Leaderboard

I'm always wary of these terms politicians use to define themselves: Democrats, liberals, neoliberals, progressives... Democracy, liberty, progress. Yeah, sure. Gimme some of that, please. No political party will define themselves as "deceptionists" or "prejudicialists", or "spin-doctoralists." The ad will tell you nothing about what the product is. I suppose the Swedish must eat their pudding before they know what it's really made of.

Not big enough to accommodate all the egos of V.P. and Donald T. ....

Here us an easy to understand explanation.

They aren't, actually, when one gets down to the brass tacks. It's a subtlety that few people care about, but I am one of them. Frequency standards measure a frequency, and can be used as a clock, of sorts, but they are more like a stopwatch, measuring a time interval. Many of them get turned off (often for months at a time), and when they are off you aren't keeping track of the time, so they can't be considered clocks by themselves. Most people just call them clocks, though, because the distinction isn't important to them. The same people (generally) refer to THE atomic clock, as if there is only one, rather than many clocks that make up a master clock that keeps track of the time in the larger countries. (There are undoubtedly some countries that have just one atomic clock contributing to the BIPM) The clocks that I have helped build do not measure a frequency (and most do not use cesium). You can calibrate them with a cesium frequency standard so you know the length of a second. But they run continuously, so you can keep track of the time. That's why the second is defined at the geoid, and in the absence of any other perturbing effects. You make corrections for the elevation of the clock.

Is something 'real' if it can be explained away depending on interpretation ? On the question of local versus non-local decoherence ( because there is no non-local interactions ) Quantum nonlocality does not exist | PNAS "I show that quantum nonlocality is an artifact of the assumption that observers obey the laws of classical mechanics, whereas observed systems obey quantum mechanics. Locality is restored if observed and observer both obey quantum mechanics"

I hear he's ordered a 32ft table to replace the 16ft table...

It would’ve been quicker had you just said, “No.”

Absolutely, and it's more or less always been the case with humans (and I hypothesize, non-human animals) for as long as time itself. We're rather tribal, naturally seek others who confirm our preconceptions / remind us of ourselves, and it takes conscious attention focus to avoid splitting everyone into "us" and "them" buckets. With that foundation as the background, many humans are then quite easily drawn to specific narratives even when they're self-evidently false, even you and me who are otherwise rather rational and introspective. The internet has just supercharged it. In the before-times, we had to find these like-minded morons members of society in our own local village or town with maybe a few hundred people. The connections would only occur after chance encounters once or twice yearly at the local feed store or fuel pumping station. Now, however, we can find them on every corner of the oblate spheroid earth... nothing more needed than an internet connection, and the underlying software is actively pushing the connections which further amplify this tribalism and speed its growth. Then, corporations who build and manage the algorithms prioritize engagement, attention, and time focused within the app or in the community. They're financially incentivized to lock our minds into their worlds for as long as absolutely possible because it generates advertising dollars, and so they amplify the most attention grabbing content... which, as you surely have seen, is often the most extreme, most outrageous, and most disconnected from empirical reality. News is boring. Fighting and drama are fun. Humans are pretty simple in the end. Add to that "bad actors" and nation states who maintain their own power and wealth by convincing the masses not just of specific untruths, but of the idea that there's not such thing as truth and truth itself is an impossibility... and we land in the state we're in now with wars, and election denial, and climate change denial, and basically anything else that distracts us like cats to catnip instead of focusing on real problems that require our collective efforts and attention or from focusing on the cronies and crooks who want us focused on anything BUT them. Things will likely get worse before they get better now with deep-fake video technology and easily deployed bots and troll armies... but I do have a lot of faith in our younger digital natives who are aware of these challenges and organically building a societal immunity to much of it just with how they engage together. Their "mental immune systems" are more familiar and better experienced with these mind viruses and better equipped IMO to stamp them out than generations past.

As an older, somewhat educated person, I stay away from social media ( forums, which exchange ideas, are my weakness ). Young people have never experienced the old style informative, not opinionated, news, and get a lot of self re-enforcing opinionated news from social media. The 'splinternet' makes it easy to find like-minded people who share your opinions, no matter how extreme, and 'splinter' us into different groups. Social media is possibly the biggest social engineering experiment ever, and although the internet was initially hailed as a way to bring us together, it could turn out that it ruins society as we know it.

@Ned Please answer my question about your diagram above. That is what your diagram looks like, with earth in the centrum. The present established cosmological models does not match your description. In my case not completely wasted, I'm learning new things by arguing from the mainstream perspective and checking my views against established theories. But thanks for the heads up!

What do you mean by special? Time is used as a coordinate along with the 3 dimensions of space, e.g. "I'll meet you for lunch at the Café Royal at 1pm". Your question is a bit like asking is dimension a position? Your clock is just showing coordinates on a chart, there are an an infinite number of discreet positions. From your chart are you suggesting that the direction of time goes around in a circle so eventually you end up back in the past?

This poster is Theorist, or Pbob or countless sock puppets, back again to waste everybody’s time. He’s using the usual method: make a garbled sciency-sounding assertion to start the ball rolling, and then lob in further chunks on other topics at intervals, to keep respondents dancing and struggling to keep up with the deluge of errors and misconceptions. He has no interest in learning, so you are wasting your time. The sole object is to make the scientists dance and exploit their goodwill for his amusement.

Isn't it the other way around? Objects that are dropped from a height moves towards the ground in free fall. Objects prevented from falling are accelerating. Some thought experiments as a starting point for discussion: If you stand on a scale on the earth it shows your weight. If you stand on a scale in an accelerating spaceship, far from any source of gravity, the scale will show your weight if the acceleration of the spaceship is (approx) 9,8m/s2 If you try using a scale while falling towards the ground the scale shows zero. If you try using a scale in a spaceship far from any source of gravity the scale shows zero.

It's always struck me that an unrestricted/unregulated version of capitalism, is a rather silly way to ensure one's future... Feel free to ask me why, the answer is... If you're going to post, at least try to make sense... 😉

To give a very general answer - Schwarzschild spacetime relies on certain conditions that need to be in place for this particular geometry to arise. It is static, stationery, spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat (ie there are no other distant sources of gravity). If any of these conditions is violated, we are no longer dealing with Schwarzschild spacetime, but something more complicated. In principle, yes. But remember, a Schwarzschild BH is stationery and relies on an otherwise empty universe, meaning it doesn’t permit any changes - so you can’t have anything falling into it. If you add even as much as a single particle falling in, it’s no longer truly a Schwarzschild BH, but some other geometry. Yes and yes. But again, this wouldn’t be a Schwarzschild BH any longer. That’s a really good question! I presume you mean a gravitational wave. You can certainly embed a BH into a background gravitational wave field. The result would be something pretty complicated. I don’t know for sure just exactly what would happen, because, since GR is a non-linear theory, metrics don’t just add - you’d have to actually derive an entirely new solution for this scenario, which is likely only possible with numerical methods. I can make an educated guess though - given the right wavelengths for your gravitational radiation, the event horizon of your BH would begin to oscillate and ‘vibrate’ (like a bell) and eventually achieve a state of resonance with the external wave field. But this also means that the BH itself becomes a source of gravitational radiation - so it would essentially reflect some of the radiation back out. I don’t know if it would re-radiate all of the energy, or absorb some of it and grow in mass; one would have to run the numbers to find out. What’s more, the re-radiated waves will interfere with the incoming background waves in complicated non-linear ways, changing the wave field in ways that I can’t predict here now. And to go even further - if you were to ‘turn off’ the external wave field somehow, the BH will slowly ‘ring down’ like a bell, and eventually become stationery; however, the surrounding spacetime will remain permanently altered by all these waves having gone through it. It’s called the gravitational memory effect. This is a really complicated scenario, but very interesting. Yes, the event horizon will deform and ‘bulge out’ - this happens, for example, when two BH approach one another and merge. No, because spacetime inside the horizon is empty (assuming no in-falling material), so there’s nothing there to experience stresses. Schwarzschild spacetime is always spherically symmetric. If it doesn’t have this symmetry, then it will be a different kind of geometry. Yes. No, it wouldn’t be spherical, and thus it wouldn’t be a Schwarzschild BH any longer. Schwarzschild geometry requires spherical symmetry.

omg swansont i've solved it eureka old fellow! benjamin franklin...the resurrection of christ...good lord how could i not have seen it... benjamin franklin's frog...electricity passed through it causing it to twitch. thats how jesus came back to life! the lightning storm! the electricity possessed him-causing him to attain a sort of electrical energy, like benjamin franklin's frog. What do you guys think of this theory? @ Fie for all....;) only one side of the debate you say? oki doki. @ that dude who said i was deliberately wasting their time...actually not deliberately. incidentally might be a better word. but thats what debates are about, a waste of time garnered towards a conclusion attained via brainstorming

The relevance is that there is space beyond the last observed visible body and that means the big bang is incorrect ! Space is not inflating like some balloon . The above is at error , the objects themselves are moving into ''free space'' that is unnocupied of matter! Additionally there isn't any evidence that suggests the objects themselves were ever located in our ''central'' position .

The two options provided are not false dichotomy , they are logically accurate based on what we presently observe , solids and space . We can't suggest there is nothing beyond the last visible body because that isn't logical . However , we can describe free space beyond the last visible body and space-time that has a uniform value of 0 . Our position in space is relative to other visible objects , not relative to the space . The present model tries to desribe our observable universe like some dome or firmament that is expanding . Describing it this way is sort of stating a ceiling or roof over our heads . This implies the distant stars have a ''dark side'' and send no light the opposite direction to Earth into free space . Logic tells us there is free space beyond the distant stars for reasons given .

The nuerological reference frame , NRF for short , is a more advanced way of explaining the mind. The NRF is entangled with the universe when your eyes are open and is your conscious reference frame , making note of all we sense , storing information we gain .

If you can't understand some very simple , well explained diagrams , then obviously you don't understand it ! They are not non-standard terms , you are attempting to troll me and get a reaction but have failed . Good day Not at all, the evidence agrees with the answer that we don't know the spatial size of the universe ! As for the rest of your post , it's just nonesense .

My simple clock demonstrates many things that is why it is so special ! If science wants to argue that time speeds up or slows down then they have to disagree about velocity . The clock is special because it shows many things but perhaps this version of the same clock may be easier to understand for you .

Indeed the present model does not match my description because I interpret that the present model has errors , which I have pointed out . My diagram isn't a dome , you have misinterpreted the information . The ''roof'' of my model is absolute space that is empty and unoccupied of matter and energy . The space-time boundary is impassable only because it takes time to build a quantum bridge .