Leaderboard

I've seen this bit before! Kim is going to step up, smack the general in the back of the head, and poke Trump in both eyes.

I think that there is no such thing as good and bad. In the religious sense. I prefer "nice" and "nasty". While I objectively think that it's not intrinsically good or bad to act in a racist manner, and nothing any of us do will count for anything in a million years time, I'm still prepared to go along with my human instinct of approving of what's nice, and disapproving of what's nasty. We humans have both nice and nasty instincts living in us, side by side. Racism is nasty, in the modern world, with people being incredibly mobile. In the world in which we evolved, a world of territorial apes, who needed to defend their territory against their neighbours or starve, or be killed, it wasn't so much nasty as necessary. So we all have dna that gives us racist tendencies. The modern fashion is to work against that, with social education etc. to increase niceness for all, and I'm all for that. But I'm not in any way ashamed of any racist instincts that might crop up in my head, they come from my daddy's sperm and mother's egg. Having said that, I think that Einstein was remarkably non-racist for his time, and would have been in the one percent least racist easily. Being part of a minority obviously gave him a different outlook to the majority, but that didn't apply to every jew at the time. While maybe not matching today's standards of political correctness now and then, you have to realise that nobody did, in those days. Times have changed. He was still one of the least racist of his time.

Hello T. McGrath, beecee, I actually wrote to the main author of this paper, Todd A. Thompson telling him that we have some additional questions , and he took the time to answer the below question. (I edited the below question just not to seem to rude ) He wrote:

Causality seems to me far more fundamental than any speed.Once you accept a universal principle of causality (so breaking it is not a consideration) does everything not just get into line? From causality being fundamental we must have a maximum speed of transfer of information and from maximum transfer of information we have a maximum speed of information carriers(objects with or without mass) It just so happens that c is the fastest speed clocked and so it is probably also the fastest speed possible. Perhaps I am being simplistic? It is not the speed of light that has a bearing on causality but the other way round.

Quantum theory is a paradigm ( the foundation of how we think about things ) shift in the way we view reality. At very small scales, classical physics ceases to make sense, and the only way we can force it to make sense, and agree with observation, is by treating events as probability distributions. I get the impression you're young student. Anything we tell you will presently sound like gibberish. But if you stay interested eventually you'll learn the math to make sense of it, and one day, far in your future, and probably long after you've forgotten the math, you'll say "Ah-Ha, now it all makes sense. ( Oh wait, that's me )

Thanks, but those don't really do it. I don't want the thread to get sidetracked discussing why matter or energy can't exceed c. I have no problem with that at all. I'm just interested in the claim that causality is violated, if information can be transferred faster than light.

You can't reach valid conclusions about something you can't possibly know (such as the absolute existence of a higher power that can't be observed). Most of the things you claim are impossible to know with ANY degree of trust, by their very definition. You're basically claiming truth because you believe in it.

Indeed, not to mention the 'half-life' of the follicles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_hair_growth

Attraction transcends likeness of world view and information. I am not merely referring to sexual attraction. Some people are simply a pleasure to be around while others are not. What knowledge a person knows at any given time in their life often has a lot to do with upbringing and environment and not their over all intelligence and ability to form new and unique ideas. Someone who believes the earth is flat and just 10,000 yrs old can still have numerous positive personality traits. Also attitudes change with time. With regards to dating or even just hanging out with people socially I go by how I feel when I am looking in someones eyes. If the person strikes me as fun (my unique idea of whatever that is) then I will seek to spend more time with them. Religious belief and world view would not be a barrier to me dating someone if I were single.

This conclusion is not supported by anything Einstein believed. It is your own unfortunate world view. Einstein publicly spoke out against racism for decades. You are taking a few comments not meant for public consumption and running wild with them.

Did you read the first 6 replies to the thread? Pointing out the differences in culture between nations isn't racism.

To illustrate this point we can graph the gravitational potential of a the hollow sphere like this. 0 potential is at the top of the graph and potential decreases in the direction of the arrow. The slope of the line would be the acceleration due to gravity at that point. The red dotted line marks off the boundary of the sphere, with the interior to the left and exterior to the right. As we move outward from the surface of the shell, both the acceleration due to gravity and the gravitational potential tend towards zero. Inside the shell, acceleration due to gravity is zero, but the potential remains the same as that as at the exterior surface of the shell. And, as pointed out, since time time dilation is tied to difference in gravitational potential, the time dilation inside the sphere will differ from that at a infinite distance from the Sphere. In order for time dilation to be the same inside the shell as at an infinite distance, the potential would have to look like this. But this would mean that in order to move from the exterior to the interior of the sphere, you would have to exert energy, the same amount of energy as it would take to lift the same mass from the surface of the sphere to an infinite distance away. This problem becomes even more apparent if you consider a non-zero thickness for the shell. Now as you move from exterior surface to interior surface, you have a decrease in potential and a gradual fall off of acceleration due to gravity as you move through the shell material. But to move across the boundary between shell material and interior of the shell would require jumping from one potential to a higher one. This makes no sense. Instead what happens is that as you move through the shell the potential converges towards the potential in the interior of the shell, and the potential inside of the shell is lower than at the exterior surface.

Right. So as long as we approach this using two inertial frames and the symmetry is broken which is the only correct way to approach it, there is no paradox. „Twins age differently due to how the universe works” would be a better name for this implication of SR.

@worlov Since you are not interested in my comments look very carefully at this one. It contains the a most important piece of information.

Well, that should not be the lesson from it. Almost all pathogens (that I can think of) are reasonably well killed by autoclaving.

When one reaches the idea that there must be an explanation for one's own existence, the next step leads them to faith as an answer. The jump in reasoning occurs once a necessity for an explanation is accepted, such that it leads to faith. The explanation involves an explanation for existence itself, as opposed to the process of existence.

The OP concerns with something that could be called racism in that it relates the stereotyping of different groups of people. The way that this is being treated as bad is what I am referring to when I say that it shouldn't be considered bad in certain situations, in that the stereotyping of different groups of people isn't exactly bad and shouldn't be considered such in and of itself.

Quantum physics is a branch of physics that works with the activities going on inside of atoms. They were wondering what was going on inside those things that were once thought to be solid. One big idea they came up with was that the energy of an electron depends on the frequency or wavelength. Scientists now say that electrons behave like waves, and fill areas of the atom like sound waves might fill a room. The electrons, then, exist in something scientists call "electron clouds". The size of the shells now relates to the size of the cloud. Basically, quantum theory is the study of the tiny little atoms that make up everything, they do not behave like solid objects you see before you, they have their very own set of rules, and this is why they are so fascinating.

I was making a general statement about how racism is treated. Racism is treated badly in some instances where it shouldn't be considered bad.

Pointing out differences in culture is still pointing out differences between groups of people. Differences pointed out between the races should be treated the same way as differences pointed out between cultures.

From what you have Posted, it seems that you have not taken any College courses in Cosmology or Astronomy If you care to enlighten yourself on the subject, you can read some at the following Links : http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/astro/oumuamua.html ; https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/476/3/3031/4909830 ; http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/update-on-interstellar-object-oumuamua/ . Now, bee cee, since you seem to lend quite a bit of credence to wikipedia, and since you brought up ʻOumuamua, you might be able to accept the following - but that is completely up to you : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ʻOumuamua#cite_note-52 " Trajectory ʻOumuamua is the first known interstellar object to visit the Solar System and it appears to come from roughly the direction of the star Vega in the constellation Lyra.[27][28][33][34] The incoming direction of motion of ʻOumuamua is 6° from the solar apex (the direction of the Sun's movement relative to local stars), which is the most likely direction for approaches from objects outside the Solar System.[33][35] On 26 October, two precovery observations from the Catalina Sky Survey were found dated 14 and 17 October.[36][25] A two-week observation arc had verified a strongly hyperbolic trajectory.[6][22] It has a hyperbolic excess velocity (velocity at infinity, {\displaystyle v_{\infty }\!}) of 26.33 km/s (58,900 mph), its speed relative to the Sun when in interstellar space.[n 3] By mid November, astronomers were certain that it was an interstellar object.[38] Based on observations spanning 34 days, ʻOumuamua's orbital eccentricity is 1.20, the highest ever observed.[39][7]An eccentricity above 1.0 means an object exceeds the Sun's escape velocity, is not bound to the Solar System, and may escape to interstellar space. While an eccentricity slightly above 1.0 can be obtained by encounters with planets, as happened with the previous record holder C/1980 E1,[39][40][n 5]ʻOumuamua's eccentricity is so high it could not have been obtained through an encounter with any of the Sun's planets, known or unknown. Even undiscovered planets, if any exist, could not account for ʻOumuamua's trajectory – any undiscovered planet must be far from the Sun and hence moving slowly according to Kepler's laws of planetary motion. Encounters with such a planet could not boost ʻOumuamua's speed to the observed value,[41] and therefore ʻOumuamua can only be of interstellar origin.[42] ʻOumuamua entered the Solar System from above the plane of the ecliptic. The pull of the Sun's gravity caused it to speed up until it reached its maximum speed of 87.71 km/s (196,200 mph) as it passed below the ecliptic on 6 September and made a sharp turn upward at its closest approach to the Sun (perihelion) on 9 September at a distance of 0.255 AU (38,100,000 km; 23,700,000 mi) from the Sun, i.e., about 17% closer than Mercury's closest approach to the Sun.[43][7][n 6] The object is now heading away from the Sun (towards Pegasus) at an angle of 66° from the direction of its approach.[n 7] On the outward leg of its journey through the Solar System, ʻOumuamua passed below the orbit of Earth on 14 October at a distance of approximately 0.1616 AU (24,180,000 km; 15,020,000 mi) from Earth, and went back above the ecliptic on 16 October and passed above the orbit of Mars on 1 November.[43][33][6] It will pass above Jupiter's orbit in May 2018, Saturn's orbit in January 2019, and Neptune's orbit in 2022.[43] As it leaves the Solar System it will be approximately right ascension (RA) 23h51m and declination +24°45', in Pegasus.[7] It will continue to slow down until it reaches a speed of 26.33 km/s relative to the Sun, the same speed it had before its approach to the Solar System.[7] It will take the object roughly 20,000 years to leave the Solar System completely.[n 8] " So, bee cee, @ 26.33 kms , it will travel approximately 831 million kilometers per year - correct ? So, lets round that down to 830 Million Kilometers per year - okay ? Therefore, in 20,000 years it will travel roughly 16618232160000 Kilometers - correct ? An AU is ~ 150,000,000 Kilometers - So, in 20,00 years it will be out to, at least ~ 110,788 AU's from the Sun - correct ? So, bee cee, ~130,000 astronomical units, or ~19 trillion kilometers is roughly equivalent to 2 light-years Distance - correct ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ʻOumuamua#cite_note-52