All Activity

I'm actually going to state that I agree the manner its often presented requires a more detailed presentation. I know I'm one of those parties as velocity can also be treated via rapidity its actually more accurate to state acceleration is boosting or rotating the rapidity. As we have two forms of acceleration change in direction and change in velocity. lets take a problem set. Lets have a constant acceleration for however many years. A couple of key notes there is more than one type of boost. the boost for velocity depends on \(\beta\) the velocity parameter. Now I'm sure you agree using velocity addition for a constant accelerating observer can get clunky. So this is where rapidity steps in. this describes the Lorentz boost equations ( for other readers I know you know these details) \[\acute{x}=(x-vt)\] \[\acute{t}=\gamma(t-\frac{vx}{c^2})\] \[\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-b^2}}\] \[\gamma=v/c\] so the constant velocity observer will have the above Lorentz boost.. however constant acceleration its more useful to use the boost parameter not the speed parameter. This is is the rapidity given by the tanh function. \[\varsigma=\tanh{-1}\beta\] from which \(cosh\varsigma=\gamma\) and \(\sinh\varsigma=\beta\gamma\). Now that's the Lorentz boosts in terms of rapidity. So rapidity can be used instead of velocity. however we need acceleration so lets have the x,y,t planes. for simplicity. now a rotation in the x,y plane describes the change in angle \[\begin{pmatrix}x_a\\y_a\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}\cos\varphi&-sin\varphi\\sin\varphi&cos\varphi\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}x_b\\v_b\end{pmatrix}\] \[\frac{dy}{dx}=tan(\theta)\] for changes in {x,t} we are boosting the velocity or alternately the rapidity . As rapidity can also describe velocity. \[\begin{pmatrix}t_a\\y_a\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}\cosh\varsigma&-sinh\varsigma\\sinh\varsigma&cosh\varsigma\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}x_b\\v_b\end{pmatrix}\] \[\frac{dx}{cdt}=tanh(\varsigma)\] so yes we need to be more clear I agree or rather I need to be more clear. you certainly use rapidity for both types types of acceleration but you can also use rapidity for velocity. As mentioned I should state acceleration via change in velocity is a boost in the rapidity, while a change in direction is a rotation of rapidity.

I personally find the title to line up well literally and metaphorically. Trump has literally raped people (and tbh I think we all suspect there is more than one victim of his on that front) and on the metaphorical front he raped the USA, is raping the wallets and pockets of his imbecilic followers, is raping the legal system and I bet @dimreepr would agree that now he's metaphorically raping the bible. This comment is in no way meant to trivialize the real act of rape; I'd never describe a garden variety bad experience as metaphorical rape, but when I think about all the things TFG has done, how many he has done it to and the malignant effect his public presence has on both the USA and political discourse everywhere in the past and to this day, can you blame me for describing it as a rape? On a personal level too I have watched as my own fathers political views have been warped and changed from someone who was very much a working class liberal, into someone who wants to shoot "wokeists" and calls the majority of Palestinians terrorists. I'd also argue that cult leaders especially could be thought of as mind rapists. Just my two cents really.

It’s pretty reductionist and lacks nuance, but generally organisms will fit into both categories depending on context and framing. It also sounds vaguely Marxist.

I’ve enjoyed many of his talks through the years, though it has been a minute. “There’s simply no polite way to tell people they’ve dedicated their lives to an illusion.”

Well I look forward to the details because nothing you wrote here makes sense to me. You are an expert on this? I was hoping someone else would chime in because the only confusing parts of it are things you wrote. A boost is a Lorentz transformation, do you agree? Rapidity is a measure for relativistic velocity, do you agree?

I followed your link and reviewed the article regarding pathways of consciousness through the thalamus. The article regarded the insignificant effect of thalamic damage on arousal and wakefulness. Although the article freely uses the term consciousness, that term was primarily used as a description of arousal and wakefulness and not specifically as it relates to the precursor awareness associated with mind emergence. I agree that thalamic function is not the mediation or maintenance of arousal and wakefulness, but rather the coordination and integration of sensory information and memory associated with our behavioral responses. It's important to be clear on one's understanding, definition, and use of the term consciousness.

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.