Leaderboard

The basic assumption of SR is actually both simpler and more general than the one you have quoted: namely, that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames. Practically speaking, this means that there is no local experiment which you can perform in order to distinguish between two given inertial frames - the necessary and sufficient condition for this is that the causal structure of these two local spacetime patches must be identical. The easiest way to experimentally probe the (classical) causal structure of local spacetime is to set up a source of radiation in vacuum, and examine how this radition propagates through space and time. So let us consider some source-free radiation field in vacuum; in any arbitrary inertial frame, this field will obey the general homogenous wave equation [math]\square f(x,t)=0[/math] with some function f(x,t). SR is now telling us that the same is true in all other inertial frames as well, meaning that no matter which inertial frame you look at, the local radiation field will always obey the above wave equation. This necessarily means that c must be invariant between inertial frames. This is something we can of course test, which has been done innumerable times with many different setups, both directly and indirectly. No. But what we can do is look for clues as to whether the fundamental constants have changed over time, or not. One way to do this is to look at the phenomenon of natural nuclear fission reactors, such as the one in Oklo: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor#Relation_to_the_atomic_fine-structure_constant Since the fine structure constant directly depends on c (and vice versa), this would seem to indicate that - at least in the past 2 billion years or so - there has been no change in the numerical value of c.

then, mathspassion, you need to go and learn some algebra. Because the 'proof' is simply variable manipulation. If your namesake is true, and you have a passion for maths, you should be trying to learn as much of it as you can. And algebra is a very fundamental building block of math. Not only that, but if you learn algebra, you'll be able to express ideas -- like the one that started this thread -- into a more succinct and generally understandable format. Strange was not the only one who struggled to understand what you were trying to say. Learning the terminology and nomenclature that you will learn in algebra will help you convey your messages much, much easier. It is worth the effort.

You are framing it incredibly tight if you think that these are the only members of the community that matter. As a matter of fact it is generally accepted that the first non-pejorative use of "nigger" was used very early on and was used as a self-reference during time of slavery. Rather than conveying inferiority, however, it was associated with being a survivor (see Stuckey: Going through the storms: The influence of African American art in history). Thus, some of original non-pejorative meaning has been circulating in the community. Many civil rights groups condemned the use in either form, but as you mentioned, African Americans are not an uniform block. I find it interesting that you exclude music originating from African American groups such as rap and hip-hop, for example. Clearly, there is more than a simple one-sided element to the use of the term and the African American community has clearly diverse views on them. Kennedy, for example described several instances where the use of the term by African American was described. Examples include the journalist Roi Ottley, who asserted that it was used quite freely out of earshot of whites (1943), Clarence Mayor described it used by black people as "a racial term with undertones of warmth and good will-reflecting ... a tragicomic sensibility that is aware of black history". There are further books and articles that describe the connotations and use of the term among in the African American community. But I think it is quite clear that the African American community has struggled with that word for a very long time and has taken a wide range of stances and approaches to deal with it.

Are there? Citation needed. Quoting something without credit is called plagiarism. It is generally considered a Bd Thing. Oh good grief, really... Here: It took a long time to convince you that you were wrong.

So it's more or less about something that more or less resembles consciousness which relates more or less to reality. That's a lot of more or less, probably less than more

But it wasn't the second postulate itself and is not a good way to present it. I have been responding to other speculations ( negative mass and earth science) this morning as they are easier than preparing a sensible guide to the chain of reasoning that leads to special relativity. I will take the time today, so look again later on - it is a fascinating story that leads eventually to the maths stated. But, as Einstein said, the Physics must come first.

Number synchronicity is not evidence, it is lack of understanding of statistics (which humans have a horrible intuition for), combined with our extraordinary pattern finding skills (which we have evolved to catch heaps of false positives).

You're entitled, I guess, but I don't see how that word could EVER be used by a woman with the contempt most men who use it often put into it.

They are likely to be flea larvae. http://www.pet-informed-veterinary-advice-online.com/flea-pictures.html Go to either a pet shop or vets for advice but you’ll need to buy products to treat both your cats and your home. Make sure you follow the instructions rigidly as fleas are incredibly resilient and difficult to rid. Good luck!

The tipping point for all priests, marketers, and con men.

One was a comment about a persons looks and heritage (over which they have no control) and the other was about a persons actions and failure to stand up for principles. The suggested equivalence is false. That said... It sure is a good thing neither of them were kneeling peacefully on a football field or we’d have a real problem on our hands.