Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 08/13/19 in all areas

  1. 2 points
  2. 1 point
    It is not a science. It is a branch of mathematics, and therefore a tool of science. It doesn't mean "making stuff up that makes sense to you." No.We have multiple theories that describe the same thing in different ways (for example, gravity is a force according to Newton, but the effect of geometry according to Einstein). Is one of these true and the other false? Or maybe they are both "true" in the send they both work as useful models. So you are using "logically" to mean "something that makes sense to you". That is not the meaning of logic. And there is no reason to think that space must be either finite or infinite. You can probably find the same number of people who insist it "must be finite" (because logic) as are certain that it "must be infinite" (also because logic). They can't both be right, and neither group are actually using logic, so we need some way of deciding. Science uses evidence. In this case, there is no strong evidence either way.
  3. 1 point
    I happen to have it on good authority that the Hokey Pokey is what it's all about...
  4. 1 point
  5. 1 point
    Excellent and convincing description. Thank you.
  6. 1 point
    How do you define a point in space? 1: If you try to define a point in space as XYZ and have no other object to compare against, how do you know if you are stationary or moving at a constant* speed relative to the point you just defined? 2: If you try to define a point in space as XYZ and have one other object to compare against, how do you know if you are moving or if the other object is moving or both are moving at a constant speed? You can define a point XYZ in your frame of reference, or someone else's frame of reference, but not a point XYS in space. Space (spacetime) is not absolute. If you see any object moving in space from x1y1z1 to x2y2z2 it is between two points relative to you, not between two points in space. *) Note that I say constant speed. Acceleration can be measured.
  7. 1 point
    ! Moderator Note I don't see any science here. No model, no evidence, no potentially falsifiable predictions. IOW, this does not meet the requirements for discussion.
  8. 1 point
    Any of the above! It could be either a completely new theory that "replaces" GR, or it could be a realisation that a particular small tweak is needed, or it could be the discovery of completely new particles, forces, or something not yet thought of.
  9. 1 point
    ! Moderator Note You have had a thread on this topic. Do not open another one.
  10. 1 point
    Not "should", you must take it into account or you'll get a completely wrong answer and very wrong intuition of it. They'd see it moving at about 99.97% c, assuming they're moving in the same relative direction. If you want to talk about "close approximation to c" usually you would talk about "approaching c" and use mathematical limits for equations where v=c fails. "Approximately c" can be misleading, because that is completely different from "exactly c". For example if something is moving inertially at .9999c relative to you, it still has a reference frame where it is stationary, and it does not see itself moving at some high fraction of c, but rather sees light behaving no differently than you do. In the above example, if an object is moving at .9997 c, ie. "very close to c", and another object accelerates another .5c away from both you and the object, that other object is now traveling about .9999c away from you. In that sense, yes an object that is moving with speed very close to c varies in speed less than it does in frames of reference in which it is slower. But that's not what invariant means, and since an object traveling at .9999c is traveling at 0c in another reference frame, it is not at all invariant. Maybe you could say something like "As v approaches c, v approaches being invariant among frames that are all moving at non-relativistic speeds relative to each other", but then you should see how unhelpful such a thing is to understanding relativity, because you avoid relativity here by avoiding relativistic observers.
  11. 1 point
    Yes, one can register as independent It basically means that person simply cannot participate in either party’s primary.
  12. 1 point
    My answer would be, to utilise the ability of response. Response-ability, to alter the environment to better favour life, beginning with the subjective individual and their own part in that process.
  13. 1 point
    There is another related paper that our local region may be an underdensity region which would account for some of the discrepancies https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.12402.pdf
  14. 1 point
    ! Moderator Note Considering that no attempt at science was made, the thread is closed.
  15. 1 point
    This is something strategies have to work out, but of course the structural elements also play a role. E.g. while the base has always been clearly voting based on party affiliation, key is mobilizing. But there are the primaries, which are a weird US thing, which generally mean that during that time candidates traditionally shift more to the left/right in order to win it, as registered Reps/Dems, especially those showing up to those primaries want to be pandered to. Afterward, the candidates generally pivot to the middle, or quite frequently, somewhere around centre right, IIRC. Now if we ignore primaries and look at the graphs there are a couple of interesting points. If only looking at the total electorate (ignoring party affiliation and ignoring who is more likely to show up to vote) it would make a lot sense for Dems to go very far left on economics and slightly less so on pro-immigration policies. For Reps it would make sense to heavily go for anti-immigration but be less so on the economical axis. The risk of straddling the middle is losing the bulk on either the further right/left (which, may just decide not to show up to vote). There is also more information in the article that one could look at. for example, what is the profile of undecided voters? Those appear to be fairly liberal on immigration, but conservative on economics. That is slightly surprising, considering how polarizing immigration seems to be, but that also seem to coincide with voters who tend to have higher degrees and higher incomes. But what is missing from the article is weighing the axes. For example, it is not clear (unless I missed it) whether the two parameters are equally predictive of voting behaviour or whether one or the other is considered more important. For example, it is possible that for those highly conservative in immigration, it may be the pivotal issue (as they e.g. see a cultural threat from immigration), whereas those liberal might see it as important, but perhaps not as important as a tax cut. The most important point, however, is that the article does show that the commonly used talking point about the appealing to the middle may not be a no-brainer after all.
  16. 1 point
    One thing you learn is often mere logic can lead you down the wrong garden path to incorrect answers...
  17. 1 point
    "massless" means "having no rest-mass" "mass" means "having rest-mass". Such shortcuts widely used now. In Standard Model photon has no rest-mass i.e. has no valid reference frame in which it is at rest.
  18. 1 point
  19. 1 point
    Don't forget, all theories are limited to domains of applicability. I could be wrong but I can't think of any exceptions.That might be worth getting across to your students: that every theory has limits to where it can be applied.
  20. 1 point
    I'm not sure I understand why our current lack of understanding about the exact method of abiogenesis that resulted in us implies there is "something more". There are lots of things we don't yet know. Do all of them infer there is 'something more', or only this particular mystery? If we do figure out exactly how abiogenesis happened on earth, does that prove there is NOT 'something more'?
  21. -1 points
    Is this an argument against something I said or are you just being a jerk?
  22. -1 points
  23. -1 points
    The event horizon's trans-dimensional manifestation, otherwise known as the great attractor, is a singularity, as it has the entire mass of the previous universe condensed into a single point in our space. By previous universe, I mean where it exists as an event horizon. In that universe, everything is accelerating towards that event horizon. (just the opposite of ours) It should be fairly easy to figure out the terminal diameter of this universe. Where the mass will be traveling at the speed of light due to the observed acceleration, or the point of infinite redshift. At that point, you find yourself accelerating towards the black hole that we are in. 11 dimensions looking forward and back but really only 7. Four are only apparent in the math, with the fourth being time running backwards, which it doesn't. The beginning progresses to the end, which becomes a new beginning. In all time, all possibilities will have been expressed. And that, my friends, is God at his finest. Actually, for me, you can make that god. But hey, it is up to you. Who is to say there are no dimensions outside this loop. Or even something Divine. If you claim to know... The other dimensions, for lack of a better description, are length prime, width prime, and height prime. They can exist within a point in the non-prime universe and also the converse.
  24. -1 points
    The best I can tell you is to take conventional relativity into the black hole with you. Where does the gravity well go when you hit bottom? (gravitational collapse) You can't answer that with your math because you do not grasp what happens inside the black hole. You are forgetting completely about time when you say it becomes a singularity. At the point where the singularity exists, time would stop. Therefore, you could never get to that point. Space would be created around it faster than you could ever approach it. As time slowed, the distance would become greater and greater. Such is the nature of spacetime. How would this appear to an observer. "Infinite"space in the middle and very limited space towards the outside. The outside OBVIOUSLY looks like the middle now. and the middle, the outside. Space reverses and new dimensions are required. If you don't get it now, I give up. At some point, the creation of space by the slowing of time overcomes the the contraction and no singularity is produced.
  25. -1 points
    As I said, I give up, at least on you. The concept I describe should be simple for anyone who has visualized the effects of "gravity", which is nothing but a distortion of time and space. And I know time is neglected because the word singularity exists. I have been thinking about this for over 50 years.
  26. -1 points
    Can you “describe” how the eyes are prerequisite for self awareness? Or a nervous system? On the other hand, what would drive a potato to survive if it doesn’t have “self”, as a motive for that? Is your definition of self awareness of a living being “the one I can communicate with”? Or the one that “behaves according to my idea of self awareness”? None of that is very objective. Baldrick came up with more intelligent definition, when he defined a cat as a “not a dog”, that was certainly more intelligent than your har argument, so I hope you will not present any new, because I doubt it will be any better.
  27. -2 points
    Actual plot of a multi-dimensional equation? How exactly do you plot multi-dimensionally? Yeah, I thought so! There is an inherent problem with a multi-dimensional visualization, you can't draw a picture of it. You don't "see" it like a picture. What happens to your graph when the event horizon is reached? Your inability to visualize is keeping you from "seeing" what I am talking about. I don't think I'll share the math because you humans would just make a doomsday weapon out of it. Not that I am not human, I'm just not motivated by the same things YOU humans are. I suppose I should start another topic but the gravitational waves compress space and lengthen time, for a net zero measurable event. What you might measure is the magnetic pulse generated. That is more than likely what you did. Honestly! Must you be able to actually see something for it to exist.