studiot

Being kind, I am working on the "youngster who is working through a translator" theory. So 'No' was the sort of simplification one makes in such cases, at least at the outset.

I suspect many did not see your thread all those months ago. I confess I did not. I hope you are now ell again. Are you still interested in discussing that circuit or circuitry in general ? Before using a circuit simulator I would recommend finding out a little about circuit elements or components. By experiment with, did you mean witha actual components or on a simulator ?

But there is a perfectly good reason. Theism comes from the Greek theos (god) and refers to one or more gods who may or may not intervene in the universe. The direct opposite is atheism, evidenced by the addition of the negatory prefix 'a'. Deism on the other hand comes from the Latin deus (god) . So theism is the general term, which includes deism and other forms of belief. Note it is additionally confusing that the difference between Theist and Deist (ie the practitioners of these beliefs varies from the difference between theism and deism. Just like me then. +1 I'm a 'don't care'. It would make no material difference to my actions either way. Sometimes folks demand an either-or, black or white, binary answer to a question which is actually on a sliding scale of grey. But even this sliding scale is not always enough, as in this case and we need to strike out off the scale as I don't think there is a shade of grey for don't care'. Interestingly one of my neighbours says she converted to paganism during the covid lockdown. I am not sure what this means but she now has an illuminated christmas tree outside her front door all the time.

No Have you tried reading my post ?

Sounds a jolly good working hypothesis to me, considering how little information there is to work with. Thank you for this, I had not heard of the effect. +1

Thank you for the better English. There will be no resonance induced damage to to DVD's because they are just lying around. There may be objects in the room that could resonate but they will be like the bridge in Sensei's post. They will be suspended or strung up in some way. Consider this. A slack string will not pick up sound vibrations A stretched string can pick them up. (this is called resonance) You can hear this without damaging your ear.

Yes indeed. +1 J.

Thanks joigus, there used to be a T junction like that in Bristol at the end of the M32 which read "Inner Ring Road Left" and yes indeed "Inner Ring Road Right", at least the arrows were pointing the correct way. I've also seen an old fashioned finger post when cycling in the Cambridge countryside which had the same motif Cambridge and Cambridge. Anyway, when I took my driving test I thought this one meant Marilyn Monroe ahead.

I am not particularly interested in conspiracy theories, but I wonder if there is some sort of clique in Paris, dedicated to an anti-Einstein campaign ? One of the 'papers' offered seems to be from one Valentin Danci who has authored a fair number of anti-Einstein papers and hails from Paris. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Valentin-Danci

Truly amazing, what will they think of to redefine next ? +1 I had not heard of 'topological solitons' , which are quite different phenomena from solitons. I se there is a Wiki article about them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_defect You will need to hope that someone else here has met them to discuss them as it will take me some time to catch up. But I will watch the development of this thread with interest. Thank you for introducing the subject.

Can travel ? Not sure you understand what a soliton is. They are are a particular phenomenon that can occur in travelling waves ie they are never still. I know that there are soliton models of photons (which are never still) in modern Optics. Hence my question. I recommend this book as an introduction

Lots of references here but there doesn't seem to be any particular issue to discuss. How for instance, can nuclei be represented by soliton models sinece solitons are moving objcts ?

Glad to hear you are still alive ! 🙂

Yes, it is not clear which frames you would be measuring time and distance in. You also need to be clear what the gain would be over other methods. Please think through your proposal since it is your thread. It is not, however, a silly idea since comparative measurments are very common in Science. So welcome, but remember you have a total of 5 posts available in your first 24 hours for anti spam reasons. 🙂

Thank you for your thoughts. I see my typinglexia has got in the way again. Sorry. This is exactly the point I was trying to bring out , obviously I didn't succeed. The definition of entangled is that there is only one wavefunction for system. Conversely for an unentangled system there must be at least two waveforms. So there are important distinctions to be made. 'Separate' can refer to three things. The physical separation of the particles. The decomposition of the wavefunction into two (or more) wavefunctions and the mathematical process of the separation of variables of a differential equation. Writers (myself included) do not always make clear which one they mean. This was a very important point particularly if we are asking what happens to two particles when they are entangled and then physically separated so that one is then in a high gravity environment. With respect you are not clear about your answers to this. My excuse is that I am always in a rush at this time of the motning. 🙂

Or Urban or Martian if you prefer. Here's the first

This is a silly argument that is not worth pursuing.

That certainly is it for me. This discussion is just a futile windup.

I have found it helpful to have a copy of the 1905 paper always to hand since we get a steady stream of new members who have 'definitely and positively refuted Einstein's Theory of Relativity'. Many of these have never read the paper properly or can answer the simple question "Why does the paper title not refer to Relativity at all ?" Here are some comment's to answer your assertions that Special Relativity is incorrect. Like most refutations yours seems to be focused on refuting what Einstein did not say, rather than what he did. So to start with a quote from what he actually said (the 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamic of Moving Bodies June 30th 1905") I will try to explain just how well thought out and put together these few words are and that they really do justify the claim in the final line that these two postulates are in effect all you need to know. 1) First note that Einstein acknowledges preceding work and that a weaker Principle of Relativity (for mechanical systems) was already known. His first Postulate extends this to non-mechanical ones. 2) He recognises that further postulates must perforce be compatible with the first. Since there are only two postulates this means that they must be compatible with each other. 3) He then posits his second postulate which introduces the speed of light as c but note that he does not say this is constant, just definite. Note also that he does not say explicitly that c is the same for all observers. These are the three key steps that must be taken as a whole to understanding SR. The rest of the paper is devoted to the consequences of these three steps taken together. It is here he develops the ad hoc Lorenz equations, the equality of the c for all observers and other important things, which includes the constancy of c as a necessity built into the mathematical model developed.

As I am eagerly awaiting your answers to my questions. 🙂

Update In a BBC interview this morning with the LU professor conducting some of the studies I mentioned before, REACT and REACT-2, it was revealed that they ahve now gained enough information to start separating the effects of no vaccination, a single shot of vaccination and a double shot of vaccination, and the difference between the effects of vaccination on those who have or already had covid and those who did not.

I do not understand this. 1) Would you like to amplify this ? Lorenz effects only apply to components in the direction of (relative) motion. Any curve by its own nature has components both in this direction and perpendicular to this direction, at which point the Lorenz effect is precisely zero. Relativity and the Principle of Relativity goes way back centuries before Einstein. 2) So what particular relativity did you have in mind ? 3) What exactly do you find wrong with synchronisation as described in the 1905 paper? I certainly find one has to flip back and fore between pages and sections to correlate it all - and then it all makes perfect sense to me, but I admit it is difficult to explain. Three specific questions about some rather waffly and unsubstantiated assertions on the subject. I hope Dr Swanson will comment of your thoughts about the H-K experiment and many subsequent repeats, some of which I believe he has participated in. This terrority is his kingdom.

It is worth reviewing some aspects of entanglement here. First quantum entanglement is not fully understood in that all the ramifications and implications have not been worked out (perhaps een not most of them) in the way that has been done in classical mechanics. Secondly there are two views of entanglement, viewed from two ends of the telescope if you like. One view is that you start with discrete or separate 'particles' : These have separate wave functions which do not interact with each other so can be individually interacted with by agencies outside the sysem. Upon entanglement, there are no longer two separate independent wavefunctions, but a single wavefunction that describes the whole system of entangled particles. Outside agencies can no longer interact with the original wavefunctions as they could before entanglement. The other view is that you start with a wavefunction for the entangled system and cause the single wavefunction degenerate into two separate individual wavefunctions by some means. Now the OP asks if gravity might be such a degenerating outside agency. Are related question would be are any such effect significant ? I don't know of any real or thought experiments about this but, I suggest that we consider the attached diagram (From Hyperphysics) Look at the column marked 'strength'. This shows the relative strength of the forces acting inside the atom where it can readily be seen just how weak gravity is compared to the other forces, which is why standard models ignore gravity in their calculation. Oh yes it should be pointed out that all our 'calculations' are really just models And with models, what you leave out (ignore) is just as important as what you put in, so you hope you haven't missed out anything significant. Finally we come to the twin unspecified questions of what particles we would choose to separate and how this would be achieved.

My apologies, it was nothing personal nor a trick. I realise now that I must have got mixed up trying to set up this thread and introduce the appropriate background posts from the 'space' thread. You did in fact reply here not there. So the mix up was totally my fault. The point is that we are supposed to stay on 'topic here'. So discussion of spacetime invariants and coordinates are off topic in a thread about space. Now consider the following network of 5 points and the geometric figure they describe. The geometric figure is quite independent of any coordinate system. This is a basic property of Euclidian geometry, which is primarily about shape. Wherever you place this shape and in whatever orientation it remains the same. This is not true of the geometry of Descartes since as you move it about or turn it round the coordinates of each of the 5 points will, in general, change, although the distance between each point remains invariant. This difference is also common to a network of points in the spacetime of special relativity. The interval between each point does not vary so the whole of spacetime could be described, without a coordinate sytem at all. Just a simple list of intervals. The network is fixed.

Slight misunderstanding there. It is the spacetime intervals tha are invariant ie measured or reckoned the same by all (inertial) observers. Both space intervals (ie lengths) and time intervals (ie durations) vary with observer. Remember, Mordred started this thread to discuss space as separate from time. He refers to space as 'volume' , wghich is a pretty fair description. You are correct that Minkowski invented spacetime, (but then unfortunately died.)