Leaderboard

Calm down. Is natural discovery better than or equal to science with respect to quality? What do you mean by "natural discovery is of a higher order than science"?

That part isn't very intuitive I'll admint. No, because if I walk away from you, that's also an increase in distance between us, but it's simply not the same thing. Most matter isn't really moving very quickly 'through' space, but rather the space between objects expands over time. Both involve increase of proper distance between objects over time. The differences are more subtle, but to give an example, if Alice is here and Bob (nearby) is moving away from here at 0.7c, then the proper distance between Alice and Bob is increasing at 210,000 km/sec. Ditto for a galaxy ~10BLY away receding from us at 0.7c. But now there's Charlie (also nearby) receding from Bob at 0.7c. Alice and Charlie are now increasing their proper separation at 282,000 km/sec (per relative velocity addition formula). But recession of galaxies isn't that kind of velocity. The galaxy that is twice as distant as the first one (receding at 0.7c) is thus increasing its proper distance from us at a rate of 1.4c (420,000 km/sec). It isn't moving any faster than we are, but the space between us and them is increasing at that rate. The proper distance between Alice and the others can be measured with a tape measure that is stationary relative to Alice, and is whatever Bob or Charlie reads on that tape (with Alice at the 0 reading). The proper distance between the galaxies on the other hand is measured by the count of individual meter sticks of equal cosmological age, each one of which is unaccelerated since the big bang. That means all the meter sticks are moving apart from each other and over time it take more and more of them to fill the gaps. There's nowhere where the big bang did not occur. It happened everywhere, but places that are far apart now where not so far apart then.

It actually seems pretty intuitive to me. If you place any dots on a 1 dimensional substrate, like a rubber band, the dots 'move' away from each other with those same properties. If you put the dots on a 2 D substrate like a rubber sheet, you observe the same kind of 'motion' or effect. If you put the dots on a 3 D substrate, like raisins in sweet bread then bake it, you observe the same as it expands. Seems like it work all the time. Of course. How else would you explain the isotropy and homogeneity of the universe, when parts of it are increasingly distant for light ( information ) to ever reach. At one time the universe MUST have been small enough to be in causal ( local ) contact.

Actually it seems very intuitive. If you take any collection of objects in one place and give them all random velocities (different speeds and directions), and assuming none of these pieces accelerates thereafter, they will all recede from each other at a rate proportional to their current separation. A grenade only sort of works this way since they're designed to have pieces that go in different directions but fairly uniform speed relative to the center of gravity, thus forming a 2D shell expanding with the above characteristics. The universe doesn't have a center of gravity and thus no meaningful 'place' where the bang happened, so any random object can be assigned the designation of 'here' and everything must recede uniformly from there at a velocity proportional to its displacement. The big bang wasn't an explosion, but rather the expansion of space itself, but the recession effect is the same as the infinite (no outside boundary) explosion at a location in space, and thus this expansion rate is quite intuitive. That rate is simply 1/time-since-bang, or at least it would be if the expansion rate was always constant, but it's currently pretty close.

It's science documentary day!

Hey Grinch, stop making everyone sad at Christmas time . ( Grinch is from Dr Seuss "How the Grinch stole Christmas" ) I recommend a movie called "Alpha", about a boy and his dog.

You're absolutely right. I tried to convey that with, The energy dependence you're referring to would indeed be reflected in the \( \int d^{4}xe^{ipx} \) integrals, to which you'd apply the cutoff \( \Lambda \) for the given energy range. So, as you say, it'd be something like, \[e^{4}f\left(m/\varLambda\right)\] I was kinda fixing this temp-dependent factor, or normalising it to 1, if you will. At that energy, the \( e^2 \) terms would totally dominate the photon-photon ones. Low-energy photons are never seen to scatter off each other at room temperatures, let alone at cosmic-background energies.

You are conflating issues. Electric vehicles, on the whole, are not currently self driving. Fossil fuelled vehicles can generally be made self driving as easily as electric vehicles. In the mean time hydrogen engines promise reciprocating engines and driving experience without emission. Like fossil fuelled vehicles, hydrogen vehicles could be made self driving. Electric and hydrogen vehicles only equate to nil emissions based on the original power source or method of production. In the mean time there is huge development in fossil fuelled engine efficiency. There may well be a cross over, likely even, but mandating the prohibition of well proven transport on this basis is spurious at best. You argue then that people should be forced to choose public transport - which depending on usage rates may or may not be more efficient than, I presume, current fossil fuelled vehicles. Which ignores the pre-existing skew to public transport in populated areas, irrespective of vehicle ownership. FWIW, in residential development there is a keen move toward “self drive, electric, on order” vehicles. It creates a lot of freedom in developments which are traditionally hemmed in by vehicle storage constraints. In short electric does not equate to self driving nor nil emission. And does not preclude driving pleasure. And has not necessarily won the low-emission battle. FWIW personally my main hobby/sport is 4wd. My idea of a perfect day is switching my 4wd into auto pilot early in the morning as I sleep in, or drink coffee, taking me to the trailhead. When I take over in a vehicle with true 4wd - motor to each wheel. True independent individual wheel control in the absence of differentials and axles. Those things get hung up on rocks. And the engineering for articulation can be so much superior without them. On the trail we want “off-idle torque” and diesel chews petrol, but electric where max torque is a a theoretical zero revs, well just wow. I’m getting worked up thinking about it. Knock myself out on the trail, then back on the bitumen I crack open a beer as I press the “take me home button” and turn on a video replaying the day’s antics. The vehicle is put into pool mode at home with a priority of picking me up and dropping me off during the work week. I’ve got no intention of losing things I love, like driving. And no intention of missing the advantages of new technology as it happens. But let’s take just a modicum of intelligence to suggestions that a love of driving should be banned in order to save the planet.

I watch a number of them but I've come to be pretty selective. A lot of what Moontanman posts Ill watch. And most anything that is Blues. This Arabic Pop and Rap all sounds the same to me and is not my style.

No, I’m not. You could stay home. No reason to subject yourself to “the risk of being run over.” It’s your decision to go out and walk in the street that makes you part of the problem. Your points across threads are so consistently absurd that I believe you’re either very young, very stupid, trolling, or not human.

Here is a discussion that may apply: https://github.com/ethereum/web3.js/issues/2739 Fixing the issue seems to be a work in progress.

Because you couldn't be farther off the mark. That's not what bases are about. I and others have been telling you until we're blue in the mouth. You're using the oldest trick of the game, which is non-sequitur. It's as if someone tells you, "Mountains arise from mechanical tensions and thermal processes in the Earth's interior" and you say, "Then why are elephants winged creatures?" 1st) Elephants are not winged creatures (a false premise embedded in a question is called a sophism) 2nd) The question does not follow from the previous statement at all (that's called a non-sequitur) If you think for a moment most users here don't see right away what you're trying to do, you're quite wrong. You're not discussing in good faith. It's not about disagreement. It's about you not being intellectually honest. You're free to keep playing your game for as long as you want, but you're just calling for action from the mods and very justified annoyance from other users. Have a good day.

Maybe it's just the timing, but I don't remember being this disgusted by a religious assertion before. It shows a myopic and desperate need for privilege that ignores reality. This is the stance that can justify wiping out species wholesale, because they were only put there "for us to enjoy". It's also intellectually dishonest to misuse scientific claims to bolster your shaky belief system. Please stick to your Iron Age sky spirit worship.

Wait a moment here... Calculus is very advanced algebra and geometry, that uses a ratio "ie" derivative between at least 2 "observations." In other words its trigonometry based. "Unless of coarse" its pi based, another word for tri based...What ever it is at this point it's truly a mixture of things.. So you speak for everyone right?? Its called: P O L I T I C A L C O R R E C T N E S S Stop cyber bullying me...and stop instigating others to make fun of my posts..

No, the number is geometry based, and it looks like it's in 3d looks like oragami.. On another note, I'm seeking legal advice on cyber bullying...There are some members here that are purposely creating problems for me making it very hard for a scientific conversation..