Leaderboard

Ok, fair enough. Well, there are very many other solutions to the field equations where that is the case. For example the FLRW metric - the notion of “time dilation field” doesn’t even make sense here, since this spacetime isn’t asymptotically flat, so no Schwarzschild observer exists at infinity to function as reference clock. You might find the book “Exact Solutions to Einstein’s Field Equations” by Stefani helpful, if you have access to it. It’s a nice survey of known analytic solutions - some very remarkable spacetimes here, which aren’t common knowledge. It’s quite mathematical though. They most certainly do in spacetime - ie the geodesics differ (there is a difference in frequency shift at least). Whether their purely spatial trajectory differs I’m not 100% certain, but I suspect it does, as the light ray will get “dragged along” by the spinning mass on one side (just as a massive test particle would), so it should experience more deflection when oriented along the direction of rotation. A quick search yields this : https://arxiv.org/pdf/1910.04372.pdf Underneath equation 16, there are plots for “effective potentials” (a mathematical term within the equation of motion); as you can see, these terms differ in the Kerr case between direct and retrograde geodesics - so there is a difference in deflection angles between these cases. The exact expression is given in equation 60, which unfortunately is very complicated, and can only be treated numerically (it’s an elliptic integral); but you find plots of typical cases a bit further down in figures 8 and 9 (dashed is Kerr-direct, dotted is Kerr-retrograde) - proving that the angle is indeed different depending on whether the deflection is direct or retrograde, as I suspected. The difference is in fact a lot larger than I would have suspected. For comparison it also shows the Schwarzschild, Reissner-Nordström and Kerr-Newman cases (we haven’t spoken about electric charge here, but that adds yet another degree of freedom).

Very interesting. Thank you. And seems to be the closest to hard evidence that any of us has contributed so far from the pragmatic --non-ethical-- point of view. ------ And now for something completely different... As long as we're heavily involved in devising thought experiments... Let me set up a totally hypothetical scenario. Suppose enough research is done that we learn there is a procedural pathway to have a person spill the beans no matter what compelling motivation they have to keep it secret by exciting some part of their brain. This part of the brain is the nucleus accumbens, which is related to pleasure, positive reinforcement, and the like. Completely hypothetical, mind you. So, in this hypothetical scenario, we've found out that, instead of best results being obtained by ramping up the pain circuitry; they are obtained by ramping up the pleasure circuitry. Would you still do it? Remember, the guy is scum, and you're set up for giving him the time of his life. But you get to save poor little girl in dark, damp basement. Would you still do it? Answer yourselves, more importantly than answer here.

False dichotomy (in the real world, haven't been following the latest unrealistic 'scenario'). Torture is only one interrogation technique. There may be more effective techniques: i know no one here is interested in evidence, but here is some that suggests alternatives to torture actually work better.

I've been following this conflict for several months now, before it became a headline crisis. While I have believed from the beginning that a real conflict was probably going to materialize, I also do not believe that seizing the entirety of Ukraine is Putin's current goal. The conflict with Ukraine looks like classic incrementalism - or "salami tactics", taking territory slice by slice. Now that these two separatist areas (Luhansk and Donetsk) have been annexed, I think we will see no further advances by Russian forces at this time. Further, I believe that the US knows this and has essentially agreed with Russia since their bilateral talks in January (which didn't include Ukraine) that this annexation would be tolerated in order to avoid a full scale war. Of course, this would never be officially stated. I believe the Russian forces stationed in Belarus, ominously north of Kiev, are there to merely intimidate Ukraine and NATO into not interfering while this annexation takes place. They are the "backup" in case Ukraine or NATO tries to stop the seizure of this eastern territory; they're not there with the primary goal of invading the entire country. It's a classic strategy of "scare you with a bigger threat so you accept a smaller sacrifice". In the coming weeks I expect we'll see the Russian "peacekeepers" control this section of territory but not advance any further. This will allow Russia to officially link up the separatist areas with Crimea (previously seized in 2014) and continue their expansion into the Black Sea. Although the new independent republics will never be officially recognized, Ukrainian forces will pull back and respect this new de facto boundary. (Red lines denote where Russian peacekeepers will actually be stationed) Russia's stategy to recognize two "independent states": Dontesk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic rather than subsume these territories into Russia mirrors the annexation of other friendly satellite states such as South Ossetia (2008) and Abkhazia, both of which Russia took from Georgia. Over the long term this approach counters the "Soviet Sphere" narrative while accomplishing the exact same objectives.

Well you do, as beecee pointed out, if the victims of the crime are saved. The main point is that if you don't try you will never know, but you will know for certain if you don't try the victims are doomed. I find this morally undesirable. Logic even dictates this. When people suggest to me that I'm wasting my time buying a national lottery ticket because I'm never going to win they are most likely correct. The odds of me winning are extremely low, so as far as gambling goes it's in reality a waste of money. However, I'm prepared to keep buying a ticket because there is an extremely small chance that I might just win, and the outcome of this is that I get to win the prize that was worth trying for - You have to be in it to win it If you don't try you can never achieve, if you do try at least there is a chance, no matter how unlikely it is, you will. When all else fails and you are left in a situation where torture or do nothing are your only 2 options left, do nothing results in one outcome. No, the question is a simple one that gets over complicated by irrelevant reasoning. There's too much focus on all the if's but's and maybe's. 1.Torture is most likely very unreliable for information extraction and could be most likely result in failure. Is it proven that torture has a 100% failure rate? If so I'm happy to retract my answer to the OP and change it to a No. 2.In some situations there maybe no way to ascertain 100% guilt, granted. however when time is of the essence and you have enough information to assume the perp is guilty then this is the logical approach. 3&4. You state yourself that the clock is ticking, this applies to the victims as well as the perp being tortured. but I think the clock for the victims is far more important than the clock for the perp, would you not agree? No one says that the perp requires torturing beyond what is necessary, now you are making up scenarios. Like beecee, my concern lies with the victims facing their doom, not the perp being tortured. The perp being tortured has a good chance of survival (though some would argue doesn't deserve such), the victims face inevitably death. But hey, if you can rest easy on your choice and sleep at night happy that the choice you made was the best one, good luck. I'm not here to argue what you should believe, think or feel. In my simple mind, I follow what I believe is the logical route where I can, until there is no logical route left, then I go with my gut and/or the route that I feel is the best one to take at that given moment. We can all look back with regret and say "only if".

I agree that the result of computation is known. How do you retrieve the known result again later; does that require (some small) cost? Note: I'm not question your statement, just curious to understand it correctly for further reading. edit: Here are two papers that may be of interest for those following this thread: 1: Critical Remarks on Landauer’s principle of erasure–dissipation https://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.2166.pdf This paper discusses examples that as far as I can tell are related to @studiot's example of RAM 2:https://arxiv.org/pdf/1311.1886.pdf Thermodynamic and Logical Reversibilities Revisited The second paper investigates erasure of memory: (I have not yet read both papers in detail)

Excellently thought out and presented post. +1 I see from the map that Russia has now secured its land route (corridor) to the Crimea.

There is a 'religion' and then there is a 'science of religion'. The former is taught / preached in churches, temples, etc. The latter is defined as, (Science of religion Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster) and is taught in educational institutions, e.g. here. It is only appropriate for this forum, being a science forum, to restrict discussions on religion to the latter.

You make your opinion sound like an established fact, which of course it is not. I can understand though, if you take this position, how you can consider an ethical problem as some pure abstraction and give 'definitive' answers. But, like @joigus suggested, many people do not think of ethics like that and we have reached a stalemate; nothing more can be said. Hard to debate anyone 100% certain of anything. By the same reasoning, i should go out and murder the next person i meet, because there is a vanishingly small probability they will be the next Hitler. Of course, that is stupid. I say this to highlight that having some idea of how likely torture is to work is important to the decision. If it's as likely as any random person you meet being the next Hitler, would you still do it?

Moreover, it is impossible to advance from Belarus to Ukraine. There are impassable Polesie marshes between Ukraine and Belarus. This is the so-called Pripyat problem. Bonaparte and Hitler had to choose how to attack Moscow, north or south of the Pripyat marshes. In 1941, Army Group Center, which had broken out ahead, could not fear for its right flank. since it was covered by swamps.

If you hate it here so much, why not leave and open your own forum where you can enforce any rules you want, or leave it as an unmoderated cesspool like YouTube comments sections?

You are absolutely right. A dog person here. Even if I don't have free will, they pretend I do. But I know what you mean. My daughter used to be owned by a cat

Of course you do! How can you say that? The recovery of the kidnapped child, or the saving of thousands of lives. Again, you seem to be making presumptions. Who said it has never worked? What is the moral failure you speak of? The non existent moral fibre of the pedaphile, terrorist or criminal? In the current pertaining conditions, my morals lie with saving and/or protecting the innocents, in every way possible. He also knows he may need to suffer more if he does. That's a pretty flimsy excuse actually. 😅😄 "There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it". Cicero, Marcus Tullius (106-43 BCE) Roman statesman. De Divinatione

Why do you think that's what I'm laying out here? I was talking about an experiment with an electronic circuit. You've pointed out how in chemistry you can do non-electronic experiments. Something I know already, but, thanks anyway. Obviously something has wooshed straight over that head of yours. I'm trying to examine what information there is in any experiment and how you would encode that information, not necessarily on paper or an electronic circuit. I know how scared some people are of Shannon entropy, but it is what it is. So I point out something about how you can choose 0V in a circuit, and this doesn't seem to you, to be something you can do in every experiment. Well, you could be right about that.

Sure, some guy called me a 5 year old on one thread - it happens, no biggie - we are adults here, unless one starts inciting violence, I think we should be able to speak freely and I don't think we are able to Blasphemy laws in Pakistan are meant for one purpose - to protect any criticism of Islam - so that the Mullahs get to keep power over the populace The Burkha is meant to keep women in a 2nd class subservient role - these things are very clear and we should be able to discuss them without being mocked as rants Am I doing that now? It depends on one's opinion does it not? That is not a very fair way to judge someone's legitimate point of view Let the members, the voting public, decide whether a thread should be closed or kept open - to me that is the fair thing to do Just one person, the moderator making the decision, acting like judge and jury with no chance of an appeal - sounds like just what happened to Galileo when he tried to change minds. How are we still stuck back there?

Again, are we in a communist forum? We are not We are in a democracy and should be freely get rid of rules that make no sense or at least discuss better ways of doing things We do it all the time! Try the mask mandate that is raging on right now in Canada and the US. I am in favor of Masks but if someone has a different idea they should be freely allowed to speak You are shutting down all discussion with "membership rules" - these rules can be changed, they are not set in stone Sorry, that is a cheap shot Again, do you not understand of democracy and free speech? Amazing!

Are you trying to say the position and momentum of the electron that lost its kinetic energy to a screen is known? It's been captured? Captain Obvious rocks, eh?