swansont

Socrates was apparently unaware that you can memorize things without understanding them. I have no doubt that if religious stories were handed down orally that they would have evolved, because that’s precisely the issue I was pointing out. You apparently agree, but have posted in a way that suggests you also don’t

The “we don’t remember our history” theme might hit a little hard these days

I think there are people using chemical enhancement who can do this, too. We know it takes light time to travel. Nothing earth-shattering here If it were a star that could go supernova, that could have happened in the last 4 years. No way to tell until the light gets here. Nope. Show us the math. Mainstream physics says the rocket will chase the photons all the way there. The first photon takes 4.24 years.

I have no idea what this has to do with anything.

I don’t know what your point is, and you apparently don’t know what mine is. Not having the LHC or Hubble at our disposal is completely irrelevant. If you cite an AI as a response, nobody knows where the information came from, so it could have come from an unreliable source, the AI could have botched the inquiry, or it could have hallucinated the response. If you give a link that goes to a paper written by a research group doing work at the LHC, then people know it came from LHC scientists. If you link to a crackpot’s website, people will know that. Because crackpot information is also accessible to LLMs. Citations are about revealing the source of the information. Not long ago you could ask Google if lawyers were human, and the AI summary would tell you they were not. Consumer-grade LLMs are not credible sources, so they are not allowed to be used as if they were.

You can send a signal sating what time your clock read that won’t depend on shifts. “When I observed the event my clock read 12:07” sent by morse code, for example. It doesn’t it have to be a human undergoing the acceleration; it just happens to be people in certain thought experiments. This isn’t a (intellectually) serious objection. When we do actual tests we don’t use people. When making measurements, people are quite imprecise. That’s why we use various lab equipment devices/tools. But people can and do travel at relativistic speeds. Speed is relative, so you can accelerate anything, and a human will have some speed relative to it. If relativistic means “able to measure an effect of relativity” (typically time dilation, since it’s the easiest to measure) we even accelerate people to and from these speeds.

Your concern is based on your misunderstanding of something, and that’s got to be the assumption until you actually present the train paradox narrative that says anything about “instantaneous” or “now” or distant observers “witnessing the same moment” AFAICT you’re confused by your own strawman

Average temperature is a global proxy for total thermal energy. It’s harder to present some of these other variables as “global” or things that would be affected by greenhouses gases (geothermal activity?) Further, temperature is not just atmospheric - it’s tied in with surface temperature, i.e. land and water. Pressure isn’t going to show the same kind of variation because the atmosphere can expand and contract. Other variables don’t have the correlations that make looking at them as worthwhile for this analysis. Humidity is bounded and water vapor has a way of condensing and returning to the earth as rain. You might expect rainfall to have increased, but it’s a more variable parameter than temperature so is probably impacted more by having incomplete data. You can see that rainfall above baseline has increased in the last ~60 years as opposed to the 60 before that - more years with excess, and increased amount of excess. Also the magnitude of the few years where there’s a shortfall, so it looks like the variability has increased https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-precipitation

T=0 is an arbitrary designation, and you don’t have to use numbers to analyze the concept. Just that the time is the same. No. You’re overcomplicating the situation. That the information is being conveyed to you, the reader, does not create another observer.

You don’t include things that don’t affect the physics. Size and position of an observer are experimental details. Assuming they’re in the same inertial frame, you account for the light travel time.

You’re not in an acceleration frame (SR works in u]inertial frames), and the light-travel time is something you account for. It’s a lot harder to understand when you don’t bother learn the various elements and skip directly to the end. It’s not even that. You are equidistant from the two landing points so the light travel time is equal. Thus seeing them at the same time means they are simultaneous.

It does. It means it happens at the same time in your frame. Simple. It’s not instantaneous. The strikes are simultaneous because they happen at the same time. Happens at the same time means the clock readings are the same. You can synchronize (ideal) clocks only in the same frame of reference. What Einstein showed was that simultaneity is frame-dependent

Yeah, I recall being told you have to wade through the first ~50 pages, and I just couldn’t do it. Yeah, I enjoyed The Andromeda Strain and Jurassic Park. (also puzzled that Douglas Adams didn’t pop into my head for my earlier post)

Not sure how. Whether the information has changed from one work to the next doesn’t strike me as a philosophical issue. I’m not the one pursuing this particular tangent of dubious relevance.

If you do plan to check them out from the library, you can ask the librarian for recommendations. They can probably tell you what’s popular, and if they read SF will probably tell you what they like.

I see it as an awkward comparison, since gondolas don’t have to use counter-balancing. It’s different categorization. Railway vs gondola (track vs suspended from a cable) where funicular is a subset under railway.

I though funicular meant that it was counterbalanced by another car or cars.

The issue is veracity, and memory is a fluid thing. The story I recall is that he wanted it to match the notes in music

Energizer uses black on the + end

Book recommendations are subjective, because it depends on what you like. Also depends on whether you widen the net and include fantasy in the discussion. I never got into Dune back in the day while others loved it. I loved Roger Zelazny (especially the Amber series but also other stuff) Terry Pratchett is enjoyable; I like his sense of humor. John Scalzi’s, too (in Redshirts and The Android’s Dream, at least). I also recall liking Stephen R. Donaldson's Chronicles of Thomas Covenant series. I think Jasper Fforde’s Thursday Next series and his Nursery Crimes Division books are wonderful, too

Or it just seemed like a long day because of the fighting (dying being the opposite of fun) and the story’s fantastical nature grew as it was repeated and people exaggerated. I know that’s a shocking concept, because nobody does that, right?

Antiparticle have opposite properties in regard to CPT symmetry. So you have opposite charge. Neutrinos and antineutrinos have opposite spin orientations. Antiparticles behave like particles (and vice-versa) under time reversal. Mass isn’t part of that symmetry. And time is the symmetry, not a particle subject to the symmetry.

It’s not energy under stress. The stress-energy tensor is part of determining gravity. It’s dependent on density and flux of energy and momentum.

Not sure what you hope to accomplish with this. Yeah, you brought this same nonsense up when we discussed the policy. https://scienceforums.net/topic/133849-aillm-policy-discussion/ It was bollocks then, and nothing has changed It may not be what you’re talking about, but it’s part of the discussion. The logical conclusion from this is that science is a massive conspiracy and we’re making it all up. Because that’s where repeatability/reproducibility enters into it. If the experiment is made up, then so must the next one that reproduces the result, or builds on it. A huge house of cards. But technology is built on it, too, and it works. The issue is not belief but trust - a matter of credibility - and the fact that the technology works, and the experiments you can do agree with other results, builds trust in the science you can’t personally check. e.g. GPS actually works. They aren’t faking it, and it’s not just some happy accident that it works. With an AI result, we don’t know where it’s coming from, or if it’s a hallucination. If we did know the source, then you can cite that instead. Then everybody can see/decide if it’s a credible source.

What’s happened in the last six months won’t be undone very soon, and it will take a long time to reverse the damage. Science isn’t something you can stop and then pick up where you left off. Damaged trust is not something that is rebuilt quickly. And countries are finding they don’t need the US as much as most thought.