Leaderboard

How are you defining bad tools versus bad actors? In my opinion, a bad actor is something with an agenda that's actively trying to further it.. A bad tool is just something that's broken universally for everyone, agenda or not. MSNBC isn't broken for everyone. Just certain people. That's the issue. It has an agenda it's pushing. Therefore, it's a bad actor. Same with Russian meddling. It had an agenda it's pushing. Therefore, it's a bad actor. Same with the other stuff you mentioned except for the electoral college. The electoral college is a bad tool, because it's not actively doing things to further it's agenda. It's just broken.

Either way, it sounds like Arnold's money troubles have vanished. I'm happy it turned out so well for him, and wish him all the best.

Water is good example of intermolecular forces. Is has mass just ~18.016 u, when air gases Oxygen has mass ~ 32 u (~80% more), and Nitrogen has mass ~28 u (~50% more). Why isn't water gas like Oxygen and Nitrogen? Because it is polar molecule i.e. it has not uniformly placed electrons, and one water molecule bonds with other water molecules around it (forming weak Hydrogen-bonds). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_bond#Water Yet another related subject is hydrophilic and hydrophobic properties of molecules. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrophile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrophobe (typically polar and nonpolar molecules)

Not necessarily. Nitrogen can be a liquid, and so can Copper. It depends on temperature and pressure. So what you are really asking, is why they have different boiling and melting points. Can't help you on that. Something to do with the intermolecular forces.

Because this video is the best form of presentation of this paradox. Thank you for replying to my question (Which was actually for the moderators rather than you). What I am not sure of is what youare asking of us. Originally you asked But then your subsequent posts have been defending the video. So is the situation that you do not understand Special Relativity and want to learn how it works ? Or are you saying you understand SR and are promoting the video as correct? Note - the video author clearly doesn't and got his analysis wrong look for instance at this attachment. Can you explain why the velocity in the lower picture is not minus 2x (-2x) ? It is really important to strip away tha excessive circus and pantomime in the way that video is presented. So no, I cannot agree that it is the best form of presentation. Furthermore in your own postings here you have made the mistake of tryign to introduce an absolute frame of reference in saying, for instance Distance as measured by whom? The measurement of distance brings in another issue, that of simultaneity. How do you ensure that the zero on your ruler is at A at the same time you are reading the distance at B? And what do you mean by this in a world with no absolutes? This, actually is the prime question the Einstein goes to so much trouble to overcome. All the suprising effects flow from that.

! Moderator Note Stop posting random nonsense

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations

It's not my "opinion" it is what SR concludes when applied in its entirety. Again, the greater the starting distance, the greater the rate each station concludes the other station clock runs while the station is under acceleration. If they start light hrs apart, and you spend 1 sec accelerating up to speed, then you will conclude that the other station's clock advanced hrs in that sec. Start them millions of ly apart, and during that same sec of acceleration you will conclude that the other station clock advanced by millions of years. That's simply how the proper application of the math of SR works. No matter how far apart they start, as long as both stations undergo the same proper acceleration for the same period of time, when they meet up , their clocks will read the same according to everyone. There is just no way to get SR to disagree with itself.

The rate at which either station during acceleration would determine that the other station was running fast depends on the magnitude of the acceleration and the distance between the stations. A brief acceleration and a long time of traveling at fixed speed before meeting, means that a station, while under acceleration, had to have a high magnitude of acceleration while very far away from the other station. This combines to cause a much faster tick rate for the other station clock. Since the distance between the clocks during accleration is a factor, increasing the coasting distance by a factor of ten also increases the rate at which you would determine it as ticking by the same factor even if you don't increase the period of acceleration. You still end up with with the observers on each ship agreeing what their clocks read when they meet.

Arnold - Most people here are kind and wish you well, but also none of us (not one) think you’re telepathic. Maybe confused, maybe deluded, maybe just trolling, but not telepathic.

Despite the author's claim to the contrary, the acceleration of the two stations is an important factor t the solution. They try to dismiss it by claiming that everything has had some acceleration in the past. This would have been a valid argument if they they had limited their thought experiment to a period after all acceleration had been performed. But they didn't. They accelerated both stations after the stations had synced their clocks. This means that during the period during which station accelerated, they were making their determination of what was happening to the other's station's clock based on measurements made from a non-inertial accelerated frame. What this means is that for at least some of that period, they would actually conclude that the other station's clock ran fast. not slow and will have gained time during this period. Once a station stops accelerating, it will return to being an inertial frame and will measure the other clock as running slow. By the time they meet, the combination of running fast for a period and running slow for a period will result in the clocks reading the same. Of course, if you tried to point this out to the author of this video, they would just call you a "liar".

So in your view, from the viewpoint of observer A, the clock at station B was running faster during acceleration, and from the viewpoint of observer B, the clock at station A was running faster during acceleration. And when the stations flew at a constant speed, then from the viewpoint of observer A, the clock at station B was running slower, and from the viewpoint of observer B, the clock at station A was running slower. As a result everything equalized. So when the stations merged, the clocks showed the same time. Is that so? But the stations accelerated very briefly (during acceleration they traveled a distance equal to the distance separating Earth from the Moon), and they flew at a constant speed for a very long time (they traveled a distance equal to the distance separating the Sun from the nearest star). So since from the viewpoint of observer A, clock B was running faster very briefly and was running slower for a very long time, and from viewpoint of observer B, clock A was running faster very briefly and was running slower for a very long time, then how after the stations merged, the clocks can show the same time? And what would the clocks show if the stations accelerated the same and were flying at a constant speed 10 times further? But they didn't disagree on simultaneity earlier. That's the point. Instead of talking relativistic rubbish, try to solve this paradox. This is not about the general. It's about the Kaziuk paradox.

For 1000 years Ptolemy's geocentric model was such a well-established theory. So instead of talking relativistic rubbish, try to solve the Kaziuk paradox.

Why isn't -2X in this drawing? Because these are two separate drawings, which were separately in the video earlier, and for preview purposes they were combined into one. These two drawings combined into one are an illustration of the fact that, according to special theory of relativity, from the point of view of observer A station A is at rest and from the point of view of observer B station B is at rest. But apparently this simple obviousness is too complicated for you. The distances I gave are only meaningless representations of concepts 'far' and 'near'. But apparently this simple obviousness is too complicated for you. And now I will tell you why I made this entry here. Because I want this video to have as many views as possible. And it doesn't matter what idiots, that can't understand the obvious, are clicking on the video link. Let's say this is the case: Station A and station B accelerated in the same way to half the speed of light. Then the observers turn off the engines. Now, from the viewpoint of observer A, clock B shows later time than the clock A, and from the viewpoint of observer B, the clock A shows later time. [It's what you claim.] When stations are flying at constant speed, from the viewpoint of observer A, the clock B is running slower, and from the point of view of the observer B, the clock A is running slower. [It's what special theory of relativity says.] So, according to you, after covering some distance at constant speed by both stations, both clocks will show the same time. Because the relative increase of clocks' running speed would be offset by their relative delay. Now is the second case: In the second case everything is the same, exept that the stations covered at constant speed the distance 1000 times bigger. So in this case, relative time dilation was occuring 1000 times longer than in the first case, but the relative increase in clocks' running speed was the same as in the first case. In other words, in the second case the relative time dilation was 1000 times greater than relative gain of time. So even for Beatrice is obvoius that if in the first case the clocks showed the same time, in the second case they couldn't show the same time. But you claim that in every case both clocks would show the same time. When I told it to my she-goat, she almost died of laughter. Let's say this is the case: Station A and station B accelerated in the same way to half the speed of light. Then the observers turn off the engines. Now, from the viewpoint of observer A, clock B shows later time than the clock A, and from the viewpoint of observer B, the clock A shows later time. [It's what you claim.] When stations are flying at constant speed, from the viewpoint of observer A, the clock B is running slower, and from the point of view of the observer B, the clock A is running slower. [It's what special theory of relativity says.] So, according to you, after covering some distance at constant speed by both stations, both clocks will show the same time. Because the relative increase of clocks' running speed would be offset by their relative delay. Now is the second case: In the second case everything is the same, exept that the stations covered at constant speed the distance 1000 times bigger. So in this case, relative time dilation was occuring 1000 times longer than in the first case, but the relative increase in clocks' running speed was the same as in the first case. In other words, in the second case the relative time dilation was 1000 times greater than relative gain of time. So even for Beatrice is obvoius that if in the first case the clocks showed the same time, in the second case they couldn't show the same time. But you claim that in every case both clocks would show the same time. When I told it to my she-goat, she almost died of laughter.