Strange

29 minutes ago, iNow said:

I think you need to be more specific about what you mean by regenerated... and also what you mean by education

Does The Doctor learn something from each of his new incarnations?

38 minutes ago, swansont said:

But moving changes that. If you are moving away, it takes longer for the light to get to you, because in that 1 second, you have moved some distance. So an identical event getting to you happened before t = 0, i.e. in the other frame's past (before t = 0), because an event that happened at t=0 can't reach you in 1 second.

Similarly, if you are moving toward the event, the light arrives faster, because you have reduced the distance.

 

Maybe Einstein's train / lightning thought experiment is helpful here: the lightning flashes at each end of the train are simultaneous in the frame of reference of an observer on the platform. For the passenger on the train, the one at the front of the train happens first (because they are moving towards it) while the one at the back happens later. So you can, I suppose, consider the platform observer seeing the passenger's "past" and "future" happening at the same time. 

35 minutes ago, bob campbell said:

I can see that you are having trouble understanding my question, so thank you for your attention, but I believe I found the answer in a http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/lorentztrans.html.

See, told you a written source would be better. 😃

36 minutes ago, bob campbell said:

a video link, even though it describes the problem I'm asking about with great clarity within the first minute.

If it described it with great clarity, you wouldn't have needed to ask the question 🤨

9 minutes ago, bob campbell said:

The video was very explanatory, were you not able to watch it?

I watched a bit from where you linked. It made little sense to me. I suppose it might make more sense if I had watched the whole thing and so understood the model he was trying to explain. His explanation seems to be at the level of "this is what happens (trust me)". Maybe you need to watch his "more mathematical" video to understand.

Or find a better source. Personally, I find videos about the worst possible medium for learning and understanding things. I would prefer a good book or article. Why spend hours watching video, when you could read the same content in 30 minutes and it would have a clearer (hopefully) explanation.

relindwto6 has been banned as a spammer. (We have had a number of spammers recently who ask a sensible questions, get some answers and then post an answer themselves, with spam links. In this case, I thought the answers might be useful to others.)

This is simply an effect of stimulating the retina and the visual processing areas of the brain. (Not "energies".)

You might find this interesting:

Quote

a young perceptual psychologist named Heinrich Klüver used himself as a guinea pig in an ongoing study into visual hallucinations. One day in his laboratory at the University of Minnesota, he ingested a peyote button, the dried top of the cactus Lophophora williamsii, and carefully documented how his visual field changed under its influence. He noted recurring patterns that bore a striking resemblance to shapes commonly found in ancient cave drawings and in the paintings of Joan Miró, and he speculated that perhaps they were innate to human vision. He classified the patterns into four distinct types that he dubbed “form constants”: lattices (including checkerboards, honeycombs and triangles), tunnels, spirals and cobwebs.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-math-theory-for-why-people-hallucinate-20180730/

The article is about drugs stimulating the visual system, but you can get the same effect in other ways: bright lights, extreme tiredness, etc. Isaac Newton stuck needles in his eyes and reported similar things.

18 minutes ago, Scott alan miles said:

I think Einstein had the same problems when he first declared e=mc2 but he did not have the information at hand from CERN.

He derived that from well-understood physics. 

19 minutes ago, Scott alan miles said:

You will have to break out of thinking that ALL scientific evidence is empirical.

Who said anything about experiments?

19 minutes ago, Scott alan miles said:

The numbers are guess, science would have to analyze all parts of all particles for true strength weights of their natural magnetic state in a magnetic weight table.

You claims to have a theory (of everything). But you can't use it to calculate anything, so it is just a guess?

20 minutes ago, Scott alan miles said:

But your answers are all in the post. 

You have't answered any of my questions. Why is that?

3 hours ago, Scott alan miles said:

I’m dyslexic so it was not acceptable

What about the visually impaired, who can't see you photos? Why are you excluding them? Why not just type your notes here.

8 minutes ago, et pet said:

In the U.S. you can park in a driveway and drive on a Parkway.

Also true in Camden in North London 🙂

2 minutes ago, Scott alan miles said:

if we take a normal helium atom

-1 for electron

0 neutron

and +1 for proton

and then convert it to a magnetic calculation like

-25 electron

-+50 neutron

+ 100 proton

Where do these numbers (-25, +50, +100) come from? Please show the calculations. 

Why isn't it -1, 0, +1?

3 minutes ago, Scott alan miles said:

the neutron is both attracted and repealed to the proton and nuclear force takes place on a small and large universe

The [strong] nuclear force has a very limited range. It doesn't really extend outside the nucleus to a significant extent.

4 minutes ago, Scott alan miles said:

The neutralizing force of the neutron

What is this neutralising force? What evidence do you have for it?

5 minutes ago, Scott alan miles said:

This sets a moment of singularity for the electron

What is a "moment of singularity"?

6 minutes ago, Scott alan miles said:

I last posted all 23 pages but I’m dyslexic so it was not acceptable.

It is not acceptable because is hard to read an impossible to quote from. It has NOTHING to do with your dyslexia (there are other dyslexic members, and they manage to obey the rules).

If you can write it on a piece of paper, you can type it here.

Most important question: what would prove your idea wrong?

I guess mixture of 1 and 2, with almost zero going for the other options (not even the "if it's possible, why haven't we done it again" crowd).

I assume there are people who think all space missions are faked.

24 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

So I would like to start a discussion on the question why reality is mathematical, why it has the laws it does.

1 hour ago, Polykephalous said:

Mucking about infers humour, as in "One for the crack",

"craic" not crack.

1 hour ago, Polykephalous said:

I have just had someone tell me that Mary is not the correct name because the real name "Maryam" couldn't be used in the English language so the translator improvised.

Really? Why told you that? No one on this forum.

1 hour ago, Polykephalous said:

Oh and in Greek her name is "Agia Maria".

Yes, the English name "Mary" came from the Greek. (See my earlier post, where I said exactly this.)

34 minutes ago, Tom Booth said:

How is this against the rules? The material I've linked to is relevant and open to discussion. It is not spam or advertising. Not off topic.

37 minutes ago, Tom Booth said:

Carnot's concept of the caloric seems to be pure mythology.

I see nothing wrong with this. I have always been very happy to ignore/block people who are irredeemably stupid. On most forums, a large proportion of my ignore list end up being banned (even where I am not a moderator!). And I think my list of blocked people on Twitter is many, many times larger than the number of people I follow.

Incidentally, on at least one forum I know, it is explicitly against the rules to say that you have blocked a specific member. I think it s an unnecessarily provocative statement so I think that is a good rule. We don't have such a rule here, but I am guessing we would take a bit of a dim view of it.

22 minutes ago, joigus said:

D) The puzzled or deeply concerned people: There's something special about time

Z) Those with serious issues: "There is something wrong with time" (yes, I am thinking of the Time Cube guy)

13 minutes ago, Eise said:

Exactly. You have to imagine going from top to bottom, to get a change in colour. 

Isn't that like saying you have to imagine reading all the digits of pi to know what its value is?

Pi has a well defined value that does not depend on time passing.

Similarly, the colour in that drawing is a function of the y (or θ) coordinate in a way that does not depend on time.

41 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

Here's another one - it is actually illegal to bring a Furbie into the Pentagon. It's in fact a criminal offence, punishable by lengthy prison sentences

It is illegal to wear high-heels in Carmel, California.

6 minutes ago, joigus said:

Well, I must tell you my choice of word, "hardliners" was not very fortunate. I should have written something like "practical".

I would say you are practical, but then you seem to want to have a passageway to the stance "interested but not convinced".

Is that any closer?

How about "interested, open-minded but not really too worried about it" !?

(I wasn't bothered by "hardliner", BTW)

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Then there's the "hardliners" if you will, represented by @Phi for All, @Strange, and @StringJunky who, to the risk of oversimplifying their views, go more like: I don't see what the problem is, what's soooo special about time. Time is just a factual aspect of physics. Get over it.

That isn't quite my view. But I do tend to adopt it it response to "time doesn't exist" or "time is just change" arguments.

There are, of course, complexities around how time is modelled in different physical theories (as something that "passes" vs just another dimension vs ...) and philosophical;/ontological/psychological aspects: why does it only "go" forwards? Is that just because of human perception, or is it a fundamental aspect of time?  And so on.

On 7/22/2020 at 8:58 AM, Markus Hanke said:

Sure why not? Mathematically, instead of having quantities that change with respect to some time coordinate, you can always have quantities that change with respect to one another, without reference to any notion of time. ‘Change’ doesn’t imply time, and time doesn’t imply change. Derivatives (in the calculus sense) with respect to some quantity other than time are well defined and commonly used.

For example, imagine you have a purely 3D universe, without time, that contains a tea cup. The handle of the cup has a certain curvature; the interior surface of the cup also has curvature, which is probably numerically different. So the surface curvature changes with respect to spatial coordinates, rather than time. So you have a universe that encompasses changes, but no time. This is perfectly consistent and valid, at least in my mind

I think this is an utterly brilliant answer to the question. (My naive answer would have been "of course you can't have change without time." How wrong I was.)

9 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

There may be another explanation for the results of the experiment. An increase in frequency at the bottom can be combined with a slowdown in time at the bottom ( with a slowdown in the course of processes, including radioactive decay)

21 minutes ago, cladking said:

Of course if observation does not conform to theory the cause must be reconciled but when observation does conform to theory it does not mean that theory is correct.

Obviously. This is why science never "proves" theories. Contradictory observations can disprove a theory. 

You say this trivially true (and well understood) things as if you were providing some deep insight. Instead all you do is demonstrate how little you understand of either science or philosophy (or any other subject, as far as I can tell).

22 minutes ago, cladking said:

People and animals have been employing and building counterweights for countless millions of years yet we still don't understand the cause of the gravity that allows them to work.

Another bizarre non-sequitur. Dodging the question again.

And we do understand gravity. We understand it so well we have two theories!

There is a great series of lectures by Andrew Ng at Stanford University: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLssT5z_DsK-h9vYZkQkYNWcItqhlRJLN

He starts from pretty much nothing and quickly builds up to a pretty good level of detail of most aspects of ML.

Also available on Coursera, if you want a more structured approach with tests of your understanding, etc: https://www.coursera.org/learn/machine-learning/home/welcome