geordief

Yes I have been looking at Studiot's table. Can it be said that it is an aim to find a common source for mass and charge (and perhaps other similar things)? Length and Time seem to have such a common source in Relativity but seem to be very different from Mass,Charge etc....

Well in what sense is mass a dimension ? If it is ,as you say the "third fundamental dimension" then it seems like I am missing a fundamental understanding . The earlier part of your post where you described intervals as being fundamental (we measure intervals in ,eg time ,not time itself) was easily understandable even if it needed to be said.... It reset my appreciation of relativity using a form of words I had not found explicitly used before.

Same here (as michel123456) . "Interesting" was approbatory ,not trying to find any flaw. Your phrase "the third fundamental dimension of Physics" was new to me. and "interesting" .It is not obvious to me why mass differences should not have the same relevance as spatio-temporal differences (because of my level of familiarity,certainly)

I don't think there is any disagreement .Spacetime is indeed a more fundamental understanding than space and time viewed separately but both are models and one is free to choose one or the other for convenience. Any model that works and fits the context is fine and yes the union of space and time can be assumed at small spatial or temporal intervals (But not necessarily when dealing with "singularities " it seems)

Interesting .Any flesh on that bone?

I see it that way too, but it is simpler for practical purposes (when distances ,either spatial or temporal) are small to "round off" any calculations and treat space and time as separate and independent variables. Strange has surprised me to learn that spacetime curvature can actually come into play in very long structures but I am comfortable with that.

What buildings would they be? Buildings housing telescopes or scientific experiments?

Back to "Time" ,we have a model (s?) and it seems to be internally consistent (Well I take that on trust as I must). But the essence of the scientific method seems like the active welcoming of findings that contradict current assumptions and understanding. It does seem a stretch to imagine that our understanding of Time could be revisited but it would be a scientific wet dream if it came about. I am not up to speed on Hawking's apparent final publication where he seems to be be proposing that Time has a (presumably mathematical) imaginary property in the first/final analysis.

Well maybe one can aim for helping the audience be comfortable with their lack of understanding (if they have no aim or ability to remedy it) But I also take the point that an audience can have unrealistic expectations .

Yes ,we cannot wish away inherent difficulties and our natural inclination to hold onto simple truths when they seem adequate for most purposes. I have been starting to relook at the conceptual basis of complex numbers and that pesky i . Perhaps that might eventually help me to get a better feel for those rotations.

Shows, I feel that Herman Minkowski was still coming to terms with the new reality. So am I still. The maths and the model are fine (though we still don't know how things play out in extreme situations) but an intuitional grasp may still elude us ,although those completely familiar with the model may feel differently. If there are those 100% comfortable with the space time relationship then they should perhaps also be able to present this in an easily digestible form to the layman (without him or her needing to wade through the physics and maths necessarily). But I think those at the forefront of this physics disagree for now and for example as to whether spacetime is a single static block or not. (I may have garbled that)

That was a comment I heard on the BBC as soon as the Republicans released their partisan report (was it the Nunes memo?). That the intelligence services would release less information if confidentiality could not be expected..

I see L Mensch has tweeted that the aim was to get Sessions to refuse to fire McCabe and so have cause to fire him (and thereafter get someone in who can fire Mueller)

Is there any useful distinction between an object being accelerated using its own resources and one being accelerated externally (eg by use of solar radiation or a laser beam) Is it just that in the former case resources get depleted very quickly whereas in the latter they are practically infinite?

What would it be looking at? EDIT:I missed that it couldn't be "moving at the speed of light" -I misread you to say "moving at close to the speed of light" Not what you meant ,was it?

What would be the purpose of this "recorder" ?

I like to use a blue cheese occasionally (so it melts into little islands) . My mother always put the omelette under the grill at the end.

What does govern these"virtual particle/quantum fluctuations" ?Are they a property of the vacuum or of the matter in the environment? (perhaps SJ suggested the latter....?)

Is that French tarragon or Russian?

Robitty ,would you say? (an enigma ,of course)

I imagine the Steel industry it is far less labour intensive than it was. I wonder if those in the industry are realistic to expect many new jobs to return if these new tarifs take effect (I realise that other related industries will actually be losers on that score)

Will his blatant rhetoric undermine the case that steel is a strategic commodity and not subject to WTO rules?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43257712 according to the President of the USA and he expects to "come out on top"(him or the USA ,I wonder?) Discounting the madness (and badness) behind the remark has this actually kicked off a proper trade war and will any side actually benefit from it? And in any trade war does the USA have any upper hand any more? Is USA's economic hegemony a thing of the past (Trump or no Trump)?

The context (which made me wonder) was whether we could assign an overall rotation to the universe by "adding up" ** all the individual "sub rotations". If at the time around BB there was such a rotation of the material at that time ,would that rotation have continued as the universe expended? A possibly similar question is asked as to whether there were initial assymmetries of different kinds (eg matter v antimatter) that had effects later on in the evolution of the Universe. **"combining?

What if the rotations have different centres? (it is what I was thinking of) Very difficult and pointless?