Leaderboard

That's what I've always told myself.

Yup... absolutely... 😉 Do you guys even know what the measurement problem, as it relates to physics, is ? It relates to wave function collapse … https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem What exactly does that have to do with relativistic length contraction ? Stop babbling incoherent, and off topic nonsense.

It's meters or lightseconds or any distance units, squared. The use of distance units is apparently a convention, see https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/519707/is-the-unit-for-spacetime-intervals-time-or-space-distance Yes, for a time-like interval, the time component will be greater than the spatial. For time-like (or light-like for that matter) intervals, the ratio of r/t is the constant speed of a particle that moves between the two events. ct/r would be the ratio of the distance that light travels between the two events (along any path that gets it there, like your 200 lightsecond example) to the straight-line spatial distance between the two events, in the given frame. This ratio is frame-dependent, and undefined in frames where r=0. (ct)^2/r^2... I'm not sure of any meaning to that. As squares, the equation of the interval s^2 (a constant) =(ct)^2-r^2 is that of a hyperbola, and relates to the pythagorean theorem.

Does your answer imply that you are not prepared to move back to basics and try again? So the simplest thing you could imagine is that all of Newton, Lagranage, Hamilton, Einstein, and down to the core of knowledge is wrong*. Your definition of "simple" seems to deviate from my definition. Thats cool, we knew that your claims were incorrect according to known laws of physics from your very first post. Question was if you wanted to stay wrong or eventually learn more physics. Me and @swansont will reach the same conclusion regarding inertial vs rotational frame of reference as long as we are able to make identical interpretations of your instructions. It can't be any other way since we use the same physical rules, principles and laws. I guess performing such an analysis will have to wait till such a time when your level of understanding matches the required explanations. Have you seen any support for your Newton circumvention here during the discussions here? Also not that this is just about some minor details of one specific example. The big picture regarding all possible examples and designs of this type was analysed and presented to you long ago. *) (Thats what you are implying to someone who know some physics)

You are very kind, but keep in mind that self deprecation is the hallmark of both the humble and of the elitist egotist.

Religion is a text from history, it always makes sense and is completely rational, "at the time of writing" (disclaimer). Just because we don't understand the original, doesn't make it irrational I can't even understand my son, when he's in full grunge mode... 🤪

That was the graph that clearly shows temperature increasing over the last ~140 years. So no, your point doesn't stand. The animation shows that looking at only a few locations wouldn't give us an accurate read on what is happening, since there are fluctuations (i.e. weather happens) Water and land each have some specific heat capacity, so their temperature will rise or fall if the absorb or release energy. Q = mc∆T If I measure in enough places to be representative of the whole, I can sum up the Q for all those areas and figure out if heat was absorbed or emitted overall. The worldwide average ∆T is representative of that value, which (as Area54 pointed out) is easier for non-experts to grasp. Saying the global average increased by 1ºC is saying we absorbed enough energy for the whole surface to increase by 1º even though some areas saw a larger increase and some saw a smaller increase, or possibly a decrease, because this is not a system in steady-state

I would suggest the way the question is phrased misses a trick from our own historical experience. You suggest one language, and each language on Earth is unique because it doesn't need to be otherwise. Yet it is known both from deciphering codes and the experience with the Rosetta Stone that having more than one different representation of the sme thing in the single most useful thing to have. Consequently our communication attempt should contain not one, but many, 'languages' for comparison. Edit cross posted this this. +1

@MarkusHanke @zapatos I think there for that we should train ourselves by attempting to learn the languages of the creatures on the Earth first. Then ,to be more sure that the message is understood as a message we might send 2 versions of the message;the first just a plain object without a message and the second the same object but with the message encoded

Thermodynamics is the study of equilibrium. The Earth is not a system in equilibrium. Climate science most emphatically is not sheer thermodynamics. Thermodynamics, e.g., does not allow you to calculate anything statistical, like, e.g., fluctuations. Statistical mechanics does. In (most) statistical mechanical systems, you can see that the temperature is the average kinetic energy per degree of freedom. These degrees of freedom are coded in what I called specific heat. Because systems are ultimately Hamiltonian, they satisfy an interesting mathematical property: The phase-space points can mix all they want (and in chaotic systems they do, which makes averages more robust, not less), but they do not contract in volume, meaning that microscopic systems spread their dynamical information very efficiently. IOW, there is no chance that a small region of phase space can store big quantities of energy making local averages non-robust, as you are suggesting. As to local cooling: If the first statistical moment of the distribution is shifting, an increase in the second moment is exactly what I would expect before the system reaches the next closer-to-stationary stage. If the variance goes up, some places would overheat and others would "overcool." Nothing unexpected there, because the system is "trying to equilibrate." So temperature measurements are significant. But they're not the whole story, as has been pointed out to you over and over. The sea is nearly a perfect absorber of radiation and the ice caps are nearly a perfect reflector (albedos.) There is the question of sea currents too. The ice caps should be building up by now because we are well within a Milankovitch cycle. They're not: It's just the opposite. This will interrupt the circulating flow in the seas. None of these important details seem to have caught your attention, which would have amounted to an interesting conversation. All you're interested in is to not let go of your strawman (the average temperature parameter) and punch its face repeatedly. The average temperature, being significant, is the catchphrase you've chosen to attack. It's your voodoo doll against climate science. Your point does not stand, it's a blurry blob. Your strawman does.

Understanding frame of reference is relevant if one wish to draw correct conclusions. I think the two illustrations* below may help describe a rotating frame of reference. Left frame: We analyse the rotation from a non rotating frame of reference ("PC screen" in your comment) and place an x-y coordinate system on the screen. We see that the ball describes a curved path, a half circle, in that x-y coordinate system*. The ball is accelerating all the time. Right frame. We place a coordinate system on the rotating circle, for instance painted on the circle's surface. We also choose to place ourselves on the circle and rotate with it. In this coordinate system the ball is stationary, it does not move. The ball has the same coordinates all the time* Source https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Spinframe.gif Are you following so far? Once you get the difference between the two frames of reference and their coordinate system we may introduce real and fictitious forces and from there move on to: I think we should: -Understand the frame of reference (started above) -Do the math in rotating frame and inertial frame for your example (a) and (b) -Compare the outcome and discuss Agree? *) (We can neglect the fact that the ball is thrown away at the end of the animation and use the part where ball is attached to string. I had no time to edit the animation)

An insightful math wizard with a clarity of thought and economy of language who used to regularly post here. @ajb also had one of the coolest doctors as his avatar

You could consider the plaques added to the Pioneer spacecraft, both destined for interstellar space, where they might get intercepted by aliens. They are described in the Wikipedia article. The logic used for them seems a good starting point. In a sense the object is not to develop a language as such, but rather to find the most convenient way of conveying information. Of course, we need to account for the possibility that the aliens we hope to "talk" to are deaf, or blind, and communicate via odours, or body movement, or . . . .

due to several months of insomnia, I saw this the other night. Seems to fit right in here. ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’ ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master—that’s all.’ source:

So many words, so little meaning.

What in God's name are you prattling on about?

I think you may be dismissing "creative supply for demand inventions". These are for much more than "kids toys". I suspect you were not around to see or use the mobile telepphone of the early 1990s. They weighed in at about a kilogram, were affectionately called bricks, and had batteries that barely lasted an hour of use. What could you do with them? You could make and receive telephone calls. That was it. Now how many inventions do you think it took to produce today's iphone or android? It's hundreds, if not thousands. Devlopments in chip manufacture, in batteries, in software, in memory storage, in touch screens, aerials and more besides. Each one of those simply creative supply for demand. Don't expect to invent something as remarkable as an iphone, but don't rule out the possibility you could invent one of the steps to the next great invention.

Could be a broken bot

What is a thorough atheist job going on? Your argument in the OP? My response? The response of other members? The behaviour of society at large? If you were aiming for obscure you hit the target dead centre. What on Earth (or in heaven!) is that supposed to mean? What is about a flat Earth, etc. Once again you have offered up an ungrammatical sentence that ofuscates your meaning. (And I'm not talking about the missing apostrophe on "Its". That's a common typo that introduces no ambiguity.) Many cultures on Earth developed the institution of lifeling marriage, a natural outgrowth of our evolutionary trajectory that required extended ages for childrearing. Burial at death was practised in the palaeolithic, so you are out of whack there too. Then an again we have your incoherent " you're short on time of questioning it?" which likely means something important to you. It just wasn't important enough for you to take care in converting your thought to writing. The more I dwell on your post you sound like a manic woo artist. I hope I am mistaken, for I suspect there may be somthing of interest and even value buried in your rambling. Unfortunately it is deeply buried and unless you can bring it to the surface it will shortly be dead.

After acceleration, you have even worse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerk_(physics)

Let me know if you find any "rational foundations of Religion".

Doesn't the constitution, constitute a religion? All praise the gun... In a few hundred year's, that will be really funny...

! Moderator Note This is not a discussion or even an invitation to discussion. It is a long rambling post with seemingly little purpose than to connect mysticism, a dash of history to... the US? It is like six degrees of Kevin Bacon with an Adderall overdose. Kindly explain what you try to discuss here. Ideally using a much shorter post for starters.

gigawatts a year is not a proper unit. gigawatt-years would be a unit of energy. It’s not so much having a feel for any particular source, but a comparison to see if one is bigger. For example, the rotational kinetic energy of the earth is about 2 ×10^29 J while our energy use is about 5.67×10^20 J per year. Somehow tapping into rotation, for example, will not cause a rapid depletion of that energy You can do the same for the sources you are worried about, to see if they would run out.

My thought today: The point at which some people stop paying attention to what someone has said is sometimes more revealing than their answer. Thus, what they don't mention can be more relevant than what they do.

Can you go through the paper and give me my answer please

You speak for the whole of science?? Plain and simple if x = 1, 2, 3 or "whatever" and it's time "dependant" ie varies, and you use changes in time how do you multiply by "nothing" if x-> 0 or if x=0 and get a phyiscal quanity?? Besides if energy is conserved then whats the point of any of this?? I'm asking questions but "science and math are inconsistent." I agree with its nonsense no doubt about it..

I think the toughest free speech is the speech about changing the government that has protections for free speech. What were the fruits of that work? Making people confused about government? The fruits of talking freely in free speech about altering or abolishing government is possibly against free speech and also arrogant. Governor George Wallace said "You can't shout fire in a crowded theatre", "Free speech isn't an unlimited right". Where did it end up, saying that "Free Men" can roll back the clock and have Less Regulation, an unspeakable dangerous thing that "Free Men" rolled back the constitution of 30 amendments telling you what to do. Invoking the protection of the God of the Fathers of this Nation, a Nation from the Independence Declaration, government abolished or established by the people.

Maybe this can clarify what I mean.. Random numbers, Fluid Motion, Air Molecules, all within a limit of possible outcomes, IE ""volume"" or---> space.. Do You Now Understand The OP??

I looked that up just to dislike and disprove your false diagnosis. Do you believe all Religion to be a mood altering issue? What is your background anyway? Would it be people who would have agreed with "I Vow to Thee, My Country" at 8 years old? Medieval Total War 1 and 99% Christianity provinces need to be 100%? We definitely know the wrong people today. We had the right people and we have the wrong people today in literature.

I can only imagine your intent is to be banned>

@Area54 is going totally insane and projecting psychologically all his problems on another. I just statistically checked that 50% of new marriages end after these pre-arranged Muslim marriages prove not to be suitable matches. There is a built in 50% Muslim divorce rate at less than a year. There's three kinds of marriages and many types of divorce. You can read that Officially at every law office that Islam is practiced in any language throughout the world. Hindus are similar, or Buddhism, or Confucianism... You are here to Not Respect or Notice the Christian values from the 7 virtues and 7 sins in common through all this Nicene Christianity of lifelong marriage imposed from the high power of God through the priesthood pronounced in to you at ceremony, so God has brought together, let no man separate, till death do us part, by the word of Jesus Christ, God. That every divorcee is burning in hell is a short skip and step indeed. Atheism has its dogma, its repetitions, its talking points to converts, well and if they Became Officially a Religion they'd be less powerful in the institutions, organization, or anything.