ajb

What makes us believe that the ruler did change at all and that it was not simply a kind of observational paramorphosis?

Because all mesurements are relative - any choice of intertial frame is as good as another.

This thread is not about me - it is about jobs at NASA and how you (and anyone else) can apply for them. My point is that if you apply, be careful not to claim things that you cannot prove. They simply won't beleive you and you will not stand a chance of getting the job. Answer the questions on the application forms and show evidences.

A simple answer would be great.

 

1. Yes it has changed

2. No it has not changed.

 

Please.

There is no change... if you have a pair of identical rulers and send one on this round trip, and then compare it with the rule left at home (assuming the rulers are now at rest with respect to each other) then they will be the same length.

As Mordred points out the same is true of clocks - they both tick at the same rate when brought back together.

I would imagine that most scientific/engineering jobs at NASA are very well structured and part of ongoing projects. The postdoc fellowships may have more scope.

Either way, telling them something and showing them evidence for something are different. If you want people to beleive that you can create scientific questions and answer then then you will need evidence of this - for example a PhD and a thesis that shows this.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/jobs.html (jobs at Goddard)

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/jobs-internships/index.html (jobs at Ames)

https://npp.usra.edu/ (Nasa posdoc program)

---------------------------

http://uzay.tubitak.gov.tr/en The 'Turkish Nasa'

It looks like they sent you a standard reply... which is not suprising.

I don't know much about jobs as such with NASA, but I know they offer a few postdoc fellowships every year - I looked at one to two in the past but they were never really in my field.

see my prior post it explains it.

Can you tell me what number post? Thanks.

A little bit of physics digression I took to explain the quantum leap meaning.

Maybe this is for another thread... but what the heck is quantum jump or leap?

I am not saying that you should publish here, but a search of < 1 second produced The Journal of Mathematical Sociology - IF 0.68 which is okay for a maths journal.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gmas20#.V5uZaTXw9YE

Space-time is 'populated' classically by field and quantum mechanically we have particles appearing and disappearing all the time. So yes, the simple idea of a 'true' vacuum is rather an approximation - but one that is good enough for lots of situations.

Quite dark for Helloween... this song as a real deep feel to it.

But they would not want to publish a paper that has previously been published in another journal.

That is the key point. If all the results of a given paper are already known then a journal is unlikely to publish it - other than as a review paper.

Why worry about copyright? You are not stealing anyone else's work. And no one will steal yours.

Copyright is more an issue for the publishers of journals that the authors.

You really worry about copyright and so on too much... if you have a paper ready then submit it somewhere!

I really do suggest you look at the papers you are citing. Generally, a pure maths journal maybe interested in some mathematical problems that come from sociology, but only only if the mathematical problems are interesting and don't require much background information in the social sciences.

As ever... look at the journals that the papers you are citing appear in. Pick a journal from that list - look for journals that publish similar things with a similar level of maths and sociology. My feelings are that as an applied work a journal in sociology maybe best.

Can the claim that our thoughts determine the reality be related to the copenhagen principle of quantum mechanics?

I doubt it - not in a very scientific way at least.

I knew a girl call Marianne... just don't ask my wife about her (thats another story)

Well the reason I asked is that I had heard many times that there is nothing to prevent the BH collapsing on itself into the singularity...

I am not sure what you mean by a black hole collapsing. A black hole solution in general relativity is a vacuum solution - there is nothing to actually collapse. The additional fields and particles are are uasually thought of as test particles, meaning that they don't contribute to the geometry/gravity.

...and so I wondered if the objects inside the BH would somehow prevent an uncontrolled collapse by virtue of their increasing density.

Test particles will hit the singularity - at least classically.

Is there really nothing in the particles (also what kinds of fields are there?) to counteract the pull towards the "centre".

Not for test particles - if you had enough mass inside the horizon then it may not be a black hole solution. For example, the Schwarzschild works fine for the external space-time of say the Sun. There is no horizon here as it would sit inside the Sun, but in that region we do not have a vacuum solution, thus we need some other solution to the field equations - so called interior solutions..

And do the particles/fields exert a gravitational force on each other? Or do they not continue to deform space time in a decentralized way so that some particles are actually being pulled up towards the event horizon even if they cannot escape it?

Usually we treat them as only being acted on by gravity and not creating any gravity. But this is an approximantion that is thought to be okay.

Would they exert pressure on each other , so that we could think about them as some kind of a pressure cooker?

I don't know, or really I am not sure what one means by that.

Is the BH filled with anything?

For a physical black hole one would expect fields and particles to be inside the horizon.

God, I have been reading this:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis

 

It is littered with the word create.

 

Ok, lets go with emerge. I will think about this more and get back you.

Interesting, but the reason for 'create' in the context of nucleosynthesis is that creationists don't seem to hijack particle cosmology! There is less worry about misunderstandings here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world

The RNA world is one possible route from chemistry -> biology, but other routes have been suggested (not that I know much about this) The point is it was not like one day there was mud and the next day advanced cellular life. Thanks for making this point.

It wasnt a cell.

This point is very important - cells evolved some time after the first very primative life emerged.

I am not sure that is the right word, emerge seems to suggest something rising up out of something, which somehow paints the picture of cell composing itself on its own accord rather than a result of other factors bringing it into being.

Emerge is the standard langauge here - in this context it means 'come into be'. The word 'create' suggests more, it suggests purpose and a creator.

So just to confirm, the universe has the power, or the capability, to create. It has creative power.

Strange choices of words here... the Universe is everything and life can be found in the Universe.

Do you want to suggest another word?

Life emerged maybe better - we want to avoid the suggestion of a creator.

Did the universe at some point create life.

In essence yes - life developed in the Universe and we think via natural and not supernatural processes.

The word 'create' may not be the best choice.