Leaderboard

Let's be clear on this. From at least the mid-1930's the energy sector has been fully aware of the long term impact of burning fossil fuels due to the advice given by its chemists and chemical engineers who understood the principles first clearly articulated by Svante Arrhenius in the 1890's. Their position has been uniformly duplicitous ever since. They have not the slightest interest in rational debate. They see it simply as a war of words. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to respond accordingly.

Turns out the problem that led to the New Palestine derailment, and subsequent burning of Vinyl Chloride, Di-isobutylene, etc., coould have been avoided had reccomendations from previous derailments been implemented; brakes on every axle of the cars. But the rail industry lobbied heavily the previous orange haired President, who waived the reccomendations. Just another of D Trump's wonderful legacies.

Relativistic effects don't change the shape of the waveform. Whatever happens to the overall speed of the signal will also happen to the frequencies. The most "direct" way to listen in to the signal would be to have an array of listeners along the spaceship's path, each station receiving a short snippet as the spaceship passes. When you're in front of the spaceship, the signal will seem faster according to the Doppler formula, as Genady showed. When the line between you and the spaceship is perpendicular to the ship's velocity, the signal will seem time dilated by the usual gamma factor. So there must be some angle [math]\theta[/math] where the signal comes in at normal speed. If a time [math]dt_s [/math] passes in Earth's reference frame between two events on the spaceship, the interval in the spaceship will be [math]\displaystyle{ dt' = \frac{dt_s }{ \gamma} } [/math] If the ship travels a distance ds, from y = dy to y = 0 (so [math] dy = ds \sin \theta [/math]), during this time, and a receiver is a (relatively large) distance y (along the y axis) below the x axis, the time for the first light signal to reach the receiver will be [math]\displaystyle{ t_{r1} = \frac{y + dy}{c} }[/math] and the total time from when the first signal is sent to when the second signal is received will be [math]\displaystyle{ t_{r2} = \frac{ds}{v} + \frac{y}{c} }[/math] So the time interval for the receiver will be [math]\displaystyle{ dt_r = \frac{ds}{v} - \frac{dy}{c} }[/math] Now we set [math] dt' = dt_r [/math] to calculate [math]\theta[/math]: [math] \displaystyle{ \frac{dt_s }{\gamma} = \frac{ds}{v} - \frac{dy}{c} }[/math] [math] \displaystyle{ \frac{ds }{\gamma v }= \frac{ds}{v} - \frac{ds \sin \theta}{c}} [/math] [math] c = \gamma c - \gamma v \sin\theta [/math] [math] \displaystyle{ \sin\theta = \frac{c}{v} \left( 1 - \frac{1}{\gamma}\right) } [/math]

Hmm, I see what you mean. There are no extra degrees of freedom, though. Diatomic molecules all have 2 rotational degrees of freedom. But ortho can only populate odd numbered rotational energy levels while para can populate only even levels. I had to look this up (it's badly explained or not explained in Wiki) but it appears the issue is that ortho hydrogen is a triplet state, in which the total nuclear spin of 1 can be orientated +1, 0 or -1 with respect to the axis of rotation, thereby multiplying the numbers of rotational states available by 3, i.e. each rotational level has 3-fold degeneracy, whereas the para states do not. So at RTP, with kT>> ε for rotation, you end up with a 3:1 ratio, just because there are more ways for ortho to have a certain amount of rotational energy. I think that's it, at least.

Incorrect. All it means is NOT*theist. No conclusions can be drawn regarding other beliefs.

My most heartfelt respect. On my part: FSM is no vice-anything. It reigns supreme over all things, real and unreal. It swallows nonsense and spits out nonsense too, only funnier. What do you wish to discuss?

The parameter v is not a scalar, nor is it a vector, since it does not transform like either of those kinds of objects. It’s simply a real-valued parameter of the transformation matrix, which can take either positive or negative values. To see why, you need only consider the geometrical meaning of the general Lorentz transformation - it’s simply a combination of a boost and a hyperbolic rotation. As such, the transformation parameter can also be expressed as a hyperbolic angle (called rapidity) - and since a rotation about a point of origin can always be either clockwise or counterclockwise, the rotation angle can and does carry a sign. So it’s really simple - you start at a point A, and hyperbolically rotate your coordinate system by some angle ϕ to arrive at a new point B; you then perform the same rotation in the opposite direction, ie by the angle −ϕ , and arrive back at A. That’s just what it means for a linear transformation to be invertible (=symmetric), and that’s exactly what the Lorentz transformation does in spacetime. This is all just elementary linear algebra. Several people here have already shown you that they are symmetrical - including a formal mathematical proof. If you choose not to believe us here, you can find different proofs of their invertibility in pretty much any decent textbook on Special Relativity; here is another online one. And here you will find a long list of experimental results that show that Lorentz invariance does indeed hold in the real world. So where do we stand with this thread? We have explained to you why the transformations are symmetrical; we have shown you formal proofs that they are symmetrical; and we have provided experimental evidence that the whole theory matches up with real-world experimental data. I think we’re done here.

Yes....by creating the transitory fluctuations in magnetic field that I referred to. The way I think of it (rightly or wrongly) is like this. If you consider one nucleus, it is experiencing a magnetic field from the other one in the molecule, so it partially aligns, either with against that field. Standard space quantisation. In a collision, a 3rd nucleus comes up, just as close as the one to which it is bonded, maybe closer. So what magnetic field does the first nucleus now see? Some sort of resultant, with different alignment and different field strength. So it will now try to align with that. But this state has only transitory existence, so its energy levels will be poorly defined (uncertainty principle). And then after the collision the situation reverts to what it was before. But as a result of this there is a probability that the nucleus does not come out of the interaction with the same orientation in which it entered. Regarding centralisation of the nucleus, the electron cloud is centred on the nucleus and if it moves, leaving the nucleus off-centre, the electron cloud becomes distorted, leading to a higher energy state, which is resolved by the nucleus re-centring itself.

Here is some more information on Ortho v Para from Greenwood and Earnshaw Chemistry of the elements. Sorry for the quality of the scan but it is difficult for this book as it has over one and a half thousand pages.

Fair market value, or more accurately, just compensation, is decided by the courts, not the Government. Not that it would make much differene in the US, as the final arbitrer, the Supreme Court, is in the 'pocket' of the party that appointed them.

In Japan they currently have a growing problem of the hikikomori ( 引きこもり - ‘inward withdrawal’), an official Japanese term for up to 541,000 young people aged between 15 and 39 who have become completely reclusive, and who haven’t left their homes or interacted with other people for at least six months. https://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/11/asia/japanese-millennials-hikikomori-social-recluse/index.html The term was coined in the 1980s to describe a condition often triggered by anxiety and depression arising from early adolescent failure to cope with the competitive pressures of modern life in Japan. The numbers of male hikikomori also appear to be higher than among women, owing to the higher presssures and social expectations placed on men in Japanese society. This seems to be a rather good match for what TheVat was saying here about slackers who have given up on everything, not just work. Some western psychiatrists describe the hikikomori as ‘post-modern hermits’. It has also led to discussion of what some call the “80-50 problem” which refers to the problem of earlier born hikikomori children who are now entering their 50’s, as their parents on whom they rely, are entering their 80’s.

Slender filefish:

The Earth rotates around an axis.. any attempt to make "direct video" means you will get blurry video with stars looking like this: To prevent this, when the object you want to record is in close range (i.e. in parsecs), the "recording device" must rotate/move accordingly with the Earth's rotation. The farther away you want to record an object, the longer you have to collect photons from it.

Oh yes, they are. The Lorentz transformation leaves the metric invariant: \[g_{\mu \nu } =\Lambda _{\sigma }^{\mu } \Lambda _{\rho }^{\nu } =g_{\sigma \rho }\] Rewrite this in matrix notation: \[\Lambda ^{T} g\Lambda =g\] Take determinant on both sides: \[det\left( \Lambda ^{T}\right) det( g) det( \Lambda ) =det( g)\] Since none of these determinants is ever zero, and since the determinant of the transpose equals the determinant of the original matrix, you get: \[det( \Lambda )^{2} =1 \] which implies that \(\Lambda\) is always invertible. Thus, inertial frames related via Lorentz transformations are always symmetric. ! Moderator Note It is against the rules of this forum to post personal theories into the main physics section, let alone onto an existing thread. If you wish to discuss this, you must open your own thread under “Speculations” and explain your thoughts there (don’t just give links).

I find “feeling hotter” to be utterly unsurprising. An obese person is better insulated and is also somewhat more spherical than a skinny person. Both promote retaining heat. I don’t see how wearing heavy clothes would incentivize exercise, which raises your core temperature. For me, feeling hot has the opposite effect. Overheating tended to shut down my ability to exercise. It’s easier to keep warm than cool off; in my experience we tolerate a wider range of cooler temperatures than warmer temperatures from a starting point of what’s normally comfortable (“room temperature” or ~22 degrees C)

In mathematics, this term you mentioned : Λ(v)Λ(−v)=ΛΛ−1=I does not mean that Λ is symmetrical. For instance, [1/8] is the reverse of [8] in 1D matrix and [1/8].[8]= I. But 1/8 is not symmetrical with 8. Λ is symmetrical when Λ(v)= Λ(−v), which is not in Lorentz equations. See the term "Parity" in physics. In 1 dimension: 𝑥′ = 𝛾(𝑥 - 𝑣𝑡) but the reverse equation is 𝑥 = 𝛾(𝑥' +𝑣𝑡′). They are not equal to each other. Therefore, they are not symmetrical. we can not change the sign of v, when we reverse the equation. Why? Because it is not a vector. It is a scalar parameter. Even if you consider it as a vector, its sign in both of above-mentioned equation remains +v because we defined it as the velocity of S’ direction to the S direction which is to the right (+). it must be mention that we are talking about physical parameters like velocity and it must be a scalar or vector. they are not just mathematics. Your proof is completely wrong, as the others made this mistake. I have provided an easy and understandable of asymmetry of these equations. Please read my paper completely and learn about many contradictions in today's Special Relativity interpretation. I have worked on this subject more than 10 years and know all matters you have mentioned before. Please read my paper. Kind regards, and thanks for your discussion. No, in both of those cases you mentioned, you will use 𝑥′ = 𝛾(𝑥 - 𝑣𝑡), when you want to use Lorentz boost, without applying + or - for v sign, or else, instead of length contraction and time dilation, you will achieve length elongation and faster timing.

Ghaus ul Azam Shaikh Abdul Qadir Jilani is the spiritual vicegerent of the holy Prophet (pbuh) and therefore he is the leader of all the saints.