pzkpfw

A Philadelphia experiment reference is all you've got? Theoretical physics does not mean "making up bullshit". P.S. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physics So ... Where are your mathematical models? etc.

We don't want a guarantee. We want evidence.

Try to avoid thinking "real universe". That'll lead to thinking there's absolute time and absolute distance. It's all relative.

That's an utter lie, which fails to acknowledge "... which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications ...". You're simply doing the standard "gosh that looks complicated, therefore God" dance.

Do you know what "theory" means, in the domain of science?

I'd avoid using phrases like that. No observers view of the Universe is more "real" than any others. That kind of thinking makes it hard to let go of concepts like absolute time or absolute simultaneity.

Sure, it's a simple basic fact of relativity that any observer can consider themselves as at rest. e.g. The train observer sees themselves as at rest and the embankment observer is moving. And vice versa. But that still doesn't make sense out of the part of your post I was commenting on. You wrote "... formal linear transformations can only be made between stationary observers ...". { Transformations } - { between } - { stationary observers } Yes, both observers can consider themselves as stationary, but there's no outside view where both are stationary (if there's any relative motion), so it makes no sense to write "between stationary observers". You may as well have just written "... formal linear transformations can only be made between observers ..." ... in which case, I've lost the point you were originally trying to make back then. Why "can only"? By "stationary observers" here, do you really mean "inertial observers" (i.e. trying to keep acceleration out of it?)

Here in N.Z. I choose UK English as my default. That means I get keyboards with pound signs, not dollar signs. (I'm a programmer, but all in the Microsoft world and on PC's and servers - never touched Android in that sense. However, I have a friend who does Android for a living and will see if he's got a comment. Except I'm out of town for two weeks so there'll be a delay.)

I'm less than convinced by your attempts to redefine over a hundred years of well studied science. Instead of making your "Why do we ...?" claim-wrapped-in-a-question, based on your own new science, you need to start with the very basics of that new science. (And this isn't the part of the forum to do that within).

That is such wordy salad, I can see it only as evasion. There are nuggets of truth in there, but you've not answered the question.

What do you mean by "stationary observers". It seems you mean stationary with respect to each other. In that case, what relevance are any "formal linear transformations"?

You are correct in saying "there is not an absolute simultaneity" *. But you take that too far. Two events either were simultaneous in a frame, or not. Whether "known" or "inferred" by an observer in that frame is not the point. What the point is, is that when observers are in relative motion, events that are simultaneous in the frame of one, won't be in the other. It's not about how they "know" or "infer" that fact. (* Oddly, you contradict yourself. Earlier you seemed to demand that if the strikes were simultaneous in the embankment frame, that they must be simultaneous in the train frame, and that the train observer observing the strikes at different times is just an artifact of their observation. This kind of demand is requiring an absoluteness to simultaneity.)

No. In fact you're confused about what observing the flashes means. However, you are more or less correct that they must agree that the strikes struck, and where. (It's the when that's in question). Again, way off. Events are events. Observing those events is something different. For example, someone who isn't exactly between two lightening strikes could still determine if they were simultaneous - in their frame - by using the non-infinite speed of light and the distances from the strikes; it doesn't matter that they observed those strikes at different times. The events of the strikes and the observing of those strikes are different things. In the train-embankment-lightening thought experiment, the setup is that both the embankment observer and train observer are exactly between the two strikes. Since both observers may consider themselves as at rest *, they are both entitled to know the strikes were simultaneous - in their frame - if they observe the strikes simultaneously. Since they can't both observe the strikes at the same time, they can't both consider the same two strikes to have been simultaneous. (* there's no absolute to motion. The train observer can consider themselves as at rest, and the embankment (and its observer) are moving. Relativity tells us the rules of physics are the same for both observers.)

No, you're way off. The events are the events, and all observers will agree that the events occurred, but the whole point of "relativity of simultaneity" is that observers in relative motion can't agree whether the events were simultaneous. The thought experiment happens to have the events simultaneous in the embankment frame, and shows why they can't be in the train frame. It is clear that two other strikes might be simultaneous in the train frame - and they won't be simultaneous in the embankment frame.

No. That was exactly my point. There's no specific reason why Earth would end up in that formerly-our-Sun black hole. * There's no reason for you to think that eventually everything in every Galaxy will end up in a black hole. (And even if that were the expected eventuality - that in itself is no reason to assume there's some other process that will result (i.e. your wish to have white holes recycling that matter). Your wishes or beliefs don't drive reality). (* in reality (i.e. no magic black hole), we eventually will end up in the Sun, as it starts to die and goes red giant. It will expand as it cools, and our orbit is not far enough out to save us from being eaten.)

Anon_Ghost, taking things back a notch; I suspect from reading between the lines of your posts, that you're under one of the common misapprehensions about black holes. They don't act like vacuum cleaners sucking up all matter around. Stuff still has to get "close enough" to be "captured". For example, if an alien with a magic shrinking ray compressed Earth to within its Schwarzschild radius - it would become a black hole, yes. But it's total gravity at that time would still be the same. Our Moon wouldn't suddenly be sucked in to that black hole, it would continue to orbit what was once Earth *1. The same with our Sun - if it were magically turned into a black hole - Earth would just continue to orbit *1. But even so, imagining that black holes did act the way I suspect you think they do - why does that lead you to believe there must be some "white hole" counterpart? If the Universe did happen to be in a state that meant that after uncountable time, all matter was stuck inside countless black holes *2 - what's the problem with that? You seem to want to "believe" that there'd be "white holes" spewing out that matter somewhere, but belief doesn't rule reality. (*1 those are a simplifications; to look deeper see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter ) (*2 ignoring Hawking radiation.) P.S. is this you here? http://www.thescienceforum.com/personal-theories-alternative-ideas/51002-black-holes-white-holes-big-bang.html#post652397

My emphasis: Quite simple: there is no God. So it/he/she/they don't need to be time - or anything else. Speaking of time, I'll save some by not waiting 1000 years

Absolutely. I hope none of your socks are missing.

To learn you first need to admit you've got stuff to learn. fiveworlds definitely does know some stuff. He just needs to understand doesn't know everything, and open himself up to learning, and not being defensive about what he's said. (I've been programming since I was 11, in 1981 (BASIC on a Pr1me Minicomputer via dumb terminal). Programming has been the bulk of my career. What's making me most interested and engaged in my current job, is what I'm learning from the contractors who've been brought into the project I'm working on. The methods and patterns they use are making my brain hurt. But hurt in a good way. They know stuff I don't. That's a good thing.) ((P.S. I gave him green for his gobbledigook program, because at least he put some effort into it.))

That's utterly bizarre. Why write each line of the file to separate files (in temp), just to read them again and write them as separate files (to output), to then read them again into one long in-memory string to finally write to the output file, when you could just write them (if they meet whatever criteria) directly to the output file in the first pass? ... I'm off to do this in C# to show the pattern ... Edit: yep, this works fine. As noted, not "production" code, but I'd be surprised if the Python code had to be much different. (Open input file, open output file, read lines from input file and write to output file if they meet some criteria.) using System.IO; namespace FileFilter { class Program { // Expects two parameters - the name of the file to process and the text wanted at the start of lines to keep // This is not production code. There's no error checking (Does input file exist? Will output file be overwritten?). // It may give you a stomache ache. And socks will vanish from your washing. static void Main(string[] args) { using (var inputFile = new StreamReader(args[0])) using (var outputFile = new StreamWriter(args[0].Insert(args[0].LastIndexOf('.'), "_Filtered"))) { string lineIn; while ((lineIn = inputFile.ReadLine()) != null) { if (lineIn.StartsWith(args[1])) { outputFile.WriteLine(lineIn); } } } } } } P.S. re-use of the variable named "txt" is nasty.

That doesn't really make sense (given how C# works; even if you're talking about .Net Native under .NET Framework 4.6 and 4.5). Having said that, C# is what I'd use too - I (more or less) currently make my living as a C# programmer. He didn't ask for mangled HTML either! Still has the issue of reading the file all at once. I don't know Python specifically, but reading line by line seems possible (e.g. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8009882/how-to-read-large-file-line-by-line-in-python ) Reading line by line also means you'd not be tied to the assumption that there's always 10 lines between the lines wanted. And your code assumes the input ends on a wanted line; but going by the sample (with the "Etc ...") I'd suggest that's not guaranteed. And if that "last line" is not there (or there are less than 10 unwanted lines), the last iteration of your while loop may well have an i that's less than len(txt) ... but adding 11 (i.e. the "print txt[i+11]") would push you past the end of the list. That is, your code will only work if the input file is exactly like: wanted line 10 x unwanted lines wanted line wanted line 10 x unwanted lines wanted line wanted line 10 x unwanted lines wanted line ... etc. What's the point of the "hello" replacements?

Erm, instead of looking for '0' to '9' as the first character of the line (via regex or not) - why not just look for the 'f' of "fixedStep"? (or the whole word). Seems safe enough, going by the specification (which does say "...without the numerical lines..." but equally shows the only non numeric lines to begin "fixedStep ..."). (Minor point, but, well ...) @fiveworlds: the spec says "Etc....". A solution that only shows lines 1 and 12 of the file (elements 0 and 11 of the list) misses all lines in the potential "Etc.". Also, a solution that loads (with the use of "readlines") the entire file at once into a list, will get to be a drag on the system if the input file gets large.

... and this is something "peer reviewers" would have picked up if the Journal of advances in physics was worth anything.

(There are plenty of journals which accept anything for inclusion, sometimes for money, sometimes just for padding. Simple inclusion in this on-line journal is not evidence of anything. Frankly, your mangling of the text you're writing here does not give me confidence.) If you wish anyone to take your idea seriously, you need to show the derivation and the evidence. You can't simply say "here it is" and expect anything.

How easy is it to be a Doctor?