Leaderboard

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.

Did it somehow escape your notice that charcoal already has an inbuilt flammable ability? Somewhere between a fuel with no nitrate- which is hard to light and gunpowder which is too easy to light, there may well be a mixture that's satisfactory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma Studiot; I didn't ask if the OP had used the phrase "industrial use"- he plainly had. I asked where he had suggested that the briquettes were for industrial use. It seems to me that the OP has an industry that makes + sells briquettes- quite possibly to domestic consumers/ householders. Their customers would like a product that's easier to light. One way to achieve that would be to incorporate sodium nitrate into the briquettes. And he's asking for a process to Now, as it happens, I don't think that's the best way forward, not least because ammonium nitrate might do the job just as well (or badly) as sodium nitrate. But that doesn't mean that the briquettes are sold to industry (they might be, but as has been pointed out, industrial furnaces often have other mechanisms for lighting them). So, does anyone have any reason to show why I'm mistaken about my interpretation? And does anyone actually have an answer to his question- how does he make sodium nitrate?

Granite is an essentially intrusive rock, so is not exposed anyway. Hard to tell what role the atmosphere might have. It carries the dust clouds from extrusive rocks. But both types need the internal magmas to happen.

Especially if you add potassium nitrate and sulphur to it.

Several questions arise about this idea, not least being Where does all the water come from? Worlds with tectonic activity (as we know it) get that way because there is sufficient trapped heat in the core, created as the heavier material 'sinks' to the centre during the planet's formation and early history. The planet then spends billions of years trying to slough off this heat, creating the driving conditions for tectonics in the process. This will not happen if the planet is just not big enough - and of course those are the most likely to be totally submerged ones. So the end result is, as always, a balance of competing factors.

W(hy all) the b(rack)ets? At the temperatures where nuclear fusion takes place, everything vapourises. The only way you can get solid nickel is to make it in a star - where gravity will keep it together in spite of being vapour- and then release it into the cosmos when the star explodes. Then wait for gravity to bring the "ashes" together.

Isn't this the (recent) second thread on this subject? Edit Yes I thought so

Nickel is found in meteorites. That is extraterrestrial. It's also found here on earth. It's all a product of fusion — in stars (atmospheric temperatures are way too low for this to be a mechanism). It's just that some of the nickel did not conglomerate on earth while it formed — it did so elsewhere.

That would be abused heavily. Anyway, good luck in the finals, hoping for a good game. Who are you guys cheering for?

Probably meant Somerset and Cheddar. Back in those days, slavery was everywhere and involved every race. There have always been varying degrees of it, and still are. It was only with the discovery of America that black people were singled out, with a particularly nasty version.

There can be up to 3 people given a Nobel for the same work, the languages that exist are much to arbitrary and I need assistance with proofs and formulas that will backup the things in this post which it and my other work are the most important work being done in any field if you could see how far-reaching and applicable these things are going to be. The membranes that are the fields of force that are what make up the dementions of space dont allow for the exsistance of any cardinal angles, there are no Cardinal angles that exist in all of existence there are only Cardinal curves, if you had sufficient magnification that was precise and accurate enough and inspected the point of every angle you would come to see that they reach a point where they they are actually curved and not a sharp angle as it appears to be from a distance away from it. it is the reason why everything in existence is continuously in motion and nothing is static, because there are only curves everything moves smoothly past one another, nothing comes to a rest or stop. if something that exists comes to a stop or a rest and becomes Static momentarily, even for an increment as it would if it was traveling along the path of an angle at the point where it changed directionality, at that increment of existence what was traveling in the path of the angle, it would cease to exist, because motion is required for existence and the more you are in motion the more you are apart from other things that exsist, and the more you exsist, thats why the more you are in motion the more mass you have because other things are merging into you because they are less in motion making them decrease in the ammount they exsist. Because there are only curves everything easily moves past one another if Cardinal angles existed things that exist would pop in and out of existence as they came to be static at the point in an angle where the directionality would change and nothing in existence comes to a stop like that. everything that exists in all of existence smoothly moves past one another and remains continuously in motion because there are only Cardinal curves, also i believe the most logical definition of something that is Cardinal should be something that can be experienced as an observation of the senses, also When you look out towards the edge of the observable universe you're actually looking at the outside of the spherical shape of the Big Bang even though from our perspective looking out towards the edge of the observable universe looks like we looking at the inside of a sphere it's actually the outside of one its just inverted. pie is an irrational number. and what an irrational number is is a number with an infinite number of digits on the right side of the decimal point that continue infinitely, and every time another digit gets added to the far-right of the decimal point in pi technically the number pi shrinks and gets smaller. now even if a sphere is distorted and misshapen, it is still a sphere as long as there are no angles and it is made entirely of Curves. if this is the case then Pi still applies to determining its properties. telescopes have made the observation that galaxies are moving away from each other, from this they assumed that the Universe was expanding however if the universe was expanding than the entire universe would expand, not the rest of the universe will expand except for the galaxies. all of space would expand if the universe was expanding and what would occur is the particles and atoms and Matter and galaxies and planets they would all expand at the same rate and it would appear as though the size of universe was staying static and we wouldn't even notice. instead what is happening is as I mentioned before if you Lookout words towards the edge of the observable universe you're looking at the outside of a sphere and we know that Pi is directly related to the properties of spheres and we also know that Pi is infinitely shrinking so if the edge of the observable universe is an inverted sphere and Pi is infinitely shrinking and connected to the properties of spheres then it would appear as though the universe were expanding. also every other object in existence made entirely of Curves including all particles planets Stars all membranes are spheres they're all shrinking because pie is infinitely shrinking which is why the galaxies appear to be moving away from each other they're not actually moving away from one another their getting smaller so the space seems like it's expanding. If you are going to say that dark energy causes the expansion and the reason the stuff in the galaxy's doesn't expand with the rest of the universe and male it appear static, of you are going to say that it's because of gravity then why aren't things in the galaxy's like sub atomic particles that are massless and not effected by gravity, why haven't they been expanding faster than the speed of light also making the become very disproportionate sizes compared to things with mass that you would be infering that they're not expanding along with the rest of the universe. If the universe were expanding then something would be effecting the entire thing making it all expanding not just some of it and not certain parts, so the observable universe is shrinking because the mathematical function used to get Pi is division making it and spheres infinitely shrinking. Also the 2 points right next to each other in the center of the observable universe which I will tell you how to determine the location of next after this but the two points right next to each other at the center of the observable universe are actually further apart than 2 points at oposite edges of the observable universe because every point you can see looking out in every direction possible toward the edge of the observable universe is the same combined 1D point so actually 2 points at oposite edges of the observable universe are actually right next to each other and I know that if you shrink yourself down small enough you would experience putting in the same amount of energy or force required to reach the speed of light if you were at a larger size, the same amount of energy or force if you shrink yourself small enough, would cause you to reach much faster than light speeds so all you have to do to travel faster than light is be force or a demention of space made of force because force is small enough to travel faster than light or shrink yourself to smaller than a photon and you will travel faster than light because the smaller you get the shorter distances through space become and the lager you get the slower you travel through space. Ok so if you had a way that was accurate enough to measure accurate enough wich yoctosecond photography that will exsist soon enough will be able to you would see that the speed of light is not a constant it is actually constantly changing as you move in the arrow of directionality of the path of least resistance toward the point at the center of the observable universe which is also constantly changing, the only constant is that everything is constantly changing, but if you are in motion at a greater rate in the arrow of directionality which is a path of least resistance, toward the point at the center of the observable universe than how much distance you can cover with the same amount of energy at the same size decreases, and if you are in motion at a greater rate away from the point at the center and in a greater rate in the arrow of directionality which is a path of least resistance, toward the edge of the observable universe than the amount of distance you can travel with the same amount of energy at the same size increases, therefore if you constantly take measurements of the speed of light that are accurate enough such as with yoctoseconds photography you would be able to tell if you were headed toward the point at the center of the observable universe or in the direction of the 1D point at the edge of the observable universe allowing for the point at the center to be accurately calculated, and if you have a coordinate system for positions and arrows of directionality all you need is the set of 2 sets of coordinates in the past relative to the least arbitrary most logical points that you can determine the coordinates of which are the the point at the edge of the observable universe at the beginning of time and the point in the center of the observable universe which both can be calculated and accurately predicted to be used in this coordinate system but all you need is a set of two coordinates in the past of an object properties and you can determine it's Arrow of directionality which is its path of least resistance and you could determine the position of every increment of every cardinal thing that exists in all of the observable universe and you could predict all that would occur in the future and you could calculate all that has happened in the past 100% accurately and you can break the whole thing down into formulas you could come up with a formula for the least arbitrary most logical most efficient way to obtain any of the coordinates in this coordinate system that you would need to determine any of the information that you would need about the past or the future instantaneously if you had the correct information processing ability but you would need formulas to skip you to the information that you would require at any given time so that you didn't have to calculate the whole thing longhand, however with enough of the logic and reason similar to what I have provided in this post and that I will provide in posts to come and in my work towards a Nobel Prize these formulas will be possible to obtain I am not fluent in the symbols of the language of mathematics and find that the current languages that exist are much too arbitrary for me to work with and I would need the assistance of someone fluent in these languages to work with my reason and logic capabilities to obtain these formulas and I ask are there any who can help me with proofs and formulas that would coincide with any of the parts of this post? I know these things to be because I've used the least arbitrary most efficient logic and reason I was capable of to come up with the information of these realities I have much more information about the truths of reality that is the least arbitrary most efficient logic possible also however the attempts at communicating in such an arbitrary language has taken its toll on my cognitive abilities and my configuration of consciousness and I must take a constitutional if we could create the least arbitrary most efficient logic based language I could communicate the things I cognitively process in my configuration of Consciousness in that language and it would be an exponential order of magnitude less difficult to communicate what I know to others. Please help, oh also I have proven with ilarbitrary logic that a cardinal infinity exsists, so much so that it is the only possibility and is irifutable, which means they're always exists the possibility for there to be information that you do not have yet and if it is impossible to have all the information then logically it is impossible to have certainty and if certainty is impossible then shouldn't we all keep an open mind so much so that our minds are the polar opposite of a closed mind since it is so logical that certainty is impossible and does not exist as something that is cardinal. I'll go in to the details of the proof of a cardinal Infinity in another posting. oh by the way the reason that time flows in the direction that it does is because it is the path of least resistance not because of probability and likelihood everything in motion is occurring because it is the path of least resistance and every Arrow of directionality is a path of least resistance. on the other side of the path of least resistance of the flow of time in the polar opposite direction of the path of least resistance of the arrow of directionality of the flow of time is the strongest force it is a resistive Force what causes this resistance is the fact that on the other side 1 increment from the 1D point that was the first point the most far back in the past at the very beginning of when time starting to flow in the Arrow of directionality of the path of least resistance that we are used to. At the other side of this resistive Force is when and where nothing itself would exist if it could exist as something cardinal however Cardinal nothing is impossible to exist because even if it is just the absence of everything else it is still a thing and that's something not nothing even if it is any concept of nothing it's still a thing which makes it something and not nothing so nothing itself is impossible to exist which is what creates the strongest force which creates a arrow of directionality and a path of least resistance for time to flow and time can be thought of more as an energy in fact time and energy are the same thing there's much more but that is all I can manage for now I simply can't use this arbitrary form of communication anymore right now thank you

"Please read entire post there is very important work in some of the parts" Just post those parts.

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.

Yes, the manifold itself is always continuous (by definition!), but the distribution of energy-momentum on it may not be. For example, consider the case of a planet without any atmosphere. You have the interior of the planet itself, which is described by a non-vanishing energy-momentum tensor field, and then the exterior vacuum, where the energy-momentum tensor field vanishes. There is a sharp boundary between these regions at a precisely localisable region of space, in terms of the distribution of energy-momentum (i.e. the planet’s surface). When looking for a global metric that spans the entire spacetime, one then has to explicitly impose a continuity condition at the point of this boundary. The result is a piecewise-defined energy-momentum field, but a spacetime and metric that is still everywhere smooth and differentiable, including at the boundary. An explicit example of this is the global Schwarzschild metric, which spans both the interior of the gravitating body as well as the exterior vacuum, with a sharp boundary, but a metric that is everywhere differentiable. In this situation, the interior metric smoothly transitions into the exterior one, without any discontinuities. To make a long story short, my “system” was referring to the distribution of energy-momentum in spacetime, which can indeed have boundaries. However, sometimes the boundary may not be easily localisable - for example, when you have a planet with an atmosphere. It comes down then to your required degree of accuracy.

Only 500 hundred years? Caeser came to Somerset over 2000 years ago, for just that purpose, and he wan't the first. We have had many more since.

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.

Hey all, It’s been too long since I showed my digital face around here! But I am stuck on a question and this seems the #1 place to get some quality feedback, so I dug up the password and logged in. All is well on my end, hope you’re all doing great too. Tl;dr Other than gravity itself, orbits of celestial bodies and the attraction of objects (i.e. people) to the celestial bodies, what else would be affected if you change the gravitational constant from 6.67*10E-11 to something a lot larger (say 6.67*10E-9)? Longer version In a fantasy universe, such as exists in the Kerbal Space Program universe, planets tend to be 10x smaller than in our real-life universe and solar system. The reason that the programmers did this is to make the gaming experience nicer: you can orbit a planet in just 30-40 min, rather than hours. In a pub discussion, we were discussing how the physics of this would work. The gravitational acceleration at the surface seems unaffected, and is still something around 9.81 m/s2. Since the planet is so tiny, you’d expect that the gravitational acceleration at the surface is much lower. But it isn’t. So either the planet is incredibly dense (maybe some fantasy-elements in the core?) or the actual gravitational constant (G = 6.67*10E-11 m3 kg-1 s-2) is different in this universe. Of course, in a fantasy universe, you can write whatever you want. Kerbal Space Program is just a game, and the programmers have total freedom. But if you’re expanding the game to include more models of physics phenomena, would you run into problems because the gravitational constant is different? The orbits of planets and my space ships are stable, so those would work with a different gravitational constant. But would there be any other phenomena in which the gravitational constant plays a role? p.s. Kerbals are one of the reasons for my inactivity here. Been rather occupied launching rockets. That, and life just got busy in general.

I have better news for you. Bonobo builds a fire and toasts marshmallow The problem with "constructions" is that they are typically made of material easy to process. Animals use wood, early humans also used wood. And nothing remained to our time. Beavers are building dam from wood. If they would extinct, prior human, nobody now would believe that they could build dams..

Because in civilization collapse it would be difficult to attain fuel. It's not easier but it might be all you have. What am I cherry picking? Do you realize that it's not uncommon to see people migrate for health benefits in today's world? As much as it might scare you but yes, some white people do migrate north because they are not adapted to the southern climates, and some black people do migrate south for the same reason. I'm saying this type of relocation will be more common without modern civilization.