geordief

This has been verified experimentally and it seems that any effect exhibiting this invariance and a finite speed could be used to derive the Lorentz Transformations. Is there any way of showing that this invariance and finite speed must be the case or does one just accept observations as they are and proceed from there? https://books.google.ie/books?id=WTfnBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA44&dq=Rindler++speed+limit+cosmology&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=28.2&f=false page 43

A 100% absorptive material does not exist -and the same applies to a 100% reflective material? And the photon/detection that was "expected" but didn't show could have gone anywhere in the universe....?

Is it a trivial observation to say that ,if an "expected" photon/detection is not made then we know that it has been absorbed elsewhere? EDIT:I seem to have wandered into double split territory.Has any one covered the space around and between the two slits with 100% reflective coating? Does that make any difference to the experiment? (not pretending to be "up" on the double slit experiment.)

Is the expanding sphere entirely to be viewed as a mathematical/geometrical representation of the probability of the spatio-temporal location of the detected photon? That's all?

So how would you aim it ? Would the expanding sphere be "shaped" by having nearly all the region it would normally expand into shielded with a reflective/non absorptive surface? EDIT:I have just long- windedly described a length of fibre optic cable ,haven't I?

It is impossible to "aim" an individual photon?

If thee is a source of light ,is it reasonable to see this as an expanding sphere centred around the source ? Does this scenario still apply if there is only one proton emitted ? If so , can I see this as that there is an equal chance of this photon being detected at any point on this expanding sphere? As there is only one photon involved, does its detection at one place preclude its detection at another? So ,for example if there is an object** close to the source ,and there is only one photon it will be impossible to detect the photon anywhere else (in a different direction) which is further away? **assuming that this object absorbs or "detects" the one available photon(even if there is no observer to observe this fact)

@Ten Oz Yes ,morally speaking. Is his game plausible deniability?

Am I being contrarian//pedantic /literalist/plain wrong to observe that quantum reality is discontinuous? Does the "Just because you are paranoid does not mean....." saying work here as an analogy? Just because our models are imperfect does that make them wrong? (Can they be "right" without us knowing? Can we be "almost there"?) We are looking for a quantum gravity model and trying to unify two very powerful modalities(good term?) but can we deny the present schism? Will that schism disappear once we have found a way to integrate the two "systems" ?

We know Trump has his faults. Is one of them the wish to not confront reality? That would be one hell of a weakness if true. Or is it simply that he would like to present reality in a way that serves his interest? Does he really believe that the US agencies which have judged Russia responsible for this hacking have misinterpreted their information or have adopted a biased approach? Or is he being completely cynical or ,God forbid hiding his own involvement ? Why has he taken so long to apprise himself of their findings?

They are man made and so by definition artificial. They are also ,practically by definition imperfect as they form a bridge between what we know and what we are trying to make out. They do have their own separate reality but it is a subjective* reality confined to the region(s) of the mind. Do you think I have wrongly classified in my OP? *or "inter-subjective" acc. Stringkunky http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/97105-is-space-time-a-physical-entity-or-a-mathematical-model/page-1#entry936114 post#18 and#19

Is there a relationship between these two areas? Does it make sense to talk about them in this generalist,absolutist way? Does the micro "cause" the macro or can it be imagined that it could actually be the other way around? If the universe began with one thing ,could it be considered a macro object which went on to "spawn" micro objects? Does the whole concept of "began" not hold water in the first place and also does this concept of the macro and the micro as two distinct areas not hold water either?

Here is my (raw) point of view. Either group is only infinite as a mathematical object. As real world objects they are groups of elements that can be added to without end. If (as real world groups) we stop the counting process at any stage* it is possible to add one more element to either group ,making that group temporarily larger. As mathematical objects both groups need not concern themselves with real world practicalities and so the latter group can be seen in those terms as "twice the size " of the former-according to the mathematical convention. *at a stage when both groups contain an equal number of elements.

Dr Krettin is clearly jarred . It must have been Baked Date Rolls http://eggless-desserts.qualitylivingstyles.com/dateroll.html

A roll on the hand is worth two in the elliptical plate -as does a date in time. Bacon in Spain? Needs must I suppose

Good question.It has to be environmental science.It is the most pressing need and (as do other disciplines) it feeds into and from the other disciplines, What could be more fundamental or potentially beneficial than the study of how living and non living things are inter connected and relate to each other and to their surroundings? If circumstances were not so pressing it could get overlooked as "part of the landscape" but not now.

So ,if the wheel has (evenly distributed) mass ,would this mass simply serve to slow the rate of expansion of the system as a whole-or the increase in distance of elements from the CoG?

I did have both scenarios in mind . The wheel can be arbitrarily massive and the original speed of rotation can also vary from barely observable to relativistic(if that is possible). So a few parameters there,I think. Is the circular shape of the (circumference of the ) wheel changed under some of those initial conditions ?

I use acetone to thin fibreglass resin so as to strengthen wood in rotten wooden window frames. Thinning the resin allows it to soak in further (you have to add hardener as well ,of course). I actually use nail polish remover as I can't get pure acetone from the chemist but there is some acetone in it -although some kinds are described as acetone free.(which I try not to buy)

Not quite sure what I was thinking . I wasn't sure that the CoG would stay the same as I was imagining the circumference of the wheel transforming into a non spherical shape . Thanks.

Is the original circle elongated in the direction of the original rotation? (an ellipsoid?) What about from the two frames of reference , the evolving c.o.g ** of the system and the original one? Do they differ? ** centre of gravity

thanks.

I was ruminating on time dilation caused by acceleration/gravity and this scenario came to my mind. As I was unable to work out what would happen , I asked for help. The "spokes" turn into nautilus like shaped spirals,don't they?

Are there any implications from Cherenkov radiation that could have a bearing on the subject of potential faster than light- in- a- vacuum speeds?

That is all behind us now (bar a second coming) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/fish-and-chips-squid-cod-haddock-global-warming-warmer-seawater-chip-shops-a7469836.html