Leaderboard

Back to the OP... Does anyone think J Biden's vote percentage, more than twice B sander's, is the result of Democrats being afraid that B Sanders actually might take the nomination ? Or is this simply a fluke ( throw old Joe a bone ) ? E Warren seems to be relegated to 'runner up' status. I hope this doesn't give M Bloomberg the opportunity to come up the middle. One Billionaire has done enough damage to the Presidency; don't relish the thought of another.

Mr Cockroach has a chance... 😉

Haha, no not yet. When I run I'll pledge to fight for meaningful actions to reduce gun deaths, guarantee working wages, stop letting the few get rich on the backs of the many, ensure government sponsored health coverage for all, stop treating everyone who needs assistance like they are lazy, take fiscal responsibility seriously, treat people fairly, hire back everyone who has quit the State and Justice departments, and issue a global apology to everyone who was offended by recent dick behavior in the White House. In other words I expect to be unelectable, or if elected, to be stonewalled at every turn.

Reaction looks like Cl2 + H2O -> HCl + HOCl

Thinking about definitions: There are actually no lines or demarcations between things but we mentally construct them for purposes of communicating and specificity; definitions are, ultimately, purely arbitrary and consensual ideas for our discussive convenience.

(1) no, but he suggested something very close, namely "Would a better explanation for the novice be to say things fall because they are seeking out the place where time runs the slowest?". That's the wrong sign, but the idea is a quite reasonable one, so I tell him that this can, indeed, be done, the equations for the test particle can be derived from such a maximum principle. (2) \(g_{\mu\nu}\) is the gravitational field, and \(\dot{\gamma}\) is the velocity of the clock. (3) Incorrect question. Explanation always requires a base, some more fundamental things which do not require further explanation. Some more fundamental theory which explains GR would be speculation, thus, forbidden here. (BTW, relativity also does not explain why time runs at a different rate.)

Or from other metric theories of gravity. I have had enough negative experience showing me that relying on rules in forums gives nothing. Last but not least, rules are necessarily vague, and have to be interpreted, and if an admin interprets them differently than I do, I'm the loser. But, ok, in future I will write, instead of "forbidden here" something like "I'm afraid it may be forbidden here". In Newtonian physics time runs at a constant rate, in quantum theory there is not even a time measurement operator, and the time parameter is absolute, so based on Newtonian physics I cannot explain it. Relativity you have excluded explicitly. I don't know any more fundamental theory than GR which is not speculation, and even if you would accept string theory or LQG as such theories, I would certainly not use them, given my own opinion about their scientific value. The "speculation" which I would agree to use would be based on my own pet theory. So, your request remains problematic. But, ok, one thing I can try. I take the SM of particle physics. I ignore relativity, as required. The SM consists of field equations, they make sense without relativity too. Last but not least, the Maxwell equations have made sense long before 1905 too. Then, I know that if you have a wave equation, you can construct for each solution also a Doppler-shifted solution. This construction uses simply the Lorentz transformation with the speed of that particular wave equation. It works for sound waves too, if you use the speed of sound in the Lorentz transformation, it gives you the Doppler-shifted sound waves. So, I can use Lorentz transformations without invoking relativity simply because I have some wave equations. Now, take a solution of the SM which describes a material clock at rest which measures 1 second. All the SM equations are wave equations with the same c, so this trick can be applied to construct a Doppler-shifted solution. This gives a solution for a material clock of the same construction moving with some velocity and measuring the same 1 second. Looking now what is measured in terms of absolute time, one can easily see that it is a different amount of absolute time which is measured by the two clocks as 1 second. Really. In the Lorentz ether interpretation of special relativity time is absolute, only clock time is relative. It is the Minkowski spacetime interpretation where time itself becomes relative. The thing named proper time (badly translated "Eigenzeit") is relative in both interpretations, but this is only clock time, apparent time, not absolute time. "Time is what the clock shows" is already interpretation, not physics.

I am not talking with idiots. I do not answer stupid questions.

Come on, people, stop polluting the planet's mental space once with a general theory of relativity! Interestingly, whenever anyone is asked publicly for opinions on drug addiction, homosexuality, pedophilia, or theory of relativity, everyone immediately knows everything about it, as if they were all addicts and gays and pedophiles and theoretical physicists. I know almost nothing about this because I am neither a drug addict nor a homosexual, nor a pedophile, nor a professor of physics. I first encountered the theory of relativity in high school and then I read about it and here I will explain how I understood it: Digging through the theoretical physics of his time, Einstein dug up "Lorentz transformations" and built "Special Theory of Relativity" on them. It turned out that this theory "holds the water", so in the rapture of success and based on his "happiest thought in life" that there is no gravity at all, he also launched the "General Theory of Relativity", which was embraced by the "popularizers of science" and who from theory made their "business". And as is usually the case, the inventor was often unaware of what he had actually found. In 1927, the famous physicist and philosopher Heisenberg, introduced to the world his "Theory of Uncertainty" as a natural law, claiming that we cannot simultaneously accurately measure the position and velocity of a particle, because it is a dynamic and statistical problem and because our methods of measurement are such that they simultaneously disturb the position and velocity of the measured particle. This ingenious and crystal clear idea was immediately accepted by most physicists, but not by Albert Einstein, because he could not accept the idea that something "could not" be done. Therefore, Einstein "pushed with all four" to disprove this theory, without even being aware that as early as 1915, with his "Special Theory of Relativity", he actually confirmed and supplemented the same theory, adding: that apart from being unable to accurately determine the position and velocity of a particle, likewise, when we are forced to do so (and always are!), we measure "with an error" equal to (1- (v/c)2)0.5 , depending on the relative velocity (v) of the inertial system in which we are measuring - AND THAT'S ALL! It would be foolish and unscientific to say that in an inertial system, depending on its velocity, units of mass, length and time change, and that objects, space and time deform depending on the direction and speed of the system. Soon, Einstein himself realized this, as well as the fact that his "General Theory of Relativity" was "nonsense squared" because it violated almost every law of physics. But why deny what is selling very well? Well, man has to live - from something! So every honor and glory to Mr. Einstein but save us God from all the "popularisers of science" and physics professors who don't know physics!