Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 06/23/18 in all areas

  1. 5 points
    As I said in my previous post. Relativity makes no such claim when it comes to what an observer will visually see. This is a straw-man argument based on a misrepresentation of Relativity. To explain the difference between what the observer would visually see vs. what he is conclude is happening, we'll use some space-time diagrams. First consider two clocks separated by some distance and stationary with respect to each other. The blue line is our "observed" clock and the green line is our "observing" clock. The scale is such that light, shown as the yellow lines, is drawn at a 45 degree angle. Thus our observer will see light that left the blue clock when it read 1 arrive when his clock reads sometime after 3, and he will see the blue clock read 1 at that time. He also will see the light that left the blue clock when it read 2 arrive sometime after his clock reads 4. However, this does not mean that he will think or conclude that what he sees actually represents what time it is for the blue clock at those moments. That would be shown by the black horizontal lines, which shows that when the green observer sees the blue clock read 1, he knows that it actually reads the same as his own, or somewhat after 3, and when he sees the blue clock read 2, it actually at that moment reads somewhat after 4. Now let's add a third clock, one that is moving at 0.6c relative to the both clocks so that it and the blue clock are closing in on each other. This will be the red line in the following diagram. The light that left the red clock when it read 1 still arrives at the blue clock when the blue clock reads somewhat after 3. But the light that left when it read 2, arrives before the blue clock reads 4. The blue clock observer will in fact see the red clock ticking at a rate twice as fast as his own. But again he will not conclude that this means that this represents what time it actually is at the blue clock. When he sees the blue clock read 1 he will conclude that it reads a bit before 3 at that moment and when he sees it read 2, he will conclude that reads something before 3.5 at that moment, as shown by the black lines. He knows that the light carrying the image of the blue clock reading 2 left the blue clock when it was closer to him than the light carrying the image of it reading 1 left the blue clock. His has to account for this when determining when exactly that light left according to his own clock. As the black line from his clock reading 2 shows, the red clock didn't actually read 2 until sometime after his clock read 2. Thus after accounting for the time it took for the light from the red clock to reach him, he will conclude that the red clock is ticking slower than his own. This is time dilation. Now add yet another clock, this time so that it and the observer are receding from each other, as shown by the light blue line. Again the light leaving when it reads 1 arrives at the green observer when the green clock reads after 3. But the light leaving it when it reads 2 doesn't arrive until the green clock read after 5. The green observer will see the blue clock ticking at 1/2 the rate of his own. But this time, the light blue clock is further from the green when it reads 2 than it was when it read 1, and when the green observer takes this into account, it will turn out that when compared to his own clock, the light blue clock is ticking slower than his own, and by the same rate as he concluded that the red clock is ticking slow. The light blue clock exhibits the same time dilation as the red clock. This is what Relativity says is happening in the real universe, and this is not you you are trying to claim it says ( that an observer will always see a clock as running slow). If you are going to argue against a theory, you have to argue against the actual theory rather than some imagined version of your own creation.
  2. 5 points
    SR does not claim that such an observer will always see the Earth clock run slow, if by see, you mean what his eyes or instruments directly record. In this usage of see, he will see it run at a rate of T = To ((1-v/c))(1+v/c))1/2 where v is positive if Earth and the Observer are receding from each other and negative if they are approaching each other. A factor contributing to this observation is the the distance and thus the propagation time for signals is constantly changing, getting longer when receding and getting shorter when approaching. This factor works out to be c/(c+v) When you factor this out of the first equation you are left with the time dilation equation. This means that there are two things to consider: what you see happening to the Earth clock, and what is happening to the Earth clock. So while while receding from the Earth, the observer will see the the 1000 Hz signal as being 500 hz and the Earth clock as ticking 1/2 as fast as his own,. Taking into account the effect of the increasing distance, he will determine that the Earth clock is ticking 0.8 as fast as his own. He will meet up with the object when his own clock reads 1.01.2022 (as the distance between Earth will be only 1.2 ly as measured by him and this is how long it takes to traverse this distance at 0.6c.) He will see the Earth clock reading 1.01.2021, but determine that it is 8.07.2021 on the Earth at that moment. Now at first, you might be tempted to think " But wait, if he sees 1.01.2021 on the Earth clock, and the Earth is, according to him, 1.2 ly away, wouldn't that mean that it should be 3.15.2022 on the Earth by his reckoning?" This is not the case. The light he is seeing at that moment left Earth at a time when the distance between them was less than 1.2 ly, so the time it took the light he is seeing took less than 1.2 years to reach him from the Earth. Now he accelerates in order to come start the trip back towards Earth. We will assume a minimal acceleration period. Now this is the part where people tend to get tripped up. After he is done and is now approaching the Earth and not receding, we will assume that he still reads 1.01.2021 on the Earth clock by visual means. However, he will no longer conclude from this that it is 8.07.2021 on the Earth. Instead he will conclude that it is 6.05.23. During the return trip he will see a frequency of 2000 hz from the signal and the Earth clock tick twice as fast as his own. But again, taking into account the decreasing distance effect, he will conclude that the Earth clock is ticking at a rate 0.8 as fast as his own. Thus he will see the Earth clock tick from 1.01.2021 to 1.01.2025, but conclude that it ticked from 6.05.23 to 1.01.2025 during his return leg. (see will see it tick off 4 years, but conclude that it ticked off 1.6 years. Again, it all come back to what happens during that acceleration period. As far as anyone at rest with respect to the Earth is concerned, nothing special beyond the standard SR effects take place. But for the observer actually undergoing the acceleration, things aren't this simple. For him, the rate at which clocks run depend on which direction they are from him relative to the acceleration he is undergoing and the distance from him in that direction. Clocks in the direction of the acceleration run fast, and those in the opposite direction run slow (beyond what he sees. This even effects clocks that share his acceleration. A clock in the nose of the Ship will run fast and one in the tail will run slow. ( in this case, since there is no changing distance between himself and the clocks, what he sees, will be in perfect agreement with what is happening to the clocks. While this may seem to be at odds with common sense, it is how a Relativistic universe works. A problem with your questions is that they only deal with particular points of the whole scenario without taking in the whole picture. It like comparing two men walking and only considering where they end up. Below we have the paths of two men, Red and Blue, over the same interval. If you just look at where they end up, you would conclude that Blue walked a shorter distance because he ends up closer to the starting point than Red does. But when you consider the whole interval, it is clear that Blue walked a further distance. The same thing is true with SR, if you only consider the end results, you are missing what is really going on.
  3. 3 points
    When one integrates speed against time, one gets distance (as mathematic already corrects). Against what would you like to integrate space? What would the meaning of integrating space against time? Or try a dimensional analysis. An integral is a sum of products. So it makes sense that if you integrate (m/s) speed over time (s) you get m*s/s = m, so a distance. Now do this with distance (m) and time, you get m*s. What would that be? OK, via Mr Google I found this: Absement. Had never heard of it...
  4. 3 points
    If this goes where I think this is going - without watching the video - there should be the factor (x-x) in there, which makes the answer quite trivial...
  5. 2 points
    Hello, I live in Muslim country and i have to say something about that. Actually, in educated side of our country, people are informed about birth control methods . However, in uneducated side , it is beyond women's power. Womens doesn't have right to speak, so that all control is belonged to men. Our goverment is handing out preservatives to prevent this problem , but I think nobody use them. Even,a few years ago, I heard some news about that. Some kids were using preservatives like balloon. On the other hand, even if they were educated, probably they don't do something. They aims to having much kids, they use them like soliders. they protect themselves and make money through their kids. Nobody doesn't care life standards of kids, especially girls. These people do that to live. Goverment, police or any defensive force can't prevent them, because they are not enough to stop hunger , terror and unemployment. In my opinion, education can be part of the solution , but this is not enough. It is releated with economy and politic situation of country. Solution is being social democracy. As for me, this is not about religion. In our country, nobody against abortion, it is totally about management.
  6. 2 points
  7. 2 points
    This is what Trump has to say about Putin. They will be meeting in private soon with no note takers. They will give the secret handshake. Putin will say "Keep up the good work Donald!" And Trump will reply, "thanks for your help boss!" "Putin's fine. We are all fine (wise guys, good fellas)" We are all gangsters. We are all wealthy Oligarchs. That is gangster talk, short, concise, like a "wise guy". I was watching the first Godfather movie yesterday and was astonished by how much the speech pattern of Trump (Queen's Douchbag) resembles a Mafia Don. EFFECTIVE speech, communicates well mind you, use short words, short sentences, and active verbs, and that is what Trump always does. Plus repetition, and repetition, etc... Never an explanation, but always his greatest hits, repeated over and over. It is a cult of personality now. He is the great Anti-Obama. Trump could say now "We don't need a wall on the border, improving the fence is good enough!!" And his supporters will shout "Yeah! No wall, just improve the fence!!"
  8. 2 points
    Last night, we had a happy hour after work. Hannah (the social butterfly in our office who organized the outing) said everyone had to try a drink they’d never order if they were just out their own. It'd been a long week, so I figured “what the hell” and ordered a White Russian. Gotta say... The waitress really earned her tip when she returned to the table and with a perfectly straight face handed me a photo of Donald Trump and walked away.
  9. 2 points
    Imagination is what puts you on the shoulders of giants to see further but first you have to know what they knew.
  10. 2 points
    I have no objection to the Jews being given a homeland. What I object to, it them being given Palestine, as if it was empty and belonged to nobody. To me, it's not the Jews who are of interest, but the Palestinians. Would people in the United States have stood for a Jewish homeland being created, in Colorado or Texas? Not a chance. Would the Brits have allowed it, in Kent? Ludicrous. But that's exactly what they did to the Palestinians. And then they started killing them, when they unsurprisingly protested. And they've never stopped since. Just a few weeks ago, the Israeli Army were using Palestinian protesters for target practice, because they were protesting and throwing stones. Adolf Hitler would have approved. During Nazi occupation, if one German got attacked, they would wipe out a whole village. Sometimes even a town. The Israelis use the same tactic. Throw stones, and they shoot a dozen dead. Disgusting. And in politics, they have teams of attackers, who round on anyone who says a wrong word about Israel. They are immediately labelled as anti semitic in a very organised and pre-planned way. I can't think of a single good thing about the State of Israel, or it's supporters.
  11. 2 points
    Slavery was/is not the whole story though. What about all the acts of violent discrimination not covered by that act? Black people were still getting lynched in the 60's. Black people, as a collective, are reaching out and want to be equal in every aspect of society and playing by the same rules. This is in stark contrast to Jewish society which is still insular.... and some Islamic societies.
  12. 2 points
    I read a kind of public letter or lecture by Netanyahu from 2015 that had strong elements then of what has been decided now. Quite honestly, I think that Islamists and Jews have the same attitude and problems. They are both quite alien to Western sensibilities and vice versa and yet we treat Israel as philosophically the same. We treat Israel as though they are on our side but I don't think they are any more so than the Islamic nations. What I'm saying, is that Israel should be treated with the same degree of wariness. We are helping the Israelis, via supplying arms etc, against a nation that is no worse and no better than they are. As has been said, they can't play the victim card forever. They are going to have to be held accountable for their actions by the same rules as everybody else is held.
  13. 2 points
    First, what historically has been done to Jewish people is unconscionable. They were mistreated in Russia prior to the first world war and the holocaust is among the ugly things inhuman history. Today antisemitism continues to exist and in still a real problem to varying degrees all over the world. That said Jewish peoples are not alone in being a historically disenfranchised peoples. Africans have experiences many of the same abuses and continue to be discriminated against around the world. Many Native peoples in the Americas and throughout Asia have been decimated to level where their culture is now unsustainable as anything other than reflection of what they once were. Past wrongs are should influence perspective but should be rubber stamp justifications for any and all behavior. In the the U.S. despite over a hundred years of slavery and an couple hundred years of segregation African Americans are still held to the same mutual (we the people) laws. In African The French, England, Dutch, U.S. and etc still exercise influence within various countries which they have economic interests. So when the historical treatment of Jewish people is used as a justification for modern political choices within Israel I cringe a bit. I cannot think of another group which has had their most coveted lands returned to them along with the full support and protection of the militarily and economically most power nations in the world. Jerusalem is the epicenter of Arabahamic Religion (3.7 billion people world wide). No group would be able to control the land free of conflict. The challenges Israel, the nation, faces today have nothing to do with Germany. Palestinian people are not German. Using Germany as an justification for treatment of Palestinians is an error in my opinion. Palestinian people have a historical and cultural relationship to the region and it is wrong to deny that. It is wrong to just ignore that they are there as if there is somewhere else for they belong. Israel is so preoccupied with codifying their own control that the needs of the Palestinians are being totally ignored and it is wrong.
  14. 2 points
    I think many people underestimate the amount of intelligence it requires to live as a hunter gatherer. Humans do not have fur, claws, great night vision, and etc. We lack the physical ability of our predator peers like Bears and Cougars. The average person today would die from some combination of dehydration, hunger, infection, and exposure inside a couple weeks if left on their own in a natural environment. The fact early humans thrived in the locations they did at all speaks to have intelligent they were.
  15. 2 points
    ... An article I read a few months back that when they scanned an elephants brain whilst it looked at different objects it suggested that when they look at humans they go all gooey and think we are cute - the same way we look at kittens and puppies. I thought that was lovely.
  16. 2 points
    I can't say I've ever thought a high-ranking UK judge showed any overt political-bias in a case but it's rampant in the US and actually accepted, with Supreme Court judges chosen for it. Is this a wise way to pursue justice? Should not lawmakers and judges be distinct, whereby the former make the laws and the latter ensure they are lawful and consistent with existing statutes, and not just to ensure those laws pass because they are "on their side"? I personally think the US system of choosing judges is rank. That's my opinion.
  17. 2 points
    the only sensible thing for me to do at this time would be to apologize for I am obviously running contrary to the spirit of the forum, my apologies
  18. 2 points
    "Please read entire post there is very important work in some of the parts" Just post those parts.
  19. 2 points
    Yes. It deactivates some bacteria and viruses by denaturing their outer membrane. I always have it around because it''s the most smear-free cleaner.
  20. 2 points
    I'm curious as to why someone who knows forcing would ask this question on this site rather than, say, math.stackexchange where it will get knowledgable responses. And secondly, surely you know that V is not a model of ZFC. V is a proper class, hence not a model of anything. And if we knew ZFC had a model then we'd have a consistency proof for ZFC, which we haven't got. A strange post.
  21. 2 points
  22. 2 points
    Unemployment went from 10% in 2009 to under 5% in 2016 under Obama. The DJIA (stock market) went from under 8,000 in 09' to over 17,000 in 16' under Obama. The whole time FoxNews and Republicans screamed from the roof tops that it wasn't good enough. That the economy was a mess. Soon as Trump got in office suddenly they changed their tune. Under Obama we consistently saw aboit 2.5% GDP growth per year . During the election Trump lambasted 2.5% as anemic and promised 6% due to his tax proposal. Now that Trump is in office and has his tax cuts in place suddenly 2.5% is terrific. The economy is strong! Unemployment has dropped every quarter since 2011, Trump has had no impact on that. GDP has consistently remained between 2 & 3 percentage points per quarter, Trump has had no impact. Where Trump has had an impact is in deficits. Obama started with a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit due to the bank bailout but deficits dropped year over year down to the low 400 billions. Trump's 2018 budget had a 1.4 trillion deficit and 2019's is project to be greater than 1.6 trillion. The reason for those deficits is that his team calculated for 5% GDP from the tax cuts and that hasn't happened. A lot of people read the room rather than read the facts. Under Obama the economy never felt good to many because Republicans (who held majorities in Congress and governorships) insisted that it wasn't. Reading the room it seemed like they was lots of uncertainty. Now that Trump is in office no one is agruing against the economy. So when reading the room there seems to be agreement. It is a simple trick and is used to muddy the waters on things like evolution and climate science as well.
  23. 2 points
    This question (which is a common one) is based on a westernised (mis-)understanding of karma that has little to do with the original concept as it was conceived in Eastern philosophy. Karma is not a deterministic process, and it is not an external principle of “reward and judgement”. The basic idea is simply that any intentional (!) action will have future consequences of some kind; but the reverse is not true - not everything that happens is necessarily the deterministic consequence of some past karma. It needs to be remembered that in Eastern philosophical systems, there are two types of causation - there is linear causation, and there is synchronous causation. Linear causation connections events over time, whereas synchronous causation connects objects and events in the present. Both of these are always active, so both the past and the present influence what happens to us in our lives. This means that yes, if you intentionally harm others, it will in all likelihood eventually come back to you in some shape or form (linear causation); but a child can also die in an Earthquake, or catch some horrible disease, simply on account of having - by pure coincidence - been at the wrong place at the wrong time, and without this being the result of any intentional action in the past. The cut a long story short - karma (intentional action) influences events, but it does not determine them. It is not a principle of moral judgement, and was never intended like that. This sounds more like the “problem of evil” in theistic religions, which is different from the concept of karma.
  24. 2 points
    Lennox's use of Penrose's math is fundamentally flawed, and displays a lack of basic biological knowledge. DNA encodes amino acids in triplicates of base pairs called codons. There are 64 possible codons, encoding 20 amino acids, and stop. The translation of codons into amino acids is highly redundant, with numerous codons denoting each amino acid. 61 encode amino acids, and three encode stop. There are no untranslatable codons. This has a number of implications: 1) All possible DNA sequences can be translated into proteins. There is no such thing as a "gibberish" DNA code. 2) Because of the redundancy, multiple changes can occur without affecting the translation of the sequence. 3) Therefore comparisons of gibberish and junkyards to DNA code are not apt. unlike written language and scrapheaps, there is no such thing as an untranslatable gene. 4) Arguments from low probability are not apt. Given all possible arrangements of nucleotides can encode proteins, there are no null sequences. Consider it more like a dice throw. Rolling one hundred sixes in a row has a probability of (1/6)100 or 1.5 x 10-78. Except ALL combinations of 100 throws have this probability and if you perform the experiment, an outcome is inevitable. Claiming that the low probability makes the outcome impossible ex post facto is not sensible.
  25. 2 points
    Er, no. the whole point is that if something works, we don't need to use belief. For example your computer works, because the underlying technology works, because the underlying science works. Of course, you are free to believe that your computer doesn't work, but the facts would seem to contradict that belief. On the other hand, when it comes to religions and gods, there is no evidence that they "work" in any practical sense (beyond giving some people a feeling of comfort). And so they depend entirely upon belief. Hop away. But if there is something you don't understand, why not ask.
  26. 2 points
    I resolved my error myself. I was thinking of the distance from the leading end or leading object to it's destination 'B" to a statioonary observer as being a static measurement. I didn't consider that the length L would be shrinking to him as the speed increased. Also Wiki gives 3 ways of calculating L. The (x2-x1)gamma I've seen before and used before. My text or other sources don't use this. It leads to errors.
  27. 2 points
    The curvature of spacetime is the classical explanation. Gravitons would be the quantum explanation, should such a theory be developed. We have classical vs quantum descriptions for electromagnetism, as well. Classical E&M have waves and the classical fields, while the quantum description has photons. The classical description did not preclude the quantum, per se. The quantum description is necessarily going to be different.
  28. 2 points
    You have no idea what its like being Italian, in an Italian coffee shop/club, watching England play ( wearing an English jersey and with an English flag flying on my vehicle ), and being the only one cheering England. I even sang along to God Save the Queen with the fans in the stands. ( OK, now I'm embellishing a little )
  29. 2 points
    That is a horrible example as they are just different stages of the same organism.
  30. 2 points
    Most likely the guy in the video has an induction coil under the table. You can clearly see that when he increases the distance the bulb stops working. The video is probably done in the kitchen and the whole thing is done over an induction stove. It is also possible (less likely) that theres a hidden power source inside the bulb itself (a small lithium ion battery) One thing for sure, he did not break laws of thermo-dynamics with a bulb, couple of coppper plates and magnets
  31. 2 points
  32. 2 points
    I do not understand your comments. Yes, I am aware that a single example is only one particular case. However the example shows that even if given an uncountable set of sets each of which is also uncountable, then it may be quite easy to point to a choice set. You appeared to suggest that this seems impossible, which appears to be a comment about the general case. I tried to point out that those cases when you must use AC are special cases, and not the general rule. I probably misunderstood your original comment. What I think you could have said is that to a naive person it might seem that you can always find a choice set, whereas to a sophisticated person it is clear that no choice set has to exist unless something strong enough like AC can be applied. Uncountability does not enter into it that strongly. As another example, assume that a relation ~ is defined on the set of real numbers \(R\) so that \( x \sim y \) holds whenever the difference \( y - x \) is a rational number, i.e. \( y-x \in Q. \) It is easy to check that ~ is an equivalence relation, which means that \( R \) is partitioned into equivalence classes, each of the form \( [r] := Q + r, \) for some \( r \) that is irrational or zero. Every equivalence class is just a shifted copy of \( Q, \) so in particular it is a countable set of real numbers. Even though each set \( [r] \) is countable, it is impossible to prove the existence of a choice set for the equivalence classes without using AC. (A particular such choice set is called a Vitali Set and is important in measure theory.)
  33. 2 points
    You seem to have missed the part where they play for 2 hours, first; surely a team game is as much about strategy as skill.
  34. 2 points
  35. 2 points
    Fermi Paradox finally solved: extraterrestrial intelligent life forms are not revealing to extreme right wing members because they don't want to become their meal..
  36. 2 points
    Far Far more evidence for expansion than just redshift. Thermodynamics and the changes in Blackbody temperature of the CMB as well as the CMB itself for two other pieces of evidence. Icarus its obvious you never took the time to understand the FLRW metric in the first place and it is apparent you simply copied the equations you refer to without understanding any meaning behind those equations. Specifically those involving the FLRW metric system. For example the FLRW metric has no Centre or preferred location of the universe. This lack of understanding is apparent in your usage of Newtons gravitational force equation which describes specifically a central potential force that you have been misapplying in every stage of your model. Your simulated images are a clear sign of this misapplication and as you can see you have a higher density towards the centre. However measurements in Cosmology does not show the same distribution. The CMB for example is incredibly uniform in mass distribution and all measurements of our universe matches a uniform mass distribution. The below images look nothing like what we actually observe in Cosmology..... I can pretty much quarantee you will follow the precise same pattern and ignore any comments or questions that compete against your model. As you have yet to address any of those questions. For example the repeated question. How can you have a positive energy density but a negative mass ? Will you ever address this key and important question ? Hubble's law is simple but it does not calculate proper distances. It calculates the recessive velocity which isn't a true velocity but an apparent (illusional) velocity based on separation distance. "The greater the distance the greater the recessive velocity." [latex] V_{resessive}=H_0D[/latex] That is all Hubbles law states. Note this is not the true velocity of any galaxy but simply represents the apparent velocity. Every galaxy has roughly the same velocity as the Milky way. No galaxy has a true velocity greater than c. The greater than c recessive velocity past Hubble horizon isn't a true inertial velocity. Your model cannot calculate the proper distance to any object in space while the FLRW metric can. It cannot calculate how temperature and pressure evolve not predict expansion contraction rates. In other words it cannot predict everything that the FLRW metric can. Here is a clear demonstration of the terms that the FLRW metric can calculate. [latex]{\small\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline T_{Ho} (Gy) & T_{H\infty} (Gy) & S_{eq} & H_{0} & \Omega_\Lambda & \Omega_m\\ \hline 14.4&17.3&3400&67.9&0.693&0.307\\ \hline \end{array}}[/latex] [latex]{\small\begin{array}{|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|} \hline a=1/S&S&z&T (Gy)&R (Gly)&D_{now} (Gly)&D_{then}(Gly)&D_{hor}(Gly)&D_{par}(Gly)&V_{gen}/c&V_{now}/c&V_{then}/c&H/Ho \\ \hline 0.001&1090.000&1089.000&0.000373&0.000628&45.331596&0.041589&0.056714&0.000856&21.023&3.148&66.182&22915.263\\ \hline 0.001&739.062&738.062&0.000713&0.001172&45.031283&0.060930&0.083238&0.001668&16.621&3.127&51.977&12283.974\\ \hline 0.002&501.112&500.112&0.001342&0.002163&44.653685&0.089109&0.122010&0.003214&13.287&3.101&41.203&6658.325\\ \hline 0.003&339.773&338.773&0.002496&0.003956&44.183524&0.130038&0.178562&0.006124&10.712&3.068&32.869&3639.803\\ \hline 0.004&230.379&229.379&0.004601&0.007192&43.602350&0.189264&0.260828&0.011554&8.691&3.028&26.316&2002.235\\ \hline 0.006&156.206&155.206&0.008416&0.013015&42.887747&0.274559&0.380106&0.021616&7.083&2.978&21.095&1106.404\\ \hline 0.009&105.913&104.913&0.015309&0.023478&42.012463&0.396668&0.552333&0.040144&5.791&2.918&16.895&613.344\\ \hline 0.014&71.813&70.813&0.027726&0.042257&40.943206&0.570134&0.799715&0.074095&4.745&2.843&13.492&340.773\\ \hline 0.021&48.692&47.692&0.050056&0.075939&39.639382&0.814081&1.152677&0.136056&3.894&2.753&10.720&189.626\\ \hline 0.030&33.015&32.015&0.090158&0.136321&38.051665&1.152552&1.651928&0.248752&3.200&2.642&8.455&105.633\\ \hline 0.045&22.386&21.386&0.162117&0.244527&36.119894&1.613538&2.350040&0.453165&2.631&2.508&6.599&58.889\\ \hline 0.066&15.178&14.178&0.291145&0.438335&33.771262&2.224979&3.311204&0.823085&2.164&2.345&5.076&32.852\\ \hline 0.097&10.291&9.291&0.522342&0.785104&30.917756&3.004225&4.606237&1.491191&1.782&2.147&3.827&18.342\\ \hline 0.143&6.978&5.978&0.936102&1.403692&27.454972&3.934517&6.297233&2.695518&1.470&1.907&2.803&10.259\\ \hline 0.211&4.731&3.731&1.674119&2.496871&23.266389&4.917511&8.402147&4.860753&1.219&1.616&1.969&5.767\\ \hline 0.312&3.208&2.208&2.977691&4.373615&18.247534&5.688090&10.827382&8.733318&1.026&1.267&1.301&3.292\\ \hline 0.460&2.175&1.175&5.215425&7.334123&12.397762&5.699693&13.279345&15.569626&0.903&0.861&0.777&1.963\\ \hline 0.678&1.475&0.475&8.789420&11.115281&6.042158&4.096813&15.275613&27.272101&0.878&0.420&0.369&1.296\\ \hline 1.000&1.000&0.000&13.787206&14.399932&0.000000&0.000000&16.472274&46.278944&1.000&0.000&0.000&1.000\\ \hline 1.468&0.681&-0.319&19.704190&16.201608&4.910267&7.207286&16.992292&75.113899&1.305&0.341&0.445&0.889\\ \hline 2.154&0.464&-0.536&26.084608&16.928765&8.515267&18.345587&17.174536&118.018864&1.833&0.591&1.084&0.851\\ \hline 3.162&0.316&-0.684&32.638034&17.180008&11.040250&34.912335&17.224075&181.212698&2.651&0.767&2.032&0.838\\ \hline 4.642&0.215&-0.785&39.249711&17.261713&12.776339&59.302512&17.261713&274.042078&3.872&0.887&3.435&0.834\\ \hline 6.813&0.147&-0.853&45.880114&17.287747&13.962589&95.126009&17.287747&410.320588&5.675&0.970&5.503&0.833\\ \hline 10.000&0.100&-0.900&52.516301&17.296130&14.771503&147.715032&17.296130&610.357404&8.326&1.026&8.540&0.833\\ \hline 14.678&0.068&-0.932&59.154549&17.298683&15.322788&224.907769&17.298683&903.973904&12.218&1.064&13.001&0.832\\ \hline 21.544&0.046&-0.954&65.793394&17.299445&15.698407&338.211934&17.299445&1334.944709&17.933&1.090&19.550&0.832\\ \hline 31.623&0.032&-0.968&72.432255&17.299812&15.954315&504.519738&17.299812&1967.523376&26.322&1.108&29.163&0.832\\ \hline 46.416&0.022&-0.978&79.071348&17.299828&16.128669&748.626510&17.299828&2896.022178&38.636&1.120&43.274&0.832\\ \hline 68.129&0.015&-0.985&85.710288&17.299959&16.247453&1106.926069&17.299959&4258.871858&56.709&1.128&63.984&0.832\\ \hline 100.000&0.010&-0.990&92.349407&17.299900&16.328381&1632.838131&17.299900&6259.261851&83.237&1.134&94.384&0.832\\ \hline \end{array}}[/latex] As you can see this is far more testable and predictive not to mention practical than anything your model shows. I can take any redshift value and I can give you the proper distance both when the signal was first received and the proper distance today. I can also tell you what temperature will correspond to any redshift value. This chart matches observational evidence and matches the graphs of the FLRW metric in for example Lineweaver and Davies. http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0402278v1.pdf So please start addressing the questions being posed and respond to the question. How can you have negative mass with a positive energy density ? You will note the above also predicts well into the future in terms of how the universe will continue to expand. Proper distance for example with curvature term k=o is [latex] d_p=\int^\sigma_0\frac{d\sigma}{\sqrt{1-k\sigma}}[/latex] where [latex] \sigma [/latex] is a dimensionless commoving coordinate. K is specifically the Gaussian curvature term given by [latex] K=\frac{3}{\pi} \lim_{s \to 0}\frac{2\pi-C}{s^3}[/latex] Here is more info on Gaussian curvature you will note I used a different notation this is the notation Matt Roose uses in Introductory to Cosmology.
  37. 2 points
    I did give an explanation for what the Ground observer sees in my post. Perhaps a picture will help. To make it more amiable for an image, we'll use the following parameters. The relative velocity between ships and planets is 0.866c. The distance between the ships is 30 light sec as measured by the ships. The distance between the planets as measured by the ships is 32 light sec. Thus there will be a moment, according the ships, when each ship is 1 light sec from a planet like this: The black line is the distance between the ships, the blue line the distance between the planets and the red lines the distances between ships and planets. Here we will assume that clocks on the ships both read 0 at this moment according to the ships. However, in the "ground" frame, the distance between the ships will be 15 light sec and the distance between the planets will be 64 light sec. Thus in the ground frame there is no moment when the two ships are each 1 light sec from a planet. Neither do the clocks in the two ships every read the same time like it is shown in the above image. When the trailing ship's clock reads ) the trailing clock does not and when the leading ship's clock read zero, the trailing ship's clock doesn't. The following two image shows the moments when the trailing clock reads 0 and the when the leading clock reads zero. At the top we have the moment when the trailing clock reads 0. At this moment, the trailing ship is 2 light sec from planet A. the leading ship is 47 light sec from planet B at its clock reads ~26 sec before 0. ~52 sec later the ships the ship have moved some 45 light sec at 0.866c. Each clock will have advanced by ~26 sec ( they tick at half speed due to time dilation), and we end up with the lead ship 2 light sec from planet B with its clock reading 0, and the trailing clock is 47 light sec from planet A with its clock reading ~26 sec. In between these two moments there is a moment when the ground observer will say that the two ships are equal distances from a planet, this will occur 26 secs after the top image by the ground observer's clock. At this moment the trailing clock will read 13 sec, the leading clock will read -13 sec and the ships will each be ~24.5 light sec from a planet. There are three things you need to take into account, Length contraction, time dilation and the relativity of simultaneity, when dealing with a situation like this, where you start with what is measured in one frame, and then transform to what is measured in another frame.
  38. 2 points
    Yes it is. But is very important to remember that this is a purely local conservation law - while it always holds at every point, it may not hold in an extended global region. Yes, it also holds in quantum mechanics, so long as we are dealing with a closed system of course. After collapse, the wave function describes eigenstates of the Hamiltonian operator (which encapsulates the energy dynamics of the system), and the total energy itself takes on allowable values that are eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian. Generally, due to boundary conditions, the spectrum of the Hamiltonian operator is discrete, so the eigenvalues are discrete as well. Yes, you are. That’s the stress-energy-momentum tensor. I am unsure what you mean by this, but it is quite physical in the sense that it has measurable consequences. Yes, exactly correct. Energy-momentum is equivalent to local spacetime curvature, and vice versa, via the Einstein equations. This can be measured, at least in principle. Again you are correct, energy density is an observer-dependent quantity. However, the mathematical object that describes sources of gravity isn’t just energy density, it’s the full stress-energy-momentum tensor (energy density is one of its components). As being a tensorial quantity, all observers agree on it. The energy-momentum tensor, just like all tensors, is a purely local quantity. That means these energies are located exactly where you perform their respective measurements (I know this sounds trivial, but it really isn’t if you think about it in more detail). However, you need to remember that potentials cannot be physically measured, only their gradients can. Furthermore, the energy inherent in gravity itself is not localisable (which is why it isn’t part of the energy-momentum tensor, but encapsulated in the non-linear structure of the field equations themselves). Electromagnetic fields and gravity are quite different in many respects, and this is one of them. You can tell exactly how energy is distributed in an EM field, because electromagnetism obeys a field equation that is linear. The same is not true for gravity, in that the Einstein equations are highly non-linear; hence gravitational self-energy is not localisable. However, you can still localise sources other than gravitational self-interaction, which is everything that is encapsulated in the energy-momentum tensor. This tensor is itself precisely defined via Noether’s theorem, so this is all very well defined mathematically.
  39. 2 points
    If I am allowed to reflect a little on such postings, as the OP, or better, on the reactions to it. We see three kinds of reactions here: the 'beecee-reaction', the 'Janus-reaction', and the 'Markus-reaction'. (All are equally valid). Beecee's reaction is global, saying more or less that SR is empirically tested to the bone, so anybody thinking he found an error in relativity will have a very hard time: it is difficult to argue against endless observational tests, and the fact that SR is technically used, e.g. in particle accelerators. These would not work the way they do if we would not take SR in account. Janus' reaction is technical, to the point, showing where discountbrains makes errors in his argumentation. For me, with a limited understanding of SR, it is always a joy to read his exposés about errors made by 'Einstein-was-wrong!' (im)posters. Often his reactions improve my understanding another little bit. Markus' reaction I find, as a philosopher, the most interesting: it shows that SR belongs to the absolute fundamentals of our understanding of the world, of the laws of nature. This is even so much so that the Lorenz transformations can function as a filter for new laws of nature. If new found laws are not invariant under Lorenz transformations, they cannot be fundamental laws of nature. At most they are approximations. Historically, this has been a strong guide to find more fundamental laws of nature. The most astonishing example I find is Dirac: by discovering that the laws of QM, as they were known in his days, were not invariant under Lorenz transformations, and changing them by making them so, he was able to predict the spin of the electron and the existence of the anti-electron. Spin was already postulated on other grounds, but got its fundament with Dirac. The anti-electron was found about a year after Dirac's prediction. I am sure physicists here can come with more examples. I think e.g. that we could turn around Markus' argument: imagine we would only have known about the electric field and its impacts, but had not discovered the magnetic field. By making the electrical field Lorenz-invariant, the magnetic field would roll out. So, discountbrains, by saying 'Einstein had a fallacy' you are opposing the whole body of established physics. I think it are the outrageous sounding effects of time dilatation and length contraction that are so counter-intuitive, and are often presented as examples par-excellence of special relativity, that lay people think this is mainly what special relativity is about (just forgetting that E=mc2 also follows from special relativity), and that there must be an error. (And think that Einstein came to this theory and since then there was nothing anymore to it.) One could even defend that special relativity is not a physical theory, but a meta-physical theory (no, not metaphysical): every theory in physics must comply to special relativity, otherwise it is just an empirical approximation.
  40. 2 points
    Hi, my name is ALine. I am new to this community and would like to put my opinion into the ring. It can generally be presumed that those who visit this site fall into 2 distinct categories. (1) An individual who is highly curious about the sciences, however, has no background within it what so ever which causes them to ask seemingly strange and simplistic questions. For this individual who is simply naturally curious, you need to be more gentle with them in your responses. It is comparative to a child who just wants to learn something new or wants to express new ideas to a community who is primarily focused toward discussing these ideas openly and fluidly. Depending upon the individual's method of delivering his thoughts or ideas it can be inferred that they are either scared of being judged for there ideas because it is being submitted into an open "arena" or they are just anxious about doing so. It is as if one of you were to go into say the arts without ever having picked up a paintbrush before and is expected to draw the Mona Lisa. By being accepting of all possible ideas it would allow for more individuals to become interested in the sciences. That is not to say that you should lessen your scrutiny of there ideas because hey let's face it if an idea is not rooted in reality then it no longer becomes a science, it is known as an art. However, instead of abruptly pointing out flaws or errors in work submitted slowly guide them in the right direction. Rome was not built in a day. The more they come on here the more they will realize their mistakes and the more they will come to realize that it is they themselves that are wrong. People really hate it when they are wrong, that is one of the consequences of the human psyche, probably. Some people will need to be moved quickly to build them up faster and some need to be moved more slowly and gradually. In doing so you can have a "LOT" more passionate individuals and have a lot more creative individuals share their ideas on here while at the same time being able to slowly start to accept criticism. (2) An individual who only wishes to prove that they are right no matter what else happens. No matter what you say or what you do they will always claim that their idea is the best idea because it proves this thing wrong, and then they do not themselves prove it wrong. Who says they know the material without knowing the material. These individuals are a little bit more tricky yet simple to deal with. Just kindly ask them to explain how they came to that conclusion. When they give an explanation simply provide your explanation for how that may be correct or incorrect. Slowly work with them to deconstruct their argument in a constructive way. See how they got to that eventual conclusion so that you can assist them in there logical and rational train of thought so that you can train them and they can help train you to become better rational thinkers. You may learn something new as well. This is not a game of "who is smartest" nor is it a fitness function in which only the "smartest" survive. What you all have created here is an academy for the free expression of knowledge between student and professor. The student must respect the professor for how much he knows and the teacher must respect the student for how much he wants to know. Both most work in a synergetic union in order to build on top of each other. The student will know more than the professor creatively and the professor will know more than the student in regards to the wisdom that they have acquired.
  41. 2 points
    https://phys.org/news/2018-06-worthy-scientific.html Are we alone? The question is worthy of serious scientific study: Are we alone? Unfortunately, neither of the answers feel satisfactory. To be alone in this vast universe is a lonely prospect. On the other hand, if we are not alone and there is someone or something more powerful out there, that too is terrifying. As a NASA research scientist and now a professor of physics, I attended the 2002 NASA Contact Conference, which focused on serious speculation about extraterrestrials. During the meeting a concerned participant said loudly in a sinister tone, "You have absolutely no idea what is out there!" The silence was palpable as the truth of this statement sunk in. Humans are fearful of extraterrestrials visiting Earth. Perhaps fortunately, the distances between the stars are prohibitively vast. At least this is what we novices, who are just learning to travel into space, tell ourselves Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-06-worthy-scientific.html#jCp <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I most certainly am not "terrified" if the answer to the question of "are we alone" is no.....In fact if such was shown beyond doubt to be no, we are not alone, I would be incredibly excited, and hopeful of a close encounter of the third kind before I kicked the bucket.
  42. 2 points
    I'm talking about the 0ties I think... the Blair/Brown government - they pledged so many billion to the NHS... but spent it like twats (or con men - depending upon what actually happened).
  43. 2 points
    Yes we should see variations as one approaches the cosmological event horizon. Let toy model this, by descriptive as most likely few will understand the math but if requested I will happily provide. Lets assume for a moment the a universe portion just on the outside our observable. Now if this portion has a different mass density this will cause a response by the nearby regions within our observable universe. A higher or lower mass density will result in a net flow of mass, this in turn affects the temperature as well as redshift. The direction of flow will be that which supports an equalization of mass density between the two regions. We don't see this as far as we can measure. The temperature distribution of the CMB for example is incredibly uniform. This uniformity also limits a rotating universe. The upper bounds on the rotational speed is such that it needs to be low enough to explain why we haven't bee able to detect a rotating universe. However that's just a side note. We can safely assume the regions of shared causality just outside our observable portion but within another observable portion say just at the edge of our observable portion is of the same uniform distribution. As we can see regions that can be affected by regions we cannot see via its shared causality that within this limit we can infer that it is much the same as our observable. Beyond any possible shared causality with our observable portion we have absolutely no clue.
  44. 2 points
    You seem very defensive. Although not really professionally qualified, I did check your link out and like your post, seems terribly defensive and lacks any mathematical data and proof. Perhaps if you read the following you may be more realistic in what you are trying to claim...... Anyone with alternative theories they wish to discuss should follow a few simple procedures: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/115017-science-theories-and-all-that/?tab=comments#comment-1056923 [1] Don't present the theory as fact...don't present it as something that is "faite compli" It most certainly isn't:[2] Gather all the experimental and Observational evidence to support your claims...[3] Whatever you have at the very least, must be able to explain and predict better then the incumbent model:[4] Your theory almost certainly is going to be challenged, and will need to run the gauntlet:[5] You will be told you are incorrect and your theory is wrong in most cases:[6] Throwing a tantrum will not win you any support: [7] You’re going to be asked tough questions. When someone asks you a question answer it. [8] When someone demonstrates a point you made is wrong, acknowledge that it is wrong and accept it:[9] Peer review may not be perfect, but it is absolutely necessary. The participants of any forum one sets out his alternative theory on, are your peers. Accept that:[10] If you think you have accomplished a theory over riding Evolution, SR, GR the BB QM or Newton, you most certainly have not: 100 years and more of past giants, and the 100's of books and papers since, means that you will not invalidate such overwhelmingly supported ideas in a few words or posts: Accept that from the word go:[11] In all likelyhood you are not Einstein, Newton, Hawking Bohr or Feynman: Don't pretend to be.[12] And finally always be prepared to modify your ideas/model/theories, and of course make sure you know the incumbent model you are thinking of over throwing perfectly.
  45. 2 points
    Actually, I just came up with a salve (made from... um, lizard oil) that will grow big, hairy breasts on your willie. It's not cheap, though.
  46. 2 points
    As long as this doesn't mean, "If you don't agree with me, stay out!", all will be well. Learning isn't always pleasant, but it's always good.
  47. 2 points
    I was wrong once... I got better...
  48. 2 points
    Who says we are? Do you have any scientific support for your idea that a god conceived the universe? Let alone any for the existence of such an advanced being?
  49. 2 points
    Ironic on a couple levels. Without an external observer I wouldn't have noticed the error.
  50. 2 points
    I've been seeing it pop up in my feeds for about two weeks now, too. Dark Matter hype is worse thatn WoW xD