Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 01/24/18 in all areas

  1. 7 points
    SR does not claim that such an observer will always see the Earth clock run slow, if by see, you mean what his eyes or instruments directly record. In this usage of see, he will see it run at a rate of T = To ((1-v/c))(1+v/c))1/2 where v is positive if Earth and the Observer are receding from each other and negative if they are approaching each other. A factor contributing to this observation is the the distance and thus the propagation time for signals is constantly changing, getting longer when receding and getting shorter when approaching. This factor works out to be c/(c+v) When you factor this out of the first equation you are left with the time dilation equation. This means that there are two things to consider: what you see happening to the Earth clock, and what is happening to the Earth clock. So while while receding from the Earth, the observer will see the the 1000 Hz signal as being 500 hz and the Earth clock as ticking 1/2 as fast as his own,. Taking into account the effect of the increasing distance, he will determine that the Earth clock is ticking 0.8 as fast as his own. He will meet up with the object when his own clock reads 1.01.2022 (as the distance between Earth will be only 1.2 ly as measured by him and this is how long it takes to traverse this distance at 0.6c.) He will see the Earth clock reading 1.01.2021, but determine that it is 8.07.2021 on the Earth at that moment. Now at first, you might be tempted to think " But wait, if he sees 1.01.2021 on the Earth clock, and the Earth is, according to him, 1.2 ly away, wouldn't that mean that it should be 3.15.2022 on the Earth by his reckoning?" This is not the case. The light he is seeing at that moment left Earth at a time when the distance between them was less than 1.2 ly, so the time it took the light he is seeing took less than 1.2 years to reach him from the Earth. Now he accelerates in order to come start the trip back towards Earth. We will assume a minimal acceleration period. Now this is the part where people tend to get tripped up. After he is done and is now approaching the Earth and not receding, we will assume that he still reads 1.01.2021 on the Earth clock by visual means. However, he will no longer conclude from this that it is 8.07.2021 on the Earth. Instead he will conclude that it is 6.05.23. During the return trip he will see a frequency of 2000 hz from the signal and the Earth clock tick twice as fast as his own. But again, taking into account the decreasing distance effect, he will conclude that the Earth clock is ticking at a rate 0.8 as fast as his own. Thus he will see the Earth clock tick from 1.01.2021 to 1.01.2025, but conclude that it ticked from 6.05.23 to 1.01.2025 during his return leg. (see will see it tick off 4 years, but conclude that it ticked off 1.6 years. Again, it all come back to what happens during that acceleration period. As far as anyone at rest with respect to the Earth is concerned, nothing special beyond the standard SR effects take place. But for the observer actually undergoing the acceleration, things aren't this simple. For him, the rate at which clocks run depend on which direction they are from him relative to the acceleration he is undergoing and the distance from him in that direction. Clocks in the direction of the acceleration run fast, and those in the opposite direction run slow (beyond what he sees. This even effects clocks that share his acceleration. A clock in the nose of the Ship will run fast and one in the tail will run slow. ( in this case, since there is no changing distance between himself and the clocks, what he sees, will be in perfect agreement with what is happening to the clocks. While this may seem to be at odds with common sense, it is how a Relativistic universe works. A problem with your questions is that they only deal with particular points of the whole scenario without taking in the whole picture. It like comparing two men walking and only considering where they end up. Below we have the paths of two men, Red and Blue, over the same interval. If you just look at where they end up, you would conclude that Blue walked a shorter distance because he ends up closer to the starting point than Red does. But when you consider the whole interval, it is clear that Blue walked a further distance. The same thing is true with SR, if you only consider the end results, you are missing what is really going on.
  2. 6 points
    As I said in my previous post. Relativity makes no such claim when it comes to what an observer will visually see. This is a straw-man argument based on a misrepresentation of Relativity. To explain the difference between what the observer would visually see vs. what he is conclude is happening, we'll use some space-time diagrams. First consider two clocks separated by some distance and stationary with respect to each other. The blue line is our "observed" clock and the green line is our "observing" clock. The scale is such that light, shown as the yellow lines, is drawn at a 45 degree angle. Thus our observer will see light that left the blue clock when it read 1 arrive when his clock reads sometime after 3, and he will see the blue clock read 1 at that time. He also will see the light that left the blue clock when it read 2 arrive sometime after his clock reads 4. However, this does not mean that he will think or conclude that what he sees actually represents what time it is for the blue clock at those moments. That would be shown by the black horizontal lines, which shows that when the green observer sees the blue clock read 1, he knows that it actually reads the same as his own, or somewhat after 3, and when he sees the blue clock read 2, it actually at that moment reads somewhat after 4. Now let's add a third clock, one that is moving at 0.6c relative to the both clocks so that it and the blue clock are closing in on each other. This will be the red line in the following diagram. The light that left the red clock when it read 1 still arrives at the blue clock when the blue clock reads somewhat after 3. But the light that left when it read 2, arrives before the blue clock reads 4. The blue clock observer will in fact see the red clock ticking at a rate twice as fast as his own. But again he will not conclude that this means that this represents what time it actually is at the blue clock. When he sees the blue clock read 1 he will conclude that it reads a bit before 3 at that moment and when he sees it read 2, he will conclude that reads something before 3.5 at that moment, as shown by the black lines. He knows that the light carrying the image of the blue clock reading 2 left the blue clock when it was closer to him than the light carrying the image of it reading 1 left the blue clock. His has to account for this when determining when exactly that light left according to his own clock. As the black line from his clock reading 2 shows, the red clock didn't actually read 2 until sometime after his clock read 2. Thus after accounting for the time it took for the light from the red clock to reach him, he will conclude that the red clock is ticking slower than his own. This is time dilation. Now add yet another clock, this time so that it and the observer are receding from each other, as shown by the light blue line. Again the light leaving when it reads 1 arrives at the green observer when the green clock reads after 3. But the light leaving it when it reads 2 doesn't arrive until the green clock read after 5. The green observer will see the blue clock ticking at 1/2 the rate of his own. But this time, the light blue clock is further from the green when it reads 2 than it was when it read 1, and when the green observer takes this into account, it will turn out that when compared to his own clock, the light blue clock is ticking slower than his own, and by the same rate as he concluded that the red clock is ticking slow. The light blue clock exhibits the same time dilation as the red clock. This is what Relativity says is happening in the real universe, and this is not you you are trying to claim it says ( that an observer will always see a clock as running slow). If you are going to argue against a theory, you have to argue against the actual theory rather than some imagined version of your own creation.
  3. 6 points
    Stephen Hawking has passed away at the age of 76 on Pi day, 3/14/2018. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43396008 https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/mar/14/stephen-hawking-professor-dies-aged-76?CMP=fb_us
  4. 5 points
    This is actually one of the few times there's a simple answer. Science describes god(s) as supernatural simply because they defy observation and prediction, two foundational tools of science. All of them. It's not an atheistic definition. Science describes what the natural world appears to be doing, and gods don't appear in the natural world. Pretty simple. By the way, one can be an atheist without rejecting anything. I'm perfectly willing to entertain the existence of a god if one decides to become observable. In that way, I think I'm actually much more open-minded than you.
  5. 5 points
    I'll let you know about a "rule of thumb" with regards to science and the scientific methodology. First and foremost, before you let your imagination run free, searching/looking for any new ideas that are not mainstream, please make an effort to get to know the mainstream product, and why it is mainstream and held as valid by most scientists...learn its predictions that have been shown to be valid...research the experiments that have supported its validity...check out all the observational data that support it. Then if you really and truly believe there is a serious fault with the particular incumbent model, start imagining why over so many years, the professionals and experts in that particular discipline, have not found this serious fault. You see that is the scientific method. Theories/models do not get established and then just rest on their laurels. They are conducting experiments everyday, testing the limits and accepted successes of the theories. Even long established theories are tested everyday...Even SR and GR are continually asked to live up to their deserved reputation. If you do that honestly, you will see why the chances of any Tom, Dick or Harry, coming to a forum open to all, to invalidate or propose some new model over-riding the incumbent is pretty close to zero. Best of luck anyway.
  6. 5 points
    Because the electron is not a classical particle (“little ball of mass and charge”), but a quantum object. As a first approximation, you can picture an electron as a 3D standing wave around the nucleus - you can only get standing waves of a given wavelength in specific places, which is why orbitals come in discrete levels. Crucially, there is a lowest energy level, which corresponds to the minimum distance an electron can be with respect to the nucleus (let’s assume here there is only one electron) - and that lowest energy level is not zero. Therefore the electron cannot fall all the way to the nucleus, it can only fall into its lowest energy level, which corresponds to an orbital that is still some distance outside the nucleus. This is a direct consequence of the laws of quantum mechanics, and coincidentally one of the questions that motivated the development of quantum mechanics in the first place.
  7. 5 points
    Here we finally have it! Proof of the existence of a creator? Best evidence yet!
  8. 5 points
    I just wanted to express my heartfelt apology to the members of the forum. I was on suspension for a year for very indecent behavior. I hope I can rejoin your community once again.
  9. 5 points
    Because I am a philosopher, not a scientist, and this is a science forum, I did not feel any obligation to vote on the issue. Most people, who have read my posts already know my view on the "click-it squad". I would also like to say that I do not see much value in the vote, as the people who are in the forum are reasonably happy with the way the system works, and the people who are not happy with the system have mostly left. So I predict that the vote will be self-confirming and retain the system. The one point that was brought up in this thread, about people arguing with accepted Science, makes sense to me. I can see that it would be frustrating to have to repeat over and over something that has been well established in Science. In my recent thread, Consciousness and Evolution, I worked through seven pages, seven full pages, before I could get the other members to understand that all life is conscious. There are different levels of consciousness, sentience, awareness, sensing, perceiving, whatever, but it is all consciousness. Even after repeatedly telling them that Science confirms this, and explaining that a biologist, a micro-biologist, and a neurologist all confirmed this, there were still arguments. One might wonder why I bothered to work so hard on this. It's simple -- I can not demonstrate the possible connection between consciousness and evolution if the other members do not know WTF consciousness actually is, as they tend to confuse it with the rational aspect of mind. The new ideas don't start until page eight and go through to page ten. A ten page thread that, at most, has only three pages of worth. So I do sympathize with the arguing problem. On the other hand, in Philosophy, it is necessary to know how to make an argument. Telling a philosopher that they must work Philosophy without making an argument is like telling a scientist that they must work Science without using experiments. Absurd. A lot of people in this forum know how to argue, but few know how to make an argument -- with the exception of mathematical arguments. Would it help to post some instructions on how to make a philosophical argument? You did ask for opinions, and philosophers always have lots of opinions, so please consider. There are a lot of posts about new members having problems in the forum. The perception seems to be that new members do not know enough about Science, so they make mistakes until they learn, then their problems with down votes cease. Nonsense. This thinking assumes that new members are uneducated, that they are not professors, scientists, teachers, philosophers, or other educated people. It assumes that new members have nothing to contribute. It also assumes that the old members know more than the new members. I am pretty certain that I know more about consciousness than most members and did when I joined. There may be a few members, who know as much as I do, but I have seen no one who knows more. Of course, you could say that consciousness is not studied in Science as that topic is covered by Philosophy, but there are a surprising number of titles in the Science section with the word "consciousness" in them. It hasn't been that long since I was a new member, so I will tell you what I remember. Notes To Gee: 1. It is OK to insult Religion, Philosophy is just fluff, but do not say anything against Science or you get a down vote. 2. It is always important to be respectful, well mannered and proof your work, but in this forum be very careful how you word things because if it is possible to twist your meaning, someone will and you get a down vote. 3. Tell everyone that you are a scientist, not a philosopher, and deny any belief in "God". (I couldn't do this and got a lot of flack for being a philosopher.) 4. Never complain to a Moderator about a member who has a high rep -- no matter how they are acting. It will backfire. 5. Always agree with the popular opinion -- or DON'T POST. Posting opinions that are unpopular will earn you a down vote. 6. If you ever get three down votes on a post -- GET OUT OF THE THREAD. Tar never learned this one, got about 40 down votes in one thread and left the forum. I will miss him. 7. Avoid the Religion forum as they are all fanatics. Some hate religion, some love religion -- but they are all fanatical about it. 8. Avoid Ethics as that forum can be summed up as "If you would just think like me, act like me, or be like me, you would be ethical." (chuckle) I don't know what maggot in my brain caused me to recently write a thread there, but it didn't work out. I wrote a thread about power and entitled it Powerful Men, Beautiful Women, and Sex. Apparently I did not know that the Powerful Men were being mean to the Beautiful Women Sexually, so it was a thread about sexual harassment. By the bottom of the second page, I apparently was the cause of this harassment. Who knew? 9. Stay away from Politics unless you can think of it as a newspaper and not post. 10. If you ever need a few up votes, go to the Science section, look around for something that interests you, and then profusely thank whoever answered your questions. Sucking up in Science is always good for an up vote. 11. If you found Swansont in a thread in Philosophy, you could often be more open and honest in that thread because people tended to behave when he was around. In this thread, I learned why they behaved. (chuckle) One thing I will say is that Swansont apparently had a lot of power, but I never saw him abuse it and believe he possesses integrity. He is not the only one, and I don't mean to single him out as I see integrity in many members. I just noted early on that people behaved themselves around him. 12. Do not start your own thread. It is suicidal. It is OK to question, but if you start a thread with an idea in mind, you are going to be attacked. For some reason, members in this forum take an original idea as an assault on their authority, so they attack. If I followed these rules, my rep points went up. It did not have a damned thing to do with learning Science. Gee
  10. 5 points
    I'm told that when naked mole rats sit around shooting the breeze, they discuss how they are a clear aberration. Apparently domestic cats hold much the same viewpoint. Not to mention African Greys. It seems its a tendency of any reflective species to view itself as unique and special. You can probably eliminate any single species from the planet and the biosphere will continue pretty much as it was apart from some small, local readjustments. So you can replace the word "humans" in your statement with the name of any species . If you don't feel a Great White is not a super-fish would you like to take one on in unarmed combat. I suggest it won't be long before you are truly unarmed. Moontanman has mentioned examples of intelligence and tool use, etc. There are plenty of examples of animals that are faster than us, or anything else,have better vision than us, or anything else, can endure lower temperatures than us, or anything else. And so on. If we insist on comparisons that focus on our strengths and ignore our weaknesses it is difficult to not to consider us super, but that seems a biased approach. Overgrazing is common. Predators sometimes kill too many of their prey. The Great Barrier Reef is being destroyed by one of its inhabitants. There are, I think, numerous examples of this. We are better at it than most, but I don't think most of us want to boast about that.
  11. 5 points
    Grabbed this from a FB friend. Seems like a good clarification, but is probably too long to read for those who need to read it most. Enjoy. //“I would like all of my right wing, conservative friends and family members to read the following. It explains my beliefs in a nutshell. I borrowed this from my buddy, who borrowed this from another friend.This explains my views in an even tempered, logical way. Let's break it down, shall we? Because quite frankly, I'm getting a little tired of being told what I believe and what I stand for. Spoiler alert: Not every Liberal is the same, though the majority of Liberals I know think along roughly these same lines: “1. I believe a country should take care of its weakest members. A country cannot call itself civilized when its children, disabled, sick, and elderly are neglected. Period. 2. I believe healthcare is a right, not a privilege. Somehow that's interpreted as "I believe Obamacare is the end-all, be-all." This is not the case. I'm fully aware that the ACA has problems, that a national healthcare system would require everyone to chip in, and that it's impossible to create one that is devoid of flaws, but I have yet to hear an argument against it that makes "let people die because they can't afford healthcare" a better alternative. I believe healthcare should be far cheaper than it is, and that everyone should have access to it. And no, I'm not opposed to paying higher taxes in the name of making that happen. 3. I believe education should be affordable and accessible to everyone. It doesn't necessarily have to be free (though it works in other countries so I'm mystified as to why it can't work in the US), but at the end of the day, there is no excuse for students graduating college saddled with five- or six-figure debt. 4. I don't believe your money should be taken from you and given to people who don't want to work. I have literally never encountered anyone who believes this. Ever. I just have a massive moral problem with a society where a handful of people can possess the majority of the wealth while there are people literally starving to death, freezing to death, or dying because they can't afford to go to the doctor. Fair wages, lower housing costs, universal healthcare, affordable education, and the wealthy actually paying their share would go a long way toward alleviating this. Somehow believing that makes me a communist. 5. I don't throw around "I'm willing to pay higher taxes" lightly. I'm retired and on a fixed income, but I still pay taxes. If I'm suggesting something that involves paying more, well, it's because I'm fine with paying my share as long as it's actually going to something besides lining corporate pockets or bombing other countries while Americans die without healthcare. 6. I believe companies should be required to pay their employees a decent, livable wage. Somehow this is always interpreted as me wanting burger flippers to be able to afford a penthouse apartment and a Mercedes. What it actually means is that no one should have to work three full-time jobs just to keep their head above water. Restaurant servers should not have to rely on tips, multibillion dollar companies should not have employees on food stamps, workers shouldn't have to work themselves into the ground just to barely make ends meet, and minimum wage should be enough for someone to work 40 hours and live. 7. I am not anti-Christian. I have no desire to stop Christians from being Christians, to close churches, to ban the Bible, to forbid prayer in school, etc. (BTW, prayer in school is NOT illegal; *compulsory* prayer in school is - and should be - illegal). All I ask is that Christians recognize *my* right to live according to *my* beliefs. When I get pissed off that a politician is trying to legislate Scripture into law, I'm not "offended by Christianity" -- I'm offended that you're trying to force me to live by your religion's rules. You know how you get really upset at the thought of Muslims imposing Sharia law on you? That's how I feel about Christians trying to impose biblical law on me. Be a Christian. Do your thing. Just don't force it on me or mine. 8. I don't believe LGBT people should have more rights than you. I just believe they should have the *same* rights as you. 9. I don't believe illegal immigrants should come to America and have the world at their feet, especially since THIS ISN'T WHAT THEY DO (spoiler: undocumented immigrants are ineligible for all those programs they're supposed to be abusing, and if they're "stealing" your job it's because your employer is hiring illegally). I'm not opposed to deporting people who are here illegally, but I believe there are far more humane ways to handle undocumented immigration than our current practices (i.e., detaining children, splitting up families, ending DACA, etc). 10. I don't believe the government should regulate everything, but since greed is such a driving force in our country, we NEED regulations to prevent cut corners, environmental destruction, tainted food/water, unsafe materials in consumable goods or medical equipment, etc. It's not that I want the government's hands in everything -- I just don't trust people trying to make money to ensure that their products/practices/etc. are actually SAFE. Is the government devoid of shadiness? Of course not. But with those regulations in place, consumers have recourse if they're harmed and companies are liable for medical bills, environmental cleanup, etc. Just kind of seems like common sense when the alternative to government regulation is letting companies bring their bottom line into the equation. 11. I believe our current administration is fascist. Not because I dislike them or because I can’t get over an election, but because I've spent too many years reading and learning about the Third Reich to miss the similarities. Not because any administration I dislike must be Nazis, but because things are actually mirroring authoritarian and fascist regimes of the past. 12. I believe the systemic racism and misogyny in our society is much worse than many people think, and desperately needs to be addressed. Which means those with privilege -- white, straight, male, economic, etc. -- need to start listening, even if you don't like what you're hearing, so we can start dismantling everything that's causing people to be marginalized. 13. I am not interested in coming after your blessed guns, nor is anyone serving in government. What I am interested in is sensible policies, including background checks, that just MIGHT save one person’s, perhaps a toddler’s, life by the hand of someone who should not have a gun. (Got another opinion? Put it on your page, not mine). 14. I believe in so-called political correctness. I prefer to think it’s social politeness. If I call you Chuck and you say you prefer to be called Charles I’ll call you Charles. It’s the polite thing to do. Not because everyone is a delicate snowflake, but because as Maya Angelou put it, when we know better, we do better. When someone tells you that a term or phrase is more accurate/less hurtful than the one you're using, you now know better. So why not do better? How does it hurt you to NOT hurt another person? 15. I believe in funding sustainable energy, including offering education to people currently working in coal or oil so they can change jobs. There are too many sustainable options available for us to continue with coal and oil. Sorry, billionaires. Maybe try investing in something else. 16. I believe that women should not be treated as a separate class of human. They should be paid the same as men who do the same work, should have the same rights as men and should be free from abuse. Why on earth shouldn’t they be? I think that about covers it. Bottom line is that I'm a liberal because I think we should take care of each other. That doesn't mean you should work 80 hours a week so your lazy neighbor can get all your money. It just means I don't believe there is any scenario in which preventable suffering is an acceptable outcome as long as money is saved.”
  12. 4 points
    I really wish you hadn't posted a link to that rag Here is a report from a slightly more reputable news source: http://www.bbc.com/autos/story/20161010-driving-the-saltwater-sports-car And: https://www.theskepticsguide.org/salt-water-car-not-so-fast Here is the Wikipedia age on the technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NanoFlowcell Sounds rather implausible (and the "saltwater" claim of the Daily Scum is just stupid).
  13. 4 points
    Skepticism is only a bad thing when you sit on the fence and don't decide which explanation to trust most. You're testing and experimenting, so if you do it right you'll find evidence in support of the best explanation. Many people claim to be skeptics but simply remain incredulous all their lives. I don't want to take your thread off-topic, but it might help your perspective to make distinctions in your belief system. I've chosen to look at "belief" as the trustworthiness of the explanations you accept for various phenomena. Using the scientific method, we remove as much bias, faith, wishful thinking, and interference as we can, so the conclusions we come to are as trusted as we can make them. Faith always claims 100% accuracy. In science, theory is as strong as it gets, and even the most researched theories are constantly being updated as new evidence is discovered. I think when you talk about belief causing war, violence, and ignorance, you're talking about faith, not trusted science.
  14. 4 points
    If only it was as simplistic as you think it is First of all, quantum physics is both completely deterministic and stochastic. What is deterministic is the evolution of the wave function - given any initial wave function, you can predict with certainty how that wave function will evolve over time (assuming you know the respective boundary conditions etc). However, what is stochastic is the relationship between the wave function, and physical observables - observables are represented by hermitian operators, and which of their eigenvalues you actually measure is - in general - purely probabilistic. For example - you send a stream of photons through a double slit. Given knowledge about the initial conditions (slit separation, photon frequencies, etc) you can predict with certainty what kind of an interference pattern you are going to get on your screen at the end of the experiment. However, you can not predict precisely where each individual photon will hit the screen, that is purely probabilistic. And we’re not even talking about the question which slit each photon goes through. So this is your third possibility - it’s come to be called “determined probabilities”. That’s the first thing. The other thing then is that determinism does not imply an absence of free will, and conversely, indeterminism does not imply that free will is necessarily possible. There are four different philosophical positions that encompass the four possibilities here: hard determinism, compatibilism, hard incompatibilism, and libertarianism. You can look these up yourself. The main point here is that this an ongoing debate, and there is no consensus about which is the correct one. And just to top things off - the human brain is a macroscopic system, and as such classical. So one would expect it to be deterministic. In reality however, in spite of its classicality, it is an example of a complex non-isolated, non-linear, chaotic system. So even if it were completely classical (which actually it isn’t anyway, since it’s fundamental building blocks are quantum mechanical), you still couldn’t predict its precise state very far into the future, because it is extremely sensitive to initial and boundary conditions, never even mind way too complex to mathematically model with currently available technology. It’s also an open feedback system, since it continuously receives external inputs, and generates responses that can modify those very inputs. So is the brain deterministic? You decide yourself, based on the above. Whatever your conclusion, what does that imply for free will? Again, you decide yourself, based on the philosophical positions on this subject matter. I think it is safe to say that there are no straightforward answers either way here.
  15. 4 points
    Let's put it this way: the Relativistic Doppler shift only depend on the relative velocity difference between the source at the time of emission and the receiver at the time of reception. For example, if the source is moving at 0.5 c relative to you at the time of emission, but you accelerate up to 0.5 in that same direction just before the light reaches you, you will measure no Doppler shift because relative velocity difference between you at reception and the source at transmission is 0. However, with cosmological red-shift we are dealing with the geometric expansion of space between the time of emission and reception. This stretches the light waves. So lets; say there was zero expansion of the universe at the moment of emission, then during some period between emission and reception there is some expansion. the light wave will share this expansion. Now the expansion stops before reception so that it is zero again. However, this does not mean that the light wave reverts to it original length. For that to happen, there would have to been a contraction of the universe. This means that you the observer will measure the red-shift caused by this period of expansion even though it no longer exists a the time of reception. So to put it simply, Relativistic Doppler shift only depends on the relative velocity difference between emission and reception ( You could change your velocity to many times while the light it traveling towards you, but the only thing that counts is your velocity at the moment of reception.) Cosmological red-shift is dependent on what occurs during the entire period that the light is traveling and not just the conditions at the "end points".
  16. 4 points
  17. 4 points
    A pretty cool simulation of everything in orbit around the Earth: http://stuffin.space/?intldes=1983-001A And an article about it here: https://www.universetoday.com/138981/this-is-the-coolest-everything-thats-orbiting-the-earth-right-now/
  18. 4 points
    This is getting ridiculous, look, if God wanted publicity it would do some impossible shit that can be verified and tested; it doesn't so it can't. I think it's about time you stop invading multiple threads, with even a tenuous link to religion, with this unfathomable drivel. Please please, please...
  19. 4 points
    I find this video explaining the OP question very clearly. They even constructed a mechanical device visualizing the Lorentz transforms:
  20. 4 points
    Wow you have done a lot of algebra! Read here for a better history of how the confusion over ideas of motion were resolved over the 200 years from about 1650 to about 1850. https://nature.berkeley.edu/departments/espm/env-hist/articles/2.pdf Note that this article still presents the same assumption you have made right at the beginning of your own article and caried through all that algebra to a wring conclusion at the end. Your mis-assumption is that kinematic formula for constant acceleration may be used. This was not the case when you developed the tables of lifting force v energy. Since your thesis is that the modern version of The Law of Conservation of Mechanical energy is incorrect, can you state it, including the conditions under which it holds true? You need to show that your analysis satisfies these conditions. Have you done this, I can't find it?
  21. 4 points
    ! Moderator Note Irony meter overload, thread closed. Furyan5, you're extremely hidebound on certain definitions, and you're unwilling to look at the reasonable alternatives, which makes you a preacher. You've made your point, and if we see it being spammed elsewhere, you'll be booted for soapboxing.
  22. 4 points
    Well I'm sorry you took umbrage at my quickly dashed off scribbling yesterday. It was designed in a hurry to 'get you started'. One very important point you need to realise is that many words with wider meanings in the general English dictionary are used scientifically with only with specialist meanings. Furthermore scientists will assume that you are using these specialist meanings, if you introduce them. So if you need clarification about a technical term ask, don't waste precious time arguing about a definition. From your posts I don't know if you know what a null hypothesis is, but my hint contains everything (scientifically) needed for a starting point. How about There is evidence for global warming. or There is not evidence for global warming. Which of these do you think is null? Which of these can you best falsfy? A further hint, don't make your scheme too grand. Go for something achievable by a 14/15 or 17/18 year old scholar (you didn't say which and it makes a difference). Another important question is. What subject is this for? Geography, Geology, Environmental Science, Chemistry... ? Where will you look for evidence (material to put into numbers) Well, as I said it depends upon the subject. You might look for changes to migratory patterns of birds, insects and animals You might look for changes to how far North od South various vegetation limits eg Tundra vary You might look for direct measurements of some physical property - Can you suggest one? Incidentally marks will also be awarded for the thinking behind rejecting certain markers, in the writeup of such a project. So, for instance, should you accept or reject the obvious one Is the concentration of Carbon Dioxide changing? Will knowing this actually assist? All this is totally consistent with the roadmap I offered initially. So shall we start again?
  23. 4 points
    These 'negotiations' are nuts. We dance around like there's some give and take, so that gun owners can be happy and gun control advocates can be happy. Most of us on this forum can spot the correlation a mile away... People are dying because of easily accessible guns. Your hobby, whether hunting or target shooting, is causing unnecessary deaths. And the fact that you need a gun to protect yourself from all the others who have guns, says something about the magnitude of the problem. I like you guys, Zap, Moony and Raider, and have a lot of respect for you, but what would it take, how many deaths, how many schoolchildren killings, what size body count, before you can say " No more" ?
  24. 4 points
  25. 4 points
    It is difficult to say that there is nothing if so far four people close to the administration and campaign have been indicted and/or plead guilty. In most investigations I would presume that this alone would create cause to look deeper into a given organization. Who in the Clinton campaign was arrested due to dealings with Russia?