studiot

Apart from the insulting remark at the beginning, this is a perfect example of you choosing to argue with things I did not say, rather than ask for clarification about what I did say if you didn't understand it. I said nothing whatsoever about any velocities or atoms. In fact velocity doesn't appear explicitly in GR in the way it does in SR. Not in fact does it care whether atoms exist or matter appears in some other form. I have already explained the how and why effect on GR on the observed frequency of light and given you a reference to a NASA artcle on the subject. Since and I have observed that frequency measurement can be used to measure time, though I did not explicitly say say how it is simply because frequency is the reciprocal of time. I actually credited you with the intelligence to understand this without baby steps. Argument from incredulity is unbecoming from someone who claims to know more than the experts. (I am not an expert in this, I follow them, I don't preach to them) So here is, plain as a pikestaff, what I am talking about It can be clearly seen that lambda emitted is not the same as lambda observed. I suggest a good place to go and study such things would be An Introduction to Galaxies and Cosmology Jones and Lambourne Cambridge University Press You will find plenty of formulae, derivations, explanations and examples such as the one in the attachment.

I don't think you want to understand my points since your rendering is so far from what I actually said so how can I help you understand. Your questions have very little to do with what I said. The only question I can answer is I have said more than once there is light from Sol and light from Sirius. Any source of light can be used as a clock in many different ways. So we have two clocks, one on Sol and one on Sirius. Since we can observe both clocks we can compare the two.

Yes there are at least three different meanings to the assignment of a probability of 1. I don't think however, that you can apply true/false (ie first order) logic to concepts like consciousness or life or many others. Humans have a propensity to categorize or pigeonhole into preconceived classes and are constantly suprised when the natural world refuses to fit into these neat schemas. We do not have a definition of consciousness any more than we have a definition of life itself. The best we can do is to prepare a list of characteristics of living and non living, conscious and non conscious. But experience shows that these lists have changed considerably over time.

I still don't understand why the 'block universe' was moved to another thread since such an idea offers one view of the nature of time. I don't agree with that universe, but rather like the antithesis of it which is Mark Twain's famous statement

Perhaps you can get a hold of this older degree level book. The Students Physics VolI Acoustics Alexander Wood Blackie. Wood goes into great detail about the subject including lots of experimental material. He treats many musical instruments including brass in general and trumpets in particular and offers measurements on them. Here are some pages from the more basic section involving the velocity of sound, both measured and linked to theory includng corrected gas laws.

Or one can say zero time ?

I don't know the exact speed of light in Earth's frame ? What rubbish are you trying to blow to obscure the fact that you chose the Moon over a satellite because it is more massive and exerts stronger gravity (whatever way you calculate it) and I have shown you two even stronge gravity wells ? Or are you denying that Sol and Sirius have gravity wells ? Or are you denying that our measurement of time is tied to the frequency of some oscillator ? Or are you denying the fact that we observe a redshift of light from Sirius, compared to Sol by observing the frequencies of certain patterns of spectral lines ? You are just arguing for the sake of it, without any substance whatsoever.

My apologies if you have truly not heard of this before. https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/11/03/why-is-time-frozen-from-lights-perspective/

You claimed it. Now prove it. No one know for certain what cavemen thought or did not think. We can only give our best guess from very limited evidence. I am reporting this for repetition of unsubstantiated claims.

Compton scattering https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.13648

I mean quite simply that I can set the watch on my wrist to zero any 'point in time' I want. But GMT will not be zero at that point, even though my watch is 'in' the frame of GMT. When you have more than one frame the t = 0 and t' = 0 may not coincide. We usually consider the case of them coinciding to make calculations easy.

Excellent, clear examples of excellent clear statements. Thank you. +1 Still making unsupportable claims and statements that you (or any other person) cannot possibly know. Seriously I recommend you study Markus' style very carefully.

As far as light is concerned, how long does it take for light to travel from A to B ? No necessarily. Think hard about this before you respond reactively. This occurs because there is no absolute time.

It's your thread and I'm not playing verbal games all night. So if you can't answer a straightforward question I'll leave you to your own devices. +1 for showing how complicated that simple question about terminology really is. Yeah !! I 've cracked it. Only Jedi Knights can see invisible images. Now I can sign off and go to bed happy. Good Night all.

So by images, you are not referring to the pattern (electrical or otherwise) that results from light interacting with our brains through our sensesory organs and optic nerves ? Can you confirm you mean the same pattern formed by some internal process as would be formed if we actually received light from whatever the image was of ? So for instance an artist might hold in his mind the same pattern of a landscape he would experience if he actually looked at it ? Finally if that pattern is invisible how does anybody know it is there ?

Not so far as the light we are seeing is concerned it didn't.

So please help me by starting at the beginning and explaining what you mean by visible and invisible and what is a mental image and what does it mean to see one? We had a very long thread about the science (physics and physiology ) of these questions a while back. It's really difficult to understand what you mean when the science of optics uses the terms real and imaginary quite differently when referring to images and I would venture to suggest that the science of optics has a great deal to do with images, mental or otherwise. Please don't repeat what you have already said when you answer, that is a waste of your time and of others'.

My last foray into politics didn't seem to go down very well so here is a more light hearted one

What phenomenon ? You have been asked several times by several members for clarification as to what yoy mean by visible and invisible images. I fail to understand what you mean by the reply you made, which appers to me to contradict itself. You cannot end a thread here. That is the policy of this site. Moderators will delete a thread if it is advertising or one or two other categories.

I cannot answer for florida foundations problems since you have provided no details. However it is worth pointing out that there is a huge difference between the chemistry of lime-carbonate 'concrete' and the modern portland cement alumino-silicate based concrete, that the Romans had no knowledge of. One major difference that is known is that the carbonate concrete never stops hardening, but this proces is slow, taking centuries to millenia. So I am not suprised to learn that the Romans developed accelerators. I see from the article that the example is of unreinforced concrete. That too is not suprising. Carbonate concrete pH is inappropriate for protecting iron and steel against corrosion, unlike portland concrete. This is posted in Engineering so it is unclear whether this is a scientific announcement about carbonate concrete or a question about failures in Florida ? Good discussion base either way. +1 A couple of years back I posted an article (SCIAM if I remember correctly) about the Roman stuff.

I'm pretty sure your analysis is far to simplistic. Further the DSM5 is well recognised as following decades behind science progress. It is really more of a legal classification than a scientific one. The simplest counterexample I can think of lies in a program I saw a couple of years before Covid about folks with unusual medical conditions. Several patients had sensory cross wiring so they say tastes, heard colours, and so on. Wierd but I have no reason to doubt the program producers. As regards the balance between the different ways people think, I understand the most common is to think in words and sentences and actually subvocalise their thoughts. Many of these have trouble visualising pictures - and then you get the distinction between visualising still and moving images. I tend to think in terms of concepts and pictures rather than words and sentences. I see the entire 'text' of the concept at once, not sequentially. This give me trouble when I try to set things down in words. They just come tumbling out and I can't get them down fast enough. How about your own experiences ?

Gentlemen can you please give others the time to go through the 9 pages of maths posted before closing this ? I am been rather busy with other things this w/e but would comment further as follows. The NS equation or equations is a single 3D vector PDE or 3 separate scalar ODEs. That is not enough by itself to solve since it only gives 3 equations for the 5 variables involved. To solve it we require to introduce two further equations. One way is to use the continuity equation and a gas law equation of the form density = a function of pressure and temperature. This I think on first reading is Seth's method. It may be possible to reduce the number of variables by specifying spherical symmetry. But a trumpet symmetry is decidedly non symmetiric. Much of the sound energy is focused. I do believe that @MigL is a NS equation specialist and would welcome his comments as well as whatever @Mordred comes up with.

To add to this excellent summary, +1, It is important to distinguish between shells and orbitals. Shells are groupings in space of several orbitals. The orbitals in a given shell are so shaped as to not intefere with each other in the space occupied by a given shell Note these are not solid shapes but surfaces. Imagine them as the skins of balloons, like the party balloons we twist together to form dogs etc.

My apologies. I put my comma in the wrong place which changes the meaning rather drastically. I said No reasoning, as in logic, does not work in equations. Equations are a mathematical concept and I can try to explain them more fully in a separate thread if you are interested ? Whereas I should have said No, reasoning as in logic, does not work in equations. In other words I was responding to your question "right ?" (meaning is my statement correct?) by saying No it is not correct. Reasoning has a particular form of expression and equations offer another different form of expression. When logic (which is part of philosophy) uses the word reasoning it means that that three distinct things are involved. Logic is about 'statements' and the 'connections' between them and something called truth values for these statements. It's layout in simple terms runs as follows Statement 1 (called the predicate) is connected to Statement 2 (called the subsequent) by a 'connective'. An equation is a particular form of a single mathematical statement called a 'relation'. No problem this community has many members ready to help those who really want it. By the way I have a couple of decades on you so don't be too hard on yourself. I'm sure there is plenty of life left in the old dog yet.

Good Morning Ben. Congratulations on your excellent English. I assume you are enduring the same as me, a miserable wet morning following a miserable wet night. I would like to make one comment and enter a plea. Can I suggest you are introducing too many topics into a single thread which makes my poor head spin - I don't know what it does to yours ? One topic per thread please. OK so you have asked about equations, though I don't see much maths in your posts. Equations have a particular significance in maths No reasoning, as in logic, does not work in equations. Equations are a mathematical concept and I can try to explain them more fully in a separate thread if you are interested ?