Leaderboard

No private meetings needed. The robustness of scientific methods enables independent researchers to reach the same conclusions.

For several hundreds of years important statements in natural sciences were called "laws". But some time ago new "laws" stopped to appear, and the important statements now seem to be rather called "principles" and "equations." Is it so? If so, what was the last "law"?

Actually, the wave function describes probability amplitude, a complex value. The probability distribution is a squared modulus of the wave function and contains less information about the state of the system.

Interesting question, I think it is more to do with how scientists engage with and rationalise theorems, some are 'rules', some are 'equations', some are 'effects', unclear what motivates the scientific community to designate a theorem as a 'law'. I did a trawl for 20th century 'laws', in addition to those mentioned above, I found; Marconi's law, ~1900 Umov's law, 1905 Hubble's law, 1922 Faxén's law, 1922 Zipf's law, 1932 Archie's law, 1942 Fitts's law, 1954 Heaps' law, 1960 Birch's law, 1960 Sérsic's law, 1963 Amdahl's law, 1967 Dermott's law, 1968 Byerlee's law, 1978 Metcalfe's law, 1980 Gustafson's law, 1988 Llinás's law, 1989 I'm not seeing anything in the 21st Century that is actually a real law describing phenomena in 'physical' equations. Maybe that is precisely the reason, that the term has become abused generally and the scientific-ness of the expression has become over-copied by lay-pretenders?

Yes The measurement of time comes at the end of section 2. He starts with definitions. The only equations I see are where he defines velocity and where he gives the time difference for light travel with and against the direction of motion. Do you see another equation in section 2? The whole point of this example is that you don’t get a ”sensible” result! The contemporary physics say the times should be equal, and with a constant c they won’t be. Or you’re just measuring time, which is not surprising, as he talks of clocks not being synchronous. Which means he’s comparing times. You can convert that to a length because d = ct Sure he does. “rAB denotes the length of the moving rod” It immediately follows the time difference equation You’re wrong in claiming that this is a flaw. Einstein says the times will disagree, and you confirmed it. Congratulations! Why not? What is the valid equation? Please derive it

Nice Topic +1 Off the top of my head Bragg's Law was also 1913. The most recent I can quickly think of would be Moore's Law (1965) closely followed by Drake's Law, also called The Drake Equation (1961)

The Beer-Lambert law seems to have been formulated in 1913. Apart from that I can't think of any c.20th "laws", offhand. I'm speculating, but I suspect the notion of "laws" went out of fashion along with the "classical" absolute and deterministic worldview of science, which Einstein, Heisenberg et al threw out of the window in the first two decades of the c.20th. Most "laws" seem to be named after the person that formulated them - and to be broken in practice.

That if a man speaks in the forest and his wife isn’t around to hear him he’s still wrong.

Lol not quite there yet

There is getting to be a decent number of papers on the application. I've been running across them quite often. I haven't heard of any tests done yet. Largely still in the proposal stages.

Perhaps for you from your pompous privileged perch, but not for others… Others whose family persistently and pervasively suffered from a shoe store full of jack booted oppression. Never mind the machinery of the state being used by white male land owners in government legislatures and courts and various related positions of authority to redirect opportunity and hyperpunish microaggressions. Never mind the way authority was wielded like a weapon against communities and families based solely on the color of their skin, and how despite being less overt and less appalling those same things still occur essentially everyday even today. Across economic sectors and across generations… across regions and across financial classes and casts… different treatment across the entire system enacted by the very government proclaiming loudly to be there as representatives of their best interests. But sure… the REAL victims are those who voluntarily and with positive intent “talk” about it. Okay, yeah. You’re not arguing in bad faith at all… You poor soul… have you had to engage in intensive psychotherapy for all of the trauma that’s been foisted upon you? Shall I share the number for the suicide hotline just in case? I see you. Now… cue the off-topic barbs and distractions and focus on… look, SQUIRREL!!!

That is the more common proposed methods to apply quantum entanglement cryptology that I have encountered. At this point in time quantum cryptology is more of a speculative application. Thus far I haven't heard of any actual tests of its use.

In essence yes that a succinct way to describe it.

Something a bit deceptive in that drawing. LOL. Yes, it is simple.

You are decoupling the effect (fire) with the cause and create a strawman scenario where folks are fighting about semantics. While it is very on-brand about how we often talk about racism and its ongoing impact, it is not very helpful. Essentially the argument appears to be that talking about racism is the real issue, as it causes all the problems, therefore the only reasonable thing is to do what we do nothing and obfuscate matters.

Edith...

You can see my conservation with Mordred, where I fully explained one part of the Math portion of where I believe Einstein made an error. I was not permitted to explain where the error came from in the Papers explanation introduction. So Mordred's rebuttal was suggesting that I was incorrect because I did not use length contraction of relativity of simultaneity in my criticism of Einstein's theory! This is simply silly. His reply is nonsense and I told his as much. But you are welcome to explain where I'm wrong and why. I hope you do not make similar errors of simple logic. Any one can reply of course. My explanation was not aimed specifically at Mordred. So I've shown the Math error, which was what you all wanted to see. So where is it wrong? I actually fully explained mathematically where the first error in Einstein's can be found. I was conversing with Mordred at the time, Its a few posts back. So you have nothing to complain about. You can now simply show me where I'm wrong, mathematically. That's the best way to end the debate.

Ok, so now you all try another cheap trick. A one on on one discussion with Mordred, that was showing promise, is now effectively buried again, thanks to the sudden combined attack with a barrage of duck and dodge comments that are intended to divert form where we were, to attend to all these side issues. (like Swanson is not Swansont) Did you guys all have a meeting privately and decide on a attack strategy? But as I've done before to your claims, I can debunk what you are individually saying, quite easily, but it will have to wait till later, after the conservation with Mordred has reached a logical conclusion. (which won't be, "I'm tired of you, so I'm not playing anymore, logicandreason". Because the "Resident Expert, Mordred is above such pettiness. So are we ready to continue or not? I laid out clearly what my intensions were in this comment to Mordred some time back. "I intend to give the Math errors, but first there is the matter of explaining how and when the problem was first developed, that led to the errors. This is logical approach is it not? Its the same approach used in all Universities by the best Professors." And further: "Unless I pinpoint the source of the Math error, which is in the logic of Einstein's argument, then its not going to be of any use supplying an alternative equation that has no context. Is that not correct? You will simply loop back to the source of the problem to defend Einstein's math, because you have not realised that its the problem source. Its a case of circular logic." Mordred, as gang leader, you decide, is this unreasonable?

Oh, for goodness sake! So my example of where SR is wrong, is itself wrong because its NOT applying SR? What kind of messed up thinking is this? You have to be joking right? At this stage in the hypothesis, Einstein wrote this equations and explained the moving Rod experiment, specifically to reveal a problem with classical Physics, and he is claiming that this equation is classical physics, so at this stage in the Paper, SR length contraction doesn't exist! And same for Relativity of Simultaneity He is still trying to establish that there is a problem with classical Physics.! All Relativity claims of Simultaneity and Length contraction and Time dilation can't apply before they are even proposed. Mordred, I'm very disappointed in this rather silly reply. Please try again but try to keep up. I'm sorry if your feelings are hurt, but really this is a silly, thoughtless response. You said, "There are no rigid rods". Really? Einstein in this very thought experiment TELLS you that there is a rigid ROD of fixed length, measured as L in the stationary system then moved to the moving system where the moving observer also says its still the same length according to his measurements using the same measuring system as was used originally. There is only one Rod. Quote: "“the length of the rod in the moving system”— must be equal to the length L of the stationary rod." Classic Physics says the two measures of the one Rod are equal, BUT Einstein says they do start this way, but he intends to prove that the will end up not being equal because of motion of one frame. He will prove that there is a problem with classical physics, by means of that equation I included in my comment. The equation is supposed to represent the equations from Classical Physics , and Einstein wants to show that it reveals a big problem. However, now I'm showing you that the equation is NOT a correct equation for any system of belief or Science. It's just junk. Its a strawman fallacy. The equation is not valid classical Physics, it doesn't even make any sense to anyone. And as such, it can never demonstrate that the two observers will disagree on the length of the rod, and so Einstein has not established that there is any problem to solve. What did I warn you about? I said that unless we set the ground rules, and I am allowed to explain where the concepts are in error, then if I present the math directly, as I've just done, then I said you would just loop back to the same original error in an endless bit of circular logic, and ignore whatever I write, because you never understood where the problem stems from. You cannot be serious to claim that the end conclusions of Einstein's hypotheses can be applied from the very first lines of his hypothesis retrospectively, before he has even hinted that these final conclusions even exist, or explain where there is even a problem to begin with, or explain with math why the end conclusions are inescapable. You may know Math, but you certainly seem to have a limited knowledge of Physics and Logic. I can only judge by what you say.