjusts for how perspective effects the circumference of that circular slice which can be factored into the grav const without calculus. Alas, yes light wouldn't be effected by that grav const but but the origin of that light would be as well as the space it's traversed.

You call them "cultural" aspects, but other animals do have them. Is there much difference between lipstick and some of the stuff crabs and birds and insects decorate themselves with? I also disagree that gender roles have become "confused". I think they've changed and adapted the way animals are supposed to. Our society needs to move past the horrible Abrahamic patriarchy that continues to stifle so many intellectual and creative pursuits. I think the answer has always been to cooperate more with each other in every role, and compete less amongst ourselves overall. That should go double for how men and women work together. Having both masculine and feminine perspectives to draw from seems like brainy, human behavior.

Male humans may be losing some of the excess power they have had, simply due to their apparent gender, since urban civilizations began. In tribal societies, there was not always such disparity between the roles assigned to people according to sex. As enlightened societies realize that the unequal arrangement relegated half the creative, intelligent population to drudgery and servitude, and thus wasting half of the nation's potential productivity, while numbers increased faster than the economy could support. Thence the trend toward equal votes, education and employment opportunity for both sexes. It's not a question of relevance; merely of visibility.

Suspect the biological question was to open the door to these dubious social ideas now being advanced. We shall see.

There is NASA and SpaceX. I am more like SpaceX, where I shoot rockets in the air and see them blow-up until maybe they fly. Greg Venter also used some kind of shotgun approach to genetics’. It's too late for me to change, because it would take me too much time to back-up and move forward. And I would rather run and fall on my face than walk, again because time is of the essence for me. I will nonetheless begin thinking about building a case. However, knowing me, it will be a haphazard and incongruent endeavour. Through experience and reading, I have come to the conclusion that the conventional mind model is lacking. I am surely wrong, but this is the path that I have chosen to take. And I have also chosen to prove or disprove this by unconventional means; not because my process is better, but because more valid scientific processes are inaccessible to me. I will continue doing what I do in the hope that maybe someday something of me will make sense. Be not disapointed if I continue posting studies; this is the only way that I have of expressing myself. Vive la différence!

You’re omitting an important condition: this only applies to inertial frames of reference. Acceleration is not relative - you know who is undergoing an acceleration (and thus changing to a different inertial frame) The accelerating twin changes from a frame where there is a red shift to one where there is a blue shift. That applies everywhere in that frame of reference. I didn’t say the doppler effect comes from the one accelerating. You did (or at least you claimed this is what relativity says) and you are wrong.

Thread seems real similar to another thread started Sunday by same poster, with some of the same questions raised. Just curious why two threads needed.

You seem to have assumed there should be simultaneity, where relativity says there is none. Your analysis incorrectly uses a common 'now' for the two observers. Things have to be caused for them to happen, and causality moves at c . ( Dan should take the +1 back )

Excellent analysis, both of you. Sorry, I have no more reaction points available today or you'd both get a +1. This is exactly what I came here to explore. All I have to do now is re-read both comments carefully to make sure I understand. Thanks.

Pretty sure there's a x-post here with @exchemist so briefly: If we're starting from your declared position of maximum attraction, we're moving against an attraction force for 900; then with a weakened repulsive force (poles wide apart); then against the same repulsive force; then finally with the mirror image of the attraction of the initial power stroke. In the absence of a proper mathematical analysis, by symmetry we have a nett zero sum. And then there's cam friction and the hysteresis braking mentioned earlier. Granted I've ignored secondary effects of the movement of the magnets themselves but frankly, that's beyond my pay scale. Suffice to say, if there was anything to see here, Faraday would have found it back in the day I think. Looks right enough, so you've got the 1800 phase shift covered. Shall we leave the +/-900 phase shifts to the OP?