geordief

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGHjHU_Z8d8 OK

A coincidence/connection that 360 degrees is the same as the number of degrees that a radius of a circle completes in a complete revolution ? (or just the length of the perimeter of a circle) (that was why I guessed 360) Yes ,"open space" seems to be another description of negatively curved spaces.

What would be the greatest number of degrees that a triangle could have in a (closed?) curved space? Is it 360? Is it always 180 if the triangle is small enough and 360 if the triangle is large enough? And what is the smallest number of degrees that a triangle can have in a (open?) curved space? Zero?

Well ,I was in at the fire last night, staring at it and waiting for a piece of wood to burn through and fall down. It seemed to me that ,no matter how closely I paid attention to this anticipated event it always occurred when I was not looking. Can I elevate this seeming characteristic of such events into something of a principle? Do "events" never exist in isolation but always as part of a sequence and are the links in the chain of these sequences always blurry and never "standalone ? Or is it more a question of our inability to see clearly enough and in enough detail? So do all events "bleed into one another " in spite of one's inclination to believe that they are separate from one another?

Seems the common cold is reappearing as restrictions ease in the UK https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/colds-are-even-more-common-as-covid-lockdown-eases-0vb8n2h9s?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1619864588 There may be a paywall to the body of the article.

Only a song . Van Morrison

Real men don't need artificial stimuli.

I am enjoying these new Feynman videos which feel a lot clearer to me ( up to now any videos I found were blurry and muffled) https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/ There is a scrolling text feature accompanying the talks which I find is a great help too.

I see. It's the relation. Is it possible (if undoubtedly impractical) to redraw s/t diagrams so that all axes have units of time? (I think I may have heard of theoretical extreme circumstances where space and time could flip .Is that "not impossible"?)

That formulation might seem to put our understandings of space and time on something of an equal footing. As I understand it the equations that allow us to make the space-time diagrams actually have both/all axes as spatial with the "time" axis involving the "c" multiplicator so as to be of mathematical use (ie all axes have the same units). So "t" in the graph seems to me to be a tiny factor (although clearly present) Would a description such as "space-timed light distance" be as accurate ,if a lot ,lot ,lot less catchy? Is it possible to reformulate the space-time diagrams in such a way that all the axes are represented in terms of time rather than space?

Indeed.That option seems mad. (Unless the "followee" is automatically notified)

When I go to my profile and look at my one "follower "there is a tab to the right that allows me to "stop others from following me". That not do the trick?

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56491033 Sounds interesting even though a work in progress. " According to the Standard Model, beauty quarks should decay into equal numbers of electron and muon particles. Instead, the process yields more electrons than muons."

Is the idea that this expansion was initiated at some point and that it is continuing wherever we look "under its own steam" or inertia as it were ? (aside from Dark Energy which seems like some godawful joker in the pack) But to come back to my "expanding into itself" notion can we posit a moment in the evolution of the universe where there was no distance ** between objects so that the space that there came to be subsequently between the constituent parts of this earlier unified object came out of that object (so that the later distinct objects and the space between them could be seen as the two fundamental elements of the earlier unified object) If there was a time when all the matter in the universe was gathered in one object can we see this object as having evolved into (1) the later distinct objects and (2) the space between them? Or is "space" just another word for "distance"......? ** does that notion imply an impossibly perfect symmetry?

Fueled by word choices such as the "Big Bang" it was always a temptation to think of an initial event where the Early Universe started from a well defined point and grew into an existing Space. But this, we are told is not what happened and it is said that everywhere is the centre of the Universe . Trying to make sense of this (I suspect it may not be too hard or counterintuitive,moreso that I may be "making a meal of it") can I view the situation as the Universe "expanding into itself"? And,if so is the "space" it is expanding into created by itself and equivalent to the distances between its constituent parts?

The man from WHO (some Irish sounding guy ; is he the head?,the chair?)was just on the TV saying vaccination passports for international travel were a bad idea as they reinforced the inequality between countries via a vis access to vaccines in the first place.

No harm in that but it is clearly in its (and everyone's) interest that enough vaccines are available in all parts of the world ,and as quickly as possible. Pay them if necessary.

Is motion just the natural order of things and so we are really asking what changes motion? In any system is there a process of seeking a balance and this process is unattainable so motion continues? And why is there a favoured direction of motion (along geodesics)?

Reaching the sufficient number of vaccinated may be a difficult ask so it is important to not alienate those who are hesitant to take the vaccine for any real or imagined reason at all. These people have to be accommodated as much as possible (I appreciate some lives may be lost as a result but that is hopefully short term)

Best of luck and thanks for all your help over the past 10 years or so.

Is the tiny distance between the head and the feet a misleading example? Would whatever is seen,(or not seen) be essentialy the same as if the distance was the same as that between any object and an observer say 1,2 or 1000 light seconds away? So the object crosses the EH in its own timeframe and the observer sees it up until it crosses the EH in the observer's timeframe. And the timeframes differ.

Should /could I have placed the "earthbound" clock at the centre of the Earth?

Actually ,no I didn't have that particular scenario in mind.I was just very generally thinking of two clocks that ,either one or both accelerated. And that ,if they did accelerate (under their own steam and provided possibly that they did not both accelerate "equally" ) then they would tick at different rates. Sorry ,I missed your post.I will have a look at it a bit later. @studiot I don't see the problem with my scenario. Can you not have a clock on the surface of the Earth and another at rest wrt it at say 1 light second from it (or from the centre of the Earth)? This second clock will , from rest move towards the first clock and eventually they will come together. I realize now that these two clocks will tick at different rates ,but when I asked the question I imagined the opposite might be the case (and the freefall might have kept them aligned) (The inertial coordinate system I was using was that of the "Earth bound" clock)

Your speed is only zero wrt the centre of gravity of the field. You are in motion wrt all other points. Anything to that?

So does that not suggest that the two causes of time dilation have a connected cause? Is there a sense in which they are entirely distinct?