Leaderboard

Just shared a lecture with a Nobel prize winner. Feels weird.

I think suspicion was appropriate when opening post says: Instead of: Sun on the surface of Mars.

Both the in-flight and layover durations were not the same, so one would expect to accumulate a different timing discrepancy, since it's the product of frequency and duration. 1. Isolated in the theory. This particular experiment could not fully distinguish between them, but by flying in opposite directions and thus having two different speeds, it shows the kinematic effect quite clearly when comparing the two data sets, and both being consistent with the overall confirms the gravitational effect. (and, of course, we have other experiments we could look at) 2. Clocks on the ground are not at rest; since the earth rotates it is not an inertial reference frame. Clocks moving east move the fastest. (if the plane flew at the right speed, a westbound plane could have zero velocity with respect to a quasi-inertial observer at rest with respect to the earth. The effect of the orbital path not being inertial is very small here and ignored.) Galileo 1632 vs Einstein 1905. I'd say that's centuries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance

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

! Moderator Note If you continue to use this conspiracy style of questioning, I'm going to shut this down. Why would anyone want to discuss this with you if you keep dodging and hinting at something you can't support? It's not a style that works well in discussion with others. You're simply calling something into question rather than actually trying to determine an explanation.

I would have to investigate a lot more information to have an opinion on what actually causes the bright spot; sun light, properties of the mars surface at the location, camera optics, signal processing, digital artifacts, combination of these and/or other causes I can't tell from the video.

Wow! How ingenious!! I want one!

Wow it got really technical, now I don't understand!! Oh well...

Is there a silver lining to be drawn from the current situation? Are the opponents to concerted action based on scientific understanding who have shown their hands on this occasion broadly the same group we can expect to be digging in their heels when it comes to any action at all when the time comes (of course it has come but seems to be being deliberately ignored-eg the windmills in Texas ploy) Are we getting any closer to a very widespread acceptance that we are all in this together in a very shallow pool or has the populace shown themselves to be ready for more snake oil merchants who will offer them short term satisfactions and attempt to turn us one against another for their own gain? On a practical level are their any parallels between the measures required to fight this pandemic and the mobilization required to address climate change?

Is this at all related to the relationship between two objects one of which goes behind the event horizon of a BH and the other that does not? (I thought I saw that scenario mentioned quite recently somewhere on the forums)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-55760673 "Google has threatened to remove its search engine from Australia over the nation's attempt to make the tech giant share royalties with news publishers" Google appears to be flexing its muscle against Australian plans to make laws that will affect its position . Is this tenable? Google is accountable to whom? Its shareholders? Any legal requirements? More generally ,what is the responsibility of multinationals to the countries that they operate in? Do they avoid local laws by resettling ( or making the threat to do so) their assets to more compliant jurisdictions? Are Multinationals now too big to fail? Should they be shackled (or made accountable) so that the power they have cannot be abused?

Is that the same thing as differentiability?

Rules out Cheney ,then.Vladimir,JCM?

Agreed but the point (not so salient perhaps) I was trying to make is that ,for him the blow is softened if he can move to another platform with less followers as his future status (as a leader of a political -to be kind- grouping) will probably still be able to thrive equally well with that reduced amount of publicity The problem with Trump is those who use him for their ends. Hopefully those who oppose him and his loose "political" grouping will be able ,if required to use his presence in a way to further their ends (eg he can be used as an example) Well .it might matter if his term was not about to end as he could put pressure on Twitter to reinstate his account -or make political capital of of his matyrdom and the supposed "assault" on freedom of speech (which of course ,in the large is a real issue .) Everyone is trying to get through and past the next 10 days and so "stopgaps" are not to be sneezed at at the stage.

Yes, I think you're proving your point. If you don't understand something, it can seem god-like. If you read what Einstein wrote and understand even just parts of it, it's easy to see that it's basically a set of assumptions that match observations of reality, and some mathematical consequences of those, whose predictions also match observation. There's nothing god-like about it. But if you don't read it, it's an unknown, and it's already been discussed that people tend to attribute what's unknown to gods. So it sounds like you're assuming that Einstein's work will become an unknown, but that the stories of Him or His work will survive and be passed on (with language, I guess?). But the same can be said about anything that's known. Science can explain lightning, but if everyone ignored and forgot that, then Zeus could regain popularity.

Wow! I certainly wish that you would modify your use of the English language, in line with that generally used everyday in the 21st century. Onto the subject matter, I was certainly unaware of Henri Bergson until I googled the name...ahh, another philosopher I see. Albert of course is well known, as he should be. There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it. Cicero, Marcus Tullius (106-43 BCE) Roman statesman. De Divinatione Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds. Attributed to Richard Feynman. Apologies to my Philosophy friends. Obviously, not necessarily all people and/or all theories must indeed be wrong, but just as obviously most are. Even the great Isaac Newton, who you actually raised as an example, also said that he only saw as far as he did, because he was standing on the shoulders of giants. I will as a nobody add to that by saying that science is a discipline in eternal progress. The validity and benefits of both SR and GR have continually gained momentum, and knowledge/data through the years, and as even in recent times, had predictions verified. [gravitational waves and BH's] Space is simply what exists between you and me, the planets and galaxies. Time is what stops everything from happening together, or a means of measuring intervals between sequential events. Spacetime is the unified multidimensional framework constructed by Minkowski and which we locate events, and describe them in terms of the three spatial dimensions and that of time. The necessity of spacetime, follows from the fact that the speed of light is constant. Intervals of Spacetime considered separately by different observers, vary and are not the same. And finally and most importantly, in GR, gravity is described and evident in the curvature and warping of spacetime. Rest assuredly that we have no universal NOW. If that means what I think it means, it is then categorically, totally wrong. Time dilation and contraction are experimentally verified. Our GPS systems and other data attest to that fact.

Off goes my head, on goes a pumpkin! 😬 What I should have said is, Intervals of space and time considered separately are not the same for all observers, but the spacetime interval, is invariant. Thanks for that pick-up.

How would you organize the collection of spacetime intervals intervals so as to potentially turn them back into a reality? Would you have a local origin(the start of the first interval) corresponding to the apex of a light cone?

Just show where then... Ican't wait for it...

You cannot be an Atheist. Much as you cannot be a Deist. Unfortunately , many people regard atheism or deism to be opposite logical poles. While , in fact , they are dipoled psychological characteristics. Discrepancy of terminology has pushed many to nominate themselves even further ahead of their emotional characteristics !

I think the theory works in all cases of course, is just that I'm not able to analyze and write about every case possible. Is this so difficult to understand?

First , ( and foremost ! ) : My Respectable lady ; Relativity and the Principle of Relativity does NOT go way back centuries before Einstein. I am sorry to let you know that you cannot possibly "legitimize" a hotchpotch of assumptions by Dr Einstein [ in the format of Relativity ] by according it with a background of centuries-old-established literature. If it was that ancient , then what did Prof Albert Einstein really manage to do ?? ! Second : You ask me : "2) So what particular relativity did you have in mind ?" My reply : Albert Einstein's Relativity Third : Please do not hesitate (as some sort of priming , at least ) ; to have a look at : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283225134_Einstein's_variable_speed_of_light_and_his_enforced_wrong_synchronization_method Regards, Reza