Leaderboard

By using non-Euclidean geometry. The balloon analogy is a tool that's designed to simulate non-Euclidean geometry in a way that is easily visualized, by imagining what it would be like to try to perform Euclidean plane geometry on the surface of a sphere. In true non-Euclidean plane geometry, there is no 3rd dimension that the plane curves in, but the rules of geometry differ from Euclidean geometry, (the interior angles of triangle don't add up to 180° etc.) In the same way, the behavior of non-Euclidean 3 dimensional space simulates that of 3-d space curved through a 4 spacial dimension, but without the actual existence of a 4th spacial dimension.

The atmospheric density as well as pressure at the surface of Titan is like being in about 15-20 feet of water here on Earth and surface gravity about 0.1G. If so, does anyone know if it would be possible with flippers and the right equipment to 'swim' through the atmosphere at the surface of Titan? ta

Yep. That's groovy. I must be getting younger in my old age.

Pioneer Anomaly was solved and it turned out not to be G changing.

Please show how this matches the measured rotational curves of galaxies.

A field is a geometric description of the distribution of some value in space. It says nothing of the ontological nature i.e. the 'what is', of the phenomena causing the field, so it follows that it is a mathematical abstraction. Science seeks to describe the behaviour of phenomena and objects; what they are of themselves is beyond it's remit. That's why Strange said it's metaphysical.

Have you ever loved someone and or had moments in your life you wish you could get back and fix? To me the setting of Gatsby isn't relevant. Just as West Side Story re-imagined Romeo and Juliet I think Gatsby could easily be re-imagined in modern time. Focusing on the scenery is why, in my opinion, all the film adaptations were terrible. Gatsby isn't about parties and big cars. Those were all things he surrounded himself with for the sake of others. Gatsby himself was lonely, lost, intimidated, and in search for true North which he tragically assigned to Daisy. The Novel never seeks to redeem a single character. Everyone in the book is some combination of vacuous, pretentious,and petty. The narrator (Nick) is seemingly self aware yet still flawed and participated lazily in events. His natural dispassion for other subtle highlighted by his faux romance with Jordan. Everyone in the story sucked and the story knew it as the Narrator regularly laments about how ugly everyone is. It reminds my of my youth. We were all stupid, ignorant, and arrogant once.

Anyone seen the new Avengers? I won't see it, the one and a half previous Avengers movies i saw were awful. The new Star Trek reboots too: just saw the first one to know it wasn't for me. No one needs to see trailers for these films do they - we all know what we're getting from the product. Same for Star Wars but unfortunately it is the epitome of all the worst aspects of capitalism: a product designed purely to make money. I have to take my nephew to see it because it's become a ritual we do due a thoroughly successful advertising campaign. I agree but for different reasons: it is the most alien book i have ever read - the culture, the people and the events are so far removed from anything i have experienced that i didn't even have a point of reference to start from. Obviously a good author though

Bender; So you hold a position similar to Dr. Frankenstein's, that the source of life is electricity. Interesting. Could you show me how to install a sensor, timer, and circuits in my toaster? It occurs to me that if I do it right, I could possibly have little baby toasters scooting around my counter in a few months, and if they grow fast enough, I can give them away as Christmas presents. This would save me a lot of aggravation and shopping. Of course, if they multiply too quickly (like rabbits) I would have to find a way to limit that. Maybe I could just shorten the cords on some of them so they can't reach the electrical outlets. Brilliant. Thanks for the laugh. I needed it. Gee

Let's put it this way: the Relativistic Doppler shift only depend on the relative velocity difference between the source at the time of emission and the receiver at the time of reception. For example, if the source is moving at 0.5 c relative to you at the time of emission, but you accelerate up to 0.5 in that same direction just before the light reaches you, you will measure no Doppler shift because relative velocity difference between you at reception and the source at transmission is 0. However, with cosmological red-shift we are dealing with the geometric expansion of space between the time of emission and reception. This stretches the light waves. So lets; say there was zero expansion of the universe at the moment of emission, then during some period between emission and reception there is some expansion. the light wave will share this expansion. Now the expansion stops before reception so that it is zero again. However, this does not mean that the light wave reverts to it original length. For that to happen, there would have to been a contraction of the universe. This means that you the observer will measure the red-shift caused by this period of expansion even though it no longer exists a the time of reception. So to put it simply, Relativistic Doppler shift only depends on the relative velocity difference between emission and reception ( You could change your velocity to many times while the light it traveling towards you, but the only thing that counts is your velocity at the moment of reception.) Cosmological red-shift is dependent on what occurs during the entire period that the light is traveling and not just the conditions at the "end points".

I think it's more honest scientifically to say we can't know without evidence. The effect is the same, and it's intellectually more consistent, and it highlights the differences between beliefs based on faith and those based on trust.

But the Abrahamic mythology does include a large act of betrayal: Lucifer, bringer of light, and a third of the angels. It's interesting to compare Christian and Greek mythology on this point because they both had 'bringers of light': Lucifer and Prometheus (of course). Christians interpret the snake in Eden to be Satan and encouraged mankind to take the knowledge of the gods. Prometheus stole divine fire from Olympus and gave it to mankind, thus sparking mankind's creativity. Quite similar, but generally in the former myth Satan is seen as evil, while Prometheus is a benefactor to mankind (although there are different accounts). If Jesus had been born in India and declared himself son of god, perhaps not much fuss would be made as Hindus believe we are all the divine spark, all 'sons of god'. It seems Christian mythology is particularly against the ascendency of man as a technological or spiritual being. Some historians argue that The Protestant Reformation was necessary if the Renaissance was to be successful in Europe, as the movement was more inclined towards mankind's own work.

Many people are incapable of reproduction yet they are undoubtedly aware.