Leaderboard

Oh....sounds like your math teacher ain't very original, mate. He's just using a slightly tweaked version of the centuries old Zeno's Paradox that featured the rabbit and tortoise. Which I've always thought of ad a big yawn. Both zeno and you teacher's stories are pure thought experiments. That is, in reality they're of course totally wrong. Just like the rabbit who'd never catch the much slower turtle since he could only continually halve the distance he was behind him after giving him his huge head start. To me...thought experiments like this do little to improve science and are basically just forms of mental masturbation. I dunno..maybe I'm being unduly harsh...being a former track guy who always hated losing? LOL

Do yourself a favor, run through the age of the universe calculations rather than simply making incorrect and unsupported statements such as the above. If you do you will find that every observer will come across the same BB singularity conditions. All lightcones will cross at an identical point at a single planck length regardless of which observer you use. Every lightcone.... from every observer....This is the shared causality past that defines the current observable universe. PS they all involve Hubbles parameter. (though you also need to account for mass/radiation and Lambda evolution for greater accuracy as Hubbles parameter evolves.

Right, the vapour pressure doesn't increase with tire pressure, so even with water available in the tire, vapour pressure is limited and condensing water vapour doesn't change pressure very much at all. Also, as the tire heats up, it's pressure increases limiting the effect of water vapour compared to free air temperature vapour pressure increase. Based on the example given, compressing the air to 8 bar isothermically would remove moisture from the tire to 0.19/1.7 to about 11% that of saturated air. Keeping water out would help (though not very significantly) by limiting the amount of extra water available in the tire to create extra vapour pressure. Consumer report showed the diffusion rate, 3.5 psi loss for air over 1 year and 2.2 psi for nitrogen: Nitrogen in tires - Q&A: https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2007/10/nitrogen-in-tires-q-a/index.htm Conclusion: Not worth paying extra for nitrogen, check air pressure regularly.

Lasse has been banned as a sock puppet of 1x0

Imagine a single ripple (centred on where the pebble went in) being self-sustaining. So that disturbance in the field is a "thing" (electron or whatever). It doesn't continually require energy to keep it going because it is not a ripple in water (water has mass and requires energy to make it go up and down). That wavelike disturbance can now move around and it represents the position of the electron. Actually, the square of the amplitude of the ripple represents the probability of finding the electron at that location (if I have extended your metaphor appropriately) so the electron is most likely to be in the middle but could be elsewhere. There is a really, really tiny probability that it will be detected on the other side of the galaxy. You can then do calculations by analysing the paths of these ripples. If you add together every single possible path the ripple could take, you will find that some of the waves will constructively interfere and some will destructively interfere and the most probable path ends up being the one that corresponds to a "classical" description of the path of the electron (or photon, or whatever). This is how quantum theory, with all its probability based things, can describe the behaviour of photons and reproduce the results of classical optics. (See the Feynman lectures on QED if you haven't already.)

If the basic concept arose with early man, then it could have diffused (and evolved) with them as they moved around the world. In that sense, even religions in, say, the Americas, could have a common origin with all religion. But, more recently, we do know that there has been a lot of "cross-fertlization" of religious ideas around the world through all of recorded history. So some ideas from Buddhism (for example) may have been taken up by the Gnostic Christians. And so on. I'm not sure about that. For example, you ruled out Zoroastrianism, but that is still going. And there are monotheistic versions of Hinduism. And Sikhism. And there were phases of monotheistic thought in Ancient Egypt. But what is also interesting is the tendency away from monotheism. For example, the way the early christian church struggled to explain the "trinity" (and how most explanation became heresies, in favour of the "least polytheistic" version). Or the way many christian worship Mary and other saints almost more then their god. This tension may explain why other monotheistic beliefs have not become as widespread. The Abrahamic faiths (other than Judaism) seem to have struck a good balance with an ostensibly monotheistic religion with a certain polytheistic flavour. Hence appeals to the widest range of people. And Zoroastrianism. And then there is Amaterasu in Japanese religion. In fact most religions have a had a Sun god, which isn't too surprising.

Well, it's all natural (I think.) since at this very moment, while reading this, other parts of your vision blurs.

Nope. I have also said that you are not saying anything new about the curvature of space time and time dilation due to gravity. Where you go wrong is in asserting that the mass of the Earth causes a MASSIVE difference. It doesn't. It causes a minute difference. And that difference is rapidly overwhelmed by cosmological red-shift. Nope. Because it is bollocks. It is scientific when I have a rough idea of how large the effect is and you ignorantly claim it is MASSIVE. If you want to prove that the effect is MASSIVE and not insignificant, then do the calculations. Then show us how big this difference is. If you can't do that, then stop claiming it. Because it is a baseless assertion. And as a "philosopher" you know that assertions are a form of fallacy. It is as stupid as someone saying "I can walk to the moon" but refusing to acknowledge the distance and the absence of stairs. It is not a preferred frame, it is just an arbitrary (but convenient) choice. You are saying that using a 24 hour clock is a preferred frame. It isn't. It is just a convention. No it isn't. It is just a choice of a particular, convenient frame of reference. When you are driving down the road, you use the road as a reference to determine your speed. That doesn't make the road a preferred frame, it is just a choice of reference. So what? You can measure a distance in feet or meters. It doesn't mean that distance is meaningless. You just cite the distance (or age of the universe) in the units you have chosen to use. And you wonder why your threads get put in Speculations? Because of this sort of drivel. Please don't try and learn from Maartenn. He is totally ignorant and will only confuse you.

How can it be non-dimensional if it also 4-dimensional. For a "philosopher" you do talk a lot of bollocks. We can measure it directly. We can measure changes to length and to time. (In other words, changes to space and time.) And these are exactly as predicted by the theory (not a concept you seem to be familiar with). It has FOUR dimensions. Three of them can expand. Nope. That is (partly) why relativity was invented. For example, the precession of Mercury cannot be explained by Newtonian physics.

Well this thread title sucks, sorry. I have a plano convex lens (actually equivalent stack of two fresnels each with focal length 120mm, groove pitch: 0.3mm). If I put a photo behind it at a 45mm distance and view through the lens from a 21mm distane, I get perfect focus in the middle area. I am able to correct the spherical distortion by adding a pre-distortion to the original printed photo in photoshop. Similarly I can reduce the chromtic aberration in a similar way. What I can't do is get things on the edges in focus as well. The lens is flexible and bendable. So is the material the photo is printed on. What kind of geometic distortion should I apply to the fresnel lens and the photo frame to achieve uniform focusing? I am picking up where these researchers left off. http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~mturk/pubs/IsmoICAT-EGVE2016.pdf The bending of the lens as illustrated in that research paper seems the ideal fresnel lens bended shape to me, that is, if they also bent it in the other axis. https://i.imgur.com/WKw35Y3.png The original authors seem to have disregarded actual optical distortion and went with trial and error and (quoting) "good enough" results. Even though we do not have the technology of custom shaped screens (not just bendable in one axis at a time) and may not ever, this can still be used for a full FOV stereocope ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscope ). I am not aware of one existing to date. I could write some software in Python to take stereo data and convert it to properly pre-distorted frames to be printable on a vacuum formable photo frame sheet. The thin fresnel lens are also vaccum formable and simply bendable. So anyone wanting their own complete FOV stereoscope can build one for very cheap. Seems fun but the optical distortion calculating part for achieving uniform focus is beyond my expertise, if anyone wants to chime in with a distortion/3d shape for the fresnel lens and photo frame, that would be awesome.

Might help if you look up the difference between coordinate time and proper time under relativity. There is an age all observers can agree upon, Cosmology uses a fundamental observer which is an observer in the global background conditions (in essence). However all past lightcones will lead to the same BB singularity conditions of the BB at 10^43 sec.

And everybody familiar with relativity knows this. But you're acting like it's a big deal, and everybody familiar with relativity doesn't think so, because A) we know how small the effect is, and B) if need be, you can just define the age of the universe from a particular reference frame, and make corrections for other frames, which is not a big deal.

Ten oz So far, I mostly agree. It seems to me tho' that some of the anger and frustration is from a sense of being powerless at an individual level, that identity politics fosters. Identity politics doesn't give the power of responsibility to individuals, or teach the meaning of personal responsibility. It does assign responsibility to cultural identities, and discredit responsibility on a personal level. The polarisation seems to be increasing and it makes sense that the opposition felt will too.

But the Abrahamic mythology does include a large act of betrayal: Lucifer, bringer of light, and a third of the angels. It's interesting to compare Christian and Greek mythology on this point because they both had 'bringers of light': Lucifer and Prometheus (of course). Christians interpret the snake in Eden to be Satan and encouraged mankind to take the knowledge of the gods. Prometheus stole divine fire from Olympus and gave it to mankind, thus sparking mankind's creativity. Quite similar, but generally in the former myth Satan is seen as evil, while Prometheus is a benefactor to mankind (although there are different accounts). If Jesus had been born in India and declared himself son of god, perhaps not much fuss would be made as Hindus believe we are all the divine spark, all 'sons of god'. It seems Christian mythology is particularly against the ascendency of man as a technological or spiritual being. Some historians argue that The Protestant Reformation was necessary if the Renaissance was to be successful in Europe, as the movement was more inclined towards mankind's own work.

I would have gone with the literal "température de la pièce", but google used "ambiante" which it translated back to température ambiante -> ambient temperature "room temperature" in french - Google Search: https://www.google.com/search?q="room+temperature"+in+french Curiosity got the better of me. To me, ambient temperature is dependent on (external and unknown) conditions, whereas room temperature is a fairly specific range.

Yet when has politics not been about some form of identity? Traditional parties have been organized along social classes, religion, or other ideologies. Moreover, since time immemorial folks were not happy with society for a variety of reasons (justified or not) and in some cases it can result in violent actions (e.g.terrorism an/or revolutions). This is clearly not a new thing. I am not really sure what you mean. He will be lawfully punished as it should be. In fact, I would be rather shocked if would get away with it. But how else do you think he should be made accountable? Should he have been punished for his views before he did something? Should we e.g. punish misogyny even before actions have been taken? It is worrisome that groups form that amplify these destructive views rather than trying to better their situation. But do you mean to punish that? And if so, what about freedom of expression?

Right so 2 bar gauge is 3 bar. Should the drop not then be closer to .45 bar? (22.5%)

I'm not a believer as the OP describes, but to me faith is the strongest of beliefs based on the weakest of reasons. Faith demands total conviction because there's nothing to trust. It's strong conviction about something either wishful or frightening.

Today I learned about the UDC system Universal Decimal Classification, and about the Mundaneum, a forerunner of Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Decimal_Classification#Main_tables https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mundaneum

Here's the problem with this. Anyone who has honestly delved into the scientific theory behind evolution would NOT be a "lifelong doubter". Also, the reasons those questions "keep nagging at" you is because you keep rejecting the best supported explanations for them, and for some reason refuse to honestly study the theory. You've come to prefer your imagined role as a skeptic, not realizing that true skeptics don't spend their whole lives on the fence.

I suspect it will hurt at least as much as a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

"Are you able to blur your vision whenever you like and for as long as you want, to switch from sharp to blur in a second at your own command?" Yes, I take my glasses off. ​I can also voluntarily defocus my eyes,. Why bother?

Yes. If you can concentrate your recognitions (write shorter) it should not be a problem. I am curious what you think. I understood you interest in consciousness. I think at some level everything is conscious i.e. everything has a set of physical attributes determine the entities presence and fundamental functions. Ant vs human. Consciousness for me is the level of awareness about those attributes. Consciousness needs reference points on the path of recognition. For me those are nothing (0) and everything (1). Anything what I can perceive, falls in between this two perceptions. Knowing them makes easier to set further reference points. For me....

Exactly. It's my assertion he's deliberately being misleading to forward his narratives. One that suggests we all want to take away their guns, another that muddies waters and yet another to singularly dismiss others from the discussion. Yet his stance others being misleading is unassailable. Immediately defaulting to "quote me where I said that" on the same pages where he said it, isn't discussion. It's belligerence. No wonder the discussion spirals downward from there.

The saddest part being, most of what is discussed here is largely inconsequential on the grand scale of things. It's merely an opportunity to express individual opinions on specific topics that we may learn something from other's experiences or wisdom. Five minutes on Google or employing a tactic from the neocon playbook, then doubling down on the original statement by insisting how right they are and how wrong everyone else is neither experience, nor wise. It gives credence to the saying: I wish I was young again, when I knew everything.

I can bring an infinite number of mathematical predictions whichones can not have a single observation. Faith is needed in science you like it or not...

Because the claimed scientific clarity and consistency between theory and observation is failing at some points and can be explained just by believes and faith.

Strange, you say that I don't know what I'm talking about and that I make stuff up . Swanson says that everybody knows what I'm writing, that it is not different from relativity (so, he says it's true), but it's not a big deal. It's true but negligible, he says. You are contradicting each other here. Even a layman can understand that 'if time is relative, there is no such thing as 'an age of the universe'. Every child knows that 'if space is relative', there can not be a certain amount of expanded space at a certain moment in time, because not only time, but also space is relative. That's as simple as 1+1=2, but is more solid then a rock. To say that 'it's negligible' or 'it's not a big deal'. That's not scientific. These 'negligible' facts are facts of the universe and make a very big difference for in what kind of universe we live.

It took me 8 years to see the pattern and reach this conclusion though ,

i don't usually post mental stuffs that is not scientific in nature , but this feels like i have unlocked the holy quran and i see patterns in quran , from the beginning to the end . You know why ? because everything in quran sounds like a mosquito rhyming Maybe we all should go after the source of the ringing bell , there could be something scientific about it

Phi for All , Sorry first of all English is not my main language , i speak something else . Second is i don't want to make this look like a bad advertising effort for a religion . When in college i have learned about electricity , electromagnetism and all Nowadays i am trying to understand how a speaker works , maybe the speaker holds the next clue to understanding a strange phenomena like that What if during that time , god decided to speak like a "speaker "?

I suspect you are confusing matter with mass. Mass is a number, & matter is that stuff we can hold in our hand. It's true we often don't bother distinguishing & take the shortcut (substitution). That doesn't tell me much. Theory is the assumption. What about the evidence? Yes I do my best. What's that? a.dul(l).ed. What are you you talking about? Is it physics? ? I write this way to reduce errors, also because this website's software produces errors. I have not a better method to reduce them (errors). If I make comprimises (I get confused) & you guys lock my threads faster. That's NOT true! That's only your opinion (=guess, or bias). Newspaper columns are also narrow. That I carriage return formally at the end of a phrase is not much different & has a natural pause. What's your problem?

it's basic physics: speed is relative. Look it up. Only the speed of light is absolute, relative to every observer. There are three main constants in the universe: an observer (a mind) the speed of light mathematical entity 4D-spacetime (non-dimensional conceptualised 4D-object). These triade (mind-speed of light-mathematical entity, conceptualised 4D-spacetime) results in an observable universe.

I'm so sorry for all of you people. I am praying for each one of you that the Lord would reveal His Truth to you. There is a God who created you and has an inifite love and joy beyond what we can imagine. I have that joy... Nothing would make me happier than for you to experience it too. I cannot prove the existence of God to you. I cannot prove Him to anyone. Only God Himself can prove Himself to you - that is how someone believes in His existence and trusts in Him. It is a basic fundamental idea - we haven't seen God, so we need faith to believe in Him. We haven't seen the creation of the universe, the stars, the galaxies, the back holes, and everything else - so we are using faith in scientific experimentation to believe what could have happened.