Leaderboard

! Moderator Note I’m moving this to Speculations for now, as that is the correct forum section for personal theories. Why would accelerated expansion be an issue? It’s a natural geometric property of this type of spacetime, and thus fully consistent with the gravitational field equations. Gravity is a geometric property of spacetime; to be more exact, it is geodesic deviation, i.e. the failure of initially parallel geodesics to remain parallel. Using the mathematical tools of cosmology, it is possible to construct a universe that - starting from a Big Bang - first expands, then slows, stops, and re-contracts to end up in a Big Crunch again, only for the cycle to repeat over and over again. The problem is that this is not consistent with what we actually observe in the real world. We already have a very detailed model of (classical) gravity, being General Relativity, which works extremely well - what you seem to propose is not very consistent with what we already know about gravity.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200803-the-solar-canals-revolutionising-indias-renewable-energy Clever solution

No. Out of that sub-population of voters who thought enough fraud took place to change the election outcome, 56% of those felt the siege of the capitol was a good thing. 34% of those opposed it.

No problem, here you go and no finders fee required: Heat Treating.

Excuse me? Tyranny?

Imagine that...

Did you measure already how much and where the energy is being lost in your car? If you are studying you should have some picture how much energy is lost in batteries (charge/discharge cycle, self-discharging), how much is lost in inverter (if any), how much is lost in motor (resistance, eddy currents, hysteresis), how much is lost in transmission (if any), rolling resistance, air resistance, accessories power consumption... If you have this data then you can compare with other electric vehicles and check where you should be able to make an improvement. If you didn't do such part-by-part measurements already, then I think you should.

Testing inlined math using hint from @joigus*, square brackets vs parentheses. Sentence with three definitions [math]f(x^{2})=\frac{y}{2} [/math] \(f(x^{2})=\frac{y}{2}\) [latex]f(x^{2})=\frac{y}{2}[/latex] end of sentence. Sentence with no math. New sentence [math]f(x^{2})=\frac{y}{2}[/math] \[f(x^{2})=\frac{y}{2}\] [latex]f(x^{2})=\frac{y}{2}[/latex] end of sentence. <end of test> Below is the code for the above Sentence with three definitions [math]f(x^{2})=\frac{y}{2} [/math] \(f(x^{2})=\frac{y}{2}\) [latex]f(x^{2})=\frac{y}{2}[/latex] end of sentence. Sentence with no math. New sentence [math]f(x^{2})=\frac{y}{2}[/math] \[f(x^{2})=\frac{y}{2}\] [latex]f(x^{2})=\frac{y}{2}[/latex] end of sentence. *) Thanks !

If you use the phone system there is certainly nothing the phone companies should be doing to restrict your speech, so there is no obligation or responsibility for them to do so other than to allow the judicial system access to wiretap when it is important enough to the safety of the community to override your rights. So the phone companies have laws that protect them from liable when their assets are used to do harm. If these media platforms wish to maintain the same protections they can't get to decide how to police their own systems regardless of the fact that they own them. It might very well be good, (or not) that Trump has had his rights to use compromised and restricted, as it has been with some of his tweets removed or have qualifiers added to point out that his statements are false, and now his right to use removed completely, but the platforms themselves should not be the ones to decide if they are going to have their protections from liable maintained. Imagine if I made libellous statements on twitter against everyone who has posted in this thread and twitter decided to add a statement to the effect that the statement against, say, String Junky is false, while allowing the other statements to go unqualified. I of course would be subject to lawsuits, but why should twitter not for their implied agreement of my other statements? They are all insufficient. But what if they became "sufficient" to block views you agreed with?

Some times one has to tease out the thread's of understanding, in order to learn or teach...

He never really needed followers any more than you or I do, except that he's psychotic. Not being POTUS will not cure his desire for praise. Got any evidence? As has been pointed out and argued about, the likes of FB are not owned by the Left, but they are the ones making the decisions to block the terrorists. Are you saying it was the Lefties who refused to allow a gay wedding cake? That's a very interesting question. And the Devil's advocate answer is "Would you prefer Pravda?" It's one of those things where a combination would probably work better. And are irrelevant. The point is that these are not state owned institutions. If the state was denying them freedom of speech, that would be another issue. Incidentally, when a man who has a press office tells you that he is being censored, you know that he's lying.

Or one can ask the opposite question. Should we have a situation where much of not most of public discourse is owned and mediated by private companies?

No, they are listed on public stock markets. Understandable. And well deserved. In simple words? Absolutely, yes.. Imagine somebody makes a computer game, where people are talking to other people in the real-time, write on chat, whatever they want, and then somebody from platform which is used to release that game is telling you that you must include invigilation and capture everything what has been said by them by voice and in chat, to analyze, or otherwise you will be banned from their platform... ps. Apple HQ is easier to capture than the Capitol.. are they prepared for assault?

All decisions made by private entities. Having free speech does not obligate others to provide you with a platform from which to express it.

Actually the issue is a bit different. For the most part the issue of trans fats and there catabolic products can trigger a range of health effects. In many cases we are not entirely sure why. TFAs for example are often incompletely oxidized and potentially by inhibition of the required enzymes result in lowering polyunsaturated fatty acids, which in turn can result in lower membrane fluidity which kicks off a number of regulatory cascades that can result in poor health outcomes. They also result in the increase of LDL, and some decrease in HDL, which is associated with clogging (chronic inflammation resulting in atherosclerotic plaques for example).

On topic. I just wanted everyone to know I'm advocating for Trump 2024. (not to get elected...to get to vote 😃)

So...you're saying it's okay in the USA then? 😎

It's important to focus on school, though you should make sure you have some variety. These questions have been discussed for hundreds of years; they will still be here when you get more time.

The result is manifestly wrong, as shown by the maths above, irrespective of how you might have arrived at it. Again, see the maths above. The inner product of 4-velocities cannot logically exceed c^2. Again, the inner product is an invariant, so it cannot depend on \(\gamma\). It is trivially easy to formally prove that. Also, if that weren’t so, Lorentz invariance could not hold in the real world - but of course it does, as shown by experiment and observation. I don’t know what you are actually trying to show here, but whatever it is, it is physically and mathematically meaningless. I think it is fairly obvious by now that you aren’t actually prepared to listen to any of the feedback given to you here. You are just repeating the same things again and again, and ignore the fact that you have already been shown wrong. If you were actually interested in learning something, you would listen to what has been said, and use it to improve your own understanding of the subject matter. It is not enough to just blindly do algebraic manipulations - you need to also understand the geometric meaning of these objects, and how they are related to one another, and how that fits into overall physics.

I guess you do horoscopes. How much do you charge? Phi for All Chief Executive Offworlder Moderators 5862 20399 posts Location: CO, USA Report post Posted 6 hours ago ! Moderator Note Olorin, it's against our rules for you to assume your unevidenced, non-mainstream aether concept is a valid argument in the mainstream sections. Either open up a thread defending your idea in Speculations, or stop posting about it. You can't use these ideas in discussion until they're supported. "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred!" -- Super Chicken "One of the key problems today is that politics is such a disgrace, good people don't go into government." -- Donald Trump Now you really do have my attention. What part of this post is not Mainstream? I am defining the Aether frame as the electric field that remains unmanifest until a potential difference is applied. That potential difference is caused by charged particles, when these are brought into manifestation by pair production, always in perfect balance and with zero sum charge creation. The pair production requires E = 2mc^2 = hf frequency gamma ray and a second mass for conservation likewise. The gamma ray may result from a charged particle oscillating at f, or in another inertial frame frame, moving in circular motion. In either case, acceleration of the moving charge is involved. Without acceleration, only relative velocity, only a magnetic field is created, the result of flux imbalance due to Special Relativistic considerations. With acceleration, General Relativistic considerations are involved again producing a resultant force which, were it likewise analysed, would have the properties of Gravitation rather than Magnetism. This we see gravitational lensing and other such phenomena, like stars around an eclipsed sun displaced. The Aether frame so defined remains unmanifest until disturbed, one way or another, by the mechanics of charged particles, creating the very properties of time and space to cause c = x/t to appear constant in every frame by accordingly causing the phenomena which we measure all things by, x & t, and even (dare I say it) m, which is defined by Newton's Third Law plus a standard, in terms of the individual time and space as created by the aether frame rate of propagation of electric field disturbances relative to the frame in question. In other words, George Lucas' "The Force" is none other than the electric field, which can only be detected by its effect on a charged particle placed in that field. Other than using the word "Aether" to illustrate this concept of space-time, it is fully defined in Mainstream terms, by any other name. I have simply tried to provide an intuitive concept of the nature of time and space as a thing created by electric forces acting on charged particles and otherwise non-existent. But if so, then we do have an anomaly in the case of uncharged particles unless they are either a form of the energy itself, or composed of balanced charged particles, or both. Otherwise the forces creating time and space (always relative to an observer) as outlined would have no effect on them. This is plainly true of the neutron, with its 10.3 minute half-life as essentially, like it or not, an unstable nucleus isotope that cannot hold an electron shell. As far as po' li'l me can see, this is nothing but Mainstream + logic. Would you consider that you might be playing a little rough?