Leaderboard

This reminds me of a quote by Robert Heinlein: “Expertise in one field does not carry over into other fields. But experts often think so. The narrower their field of knowledge the more likely they are to think so.” van Flandern got his degree in Astronomy, specializing in celestial mechanics. Yet he thought this expertise carried over to understanding the nature of gravity itself.

ZENO: The chicken couldn't have crossed the road. It would have first had to cross halfway, then halfway the remaining distance...

Maybe we should add some unsourced ones and have a guess who? "Here is a helpful animation displaying the relativistic effects when a chicken crosses the road, as seen from a stationary observer." "The chicken crossed the road in 18.3400000000021 seconds, measured in the chickens frame of reference." "No model. No math. You have no theory. Your idea how the chicken crossed the road have been debunked over and over. Thread closed!" "A charged chicken crosses the road at an angle of 90 degrees, in what direction will there be a magnetic field?"

NI an Ireland are no longer in the same Customs Union. If there is to be no free trade agreement, then past the transition period checks on goods will need to begin. It will be seen as the UK giving the EU preferential treatment otherwise. https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact2_e.htm Once the transition period ends, over a hundred countries are about to become involved here.

Adding to that: A ruler doesn't measure "accumulated" distance, but an odometer does. While a twin makes a round-trip at constant speed, if its clock records half the time Earth's does, it will measure that it traveled half the distance Earth measured it traveling. Its odometer retains the accumulated effects of length contraction. (The trip's clock and odometer dicrepancy ratios would generally differ is the speed wasn't constant.)

! Moderator Note After some staff discussion, we have decided that this thread is now the only place where michel123456 may discuss topics related to time and relativity. As such it has been split from the parent thread and placed in speculations.

! Moderator Note Actually it was Charles 3781, and that particular hijack was split https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/123114-split-from-time-dilation-dependence-on-direction/

First rule of physics: leave intuition at home.

I can't even guess how many times you have asked that question and how many times it has been answered. But I think I get it now. Your ultimate 'truth' is your intuition and what you see with your eyes. If an answer conflicts with your intuition, then it must be wrong. You keep asking the same questions over and over because you are waiting for an answer that agrees with your intuition. Sorry to say that you will never get that answer because your intuition is wrong. Everyones intuition is wrong, at low speeds it does appear that velocities can be added by straight addition, but that is quite simply not true. I'm afraid you're destined to continue to ask the exact same questions that you have been asking for the last 20 years. What a waste of time and effort.

I don't know about the GFA nearly enough to comment. My point is only that US diplomats can reasonably claim to have a stake in process. In a similar vein i believe the UK has a moral obligation to stand up for Hong Kong citizens against Chinese measures. China can rightly claim we are interfering in their politics - i don't see that is necessarily a bad thing. I agree with Studiot on this one. The Remain campaign should have opened with various Churchill quotes favouring European integration, even coining the term United States of Europe, and ended with an excerpt from one of England's great poets, John Donne: No man is an island, Entire of itself. Each is a piece of the continent, A part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less.

As far as I can tell that is not allowed in a DFA*. Each state needs to have one and only one transition for each input. Q2 has no output state for "a" and two output states for "b". *) Formal definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterministic_finite_automaton#Formal_definition

How? What arrow in the picture allow that transition? And if q2 gets a ”b” how do you select the next state?

Well, yes, I am aware of the Anchor butter brand. It is made in Wiltshire. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2569867/Anchor-New-Zealand-butter-Wiltshire-Brand-owner-breaks-tradition-120-years-moving-production-UK.html The rest of your post seeme equally devoid of evidence or rationality. Plainly, no. I was involved as a UK representative, ensuring that the science was good. You understand what a veto is, BTW? Fuses are meant to fail- that's their job. And "a fuse must have gone" ia a staple of detective stories far older than the EU standard. No, but thanks for clarifying how much attention you are paying to the facts. So, it's the "availability "cognitive bias that's at work here. Always good to know. No. If it was then this wouldn't be 15 pages. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/869232/marketing-standard-apples.pdf You do realise that, if the UK farmers want to sell apples in the rest of the EU, they will still have to meet the EU's criteria? But they will no longer have any influence over them. As I said, I don't see that as taking back control. I see it as recklessly abandoning a right to veto bad EU decisions that might harm the UK's interests. One side only had lies, but they had better funding. And you are still rehashing those lies; in the face of reasoning. And the wheels have come off the lies. The majority now recognise that it was a mistake. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_the_United_Kingdom's_membership_of_the_European_Union_(2016–2020) But Boris won the election on the back of it and isn't he doing a grand job (worst death toll in Europe in spite of being an island. It's almost as if he forgot that we "took back control of the borders"). You do realise that discussion forar are social media, don't you? They don't need to be common; they could be as rare as this one.

Studiot: You may be interested in this: https://www.amazon.com/Chicken-Book-Page-Smith/dp/082032213X Got it. LOL

Swansont: Did the chicken cross the road? Any references?

Paul Dirac: The chicken operates the quantum lab from home. Non commuting operators do not need to cross the road.

The state q2 Can’t handle an ”a”, is that intended ? What is supposed to happen of you are in state q2 and receive an ”a”? Same question applies to q3 and ”b”.

Everett: Which chicken and which road are you talking about, guys? Brilliant!

It's only important if you want to be consistent with what we actually measure of reality. It's a combination of the definition of speed being relative, and that measured speeds are consistent with that. If you have A moving at 0.8c relative to B, does it make sense that B is moving at a different speed relative to A? If you wanted that, you could define speed differently (eg. define speed to be absolute, and please call it something else), but you would end up with a system of measurements that is either inconsistent with measurement, or more cumbersome than what we have. I think it's a 3rd option: I think you're determined not to accept relativity and so you're determined not to understand it. I think we could find out with a quiz! Do you think that a) you will accept relativity and understand it together, or b) you will eventually understand it, and then accept it after, or c) if you accept that it's correct first, that will make it easier to understand, or d) you will never accept it and it's more likely that you'll find a flaw in it before anyone convinces you that it's true. Or e) other: ______ ?

These are not palindromes but still useless but interesting 122 = 144 reverse the digits 212 = 441 and 132 = 169 reverse the digits 312 = 961

Apologies if it came across like that, that was not my intention. I do of course realise that not everyone has religious or spiritual aspirations, or feels any need for those; also, for any given person these inclinations can change over time as life happens. All of this is perfectly fine; religion is not necessarily required to gain an understanding of the human condition. I think what I was attempting to say was that for many people religion/spirituality can be a very helpful tool. But of course (just like anything else) it can also become a trap and a source of enormous suffering, if it is related to wrongly. I personally think this is too simplistic a way to look at it. Of course, most people will relate to their religion in just this way - they attach themselves to their respective outer forms, teachings, rites and rituals, and leave it at this. That’s indeed a “lazy” way of engagement, and requires little else but blind faith. The problem with this is of course that it is not actually transformative, in the sense that rarely does it provide any answers and insights that go deeper than surface level. This is the archetype of your Sunday church goer who shows up for mass, and then goes back to his normal life unchanged and with their same vices, habits, and sufferings. If one seeks real answers to real existential questions, then a far deeper commitment is required; this is why Christian mystics went into the deserts to seek insight, why Buddhist hermits spend decades meditating alone in the forests etc etc. You get the idea. Religion is like a vehicle that can potentially get you to a place of deeper understanding...but that requires deep commitment and lots of effort. You get out exactly what you put in, and that is really not unlike what happens with science. It’s just that the questions that are being asked are different ones.