Leaderboard

That would be a miracle or at least a helluva coincidence if your statement was accurate. So lets explore this: We know for a fact that relativity does make accurate predictions, as a matter of fact every test we have done shows relativity gives the correct prediction. Since miracles are probably not at play here the only logical and reasonable explanation is that your beliefs about the errors must be incorrect.

I will be shocked if they don't. For one thing this is probably going to be their best chance. The West is supporting them now and will until they take Crimea, assuming they go that route. If they wait and try to negotiate for it, Russia will never give it to them and I don't believe the West will support Ukraine to initiate hostilities for a future military takeover after hostilities have ceased. In other words, it is now or never. Secondly, Ukraine will never be safe with Russia at their doorstep, controlling the Black Sea and thus any shipping routes Ukraine needs for trade. The West also benefits from kicking Russia out of Crimea for the same reasons. As a side note, I believe the Kerch Strait Bridge will remain standing for now as Ukraine wants Russia to have a route to retreat once Ukraine has cut the land bridge. Without the land bridge Russia will not be able to sufficiently supply the peninsula for a war.

That won't ever happen. Look, polls going back well into the Jim Crow era have shown that the majority of folks on all side of the issue are against racism or have at least a negative attitude towards it. Yet those laws were enacted. Why? Because folks did not consider their own attitude as racist or harmful. This is the whole issue with racism. It is not the attitude itself that does the harm per se, but the creation (and insufficient dismantling) of a system that creates harm. We we right now everyone on Earth decides to be non-racist and eliminates all racial references in all laws on the book, we still will have racial sorting of outcomes. It is not because that mentioning of race being the issue, it is because laws, even if not specific with racial discrimination in mind (though again, there are still examples of those, such as the voter suppression tactics that specifically target minorities without mentioning them) won't be equitable (i.e. affect or benefit racial groups similarly), because the system already have them in different boxes. By simply not ignoring them, we will have the same system as we have before and the same inequity that is going with all the demonstrable harm it has (including life expectancy). And realistically, this is the same argument that has been made by the public against the civil rights act and to some degree why Martin Luther King was disappointed with what he called the white moderate. It has been much said here that folks are in general agreement that people should have the same opportunities. Yet the assumptions seems to be that we are already there and can now proceed in a color-blind fashion. Yet, data clearly shows that outcomes are heavily racialized. Now, there is also the discussion about equal opportunity vs. equal outcome. But here I want to ask something: What do you think leads to these different racialized outcome if opportunities are actually the same? Even 20 years back there were rather clear opinions on why this is the case, I am curious to see what explanations folks have now.

Also, Chat GPT is a language model, it is not source for data or information, especially as it is prone to make things up (aka hallucinations). But in other words, folks not only consider it possible but also acceptable to have companies and governments pay up for past regressions. And if so, it then means that we can continue to examine what other elements have led to systematically disadvantage folks and compensate them, right?

Because the US gov said they will not insure your loans if you make them to anyone in the redlined area. Therefore the lends did not make loans to people in the redlined areas. It is a direct connection. You did not provide a link to your list so I cannot check, so this is only a guess, but I suspect that you are referring to cases of redlining after the Fair Housing Act of 1968. At that point the government went from saying "redlining is legal" to saying "redlining is illegal", so anyone redlining after 1968 was no longer doing so under the protection of the US government. Take responsibility for redlining practices prior to the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and make whole the people they financially harmed. Please stop. This is unnecessary.

In the US, we have a history of demanding segregation, but when black communities began to prosper, they were burned or flooded out. Part of NYC's Central Park used to be the thriving black community of Seneca Village until they were run off by NYC police. I knew you wouldn't read the links. Here are some excerpts: Please read this. It's in English, and it's not very long.

Fast processes tend towards the isentropic. Efficiency and overall economics work hand in hand. Isothermal processes in extremis call for infinite cycle time and/or infinite heat transfer area. The economics just don't work as a practical proposition so we have to compromise. There is really no such thing as a Carnot design as it is an abstract theoretical concept: not a tangible object like an Otto or Stirling engine. Some designs can approach the Carnot limit more closely than others and that's all there is to it. Closer approaches need bigger budgets with ever-declining potential Return On Investment.

'That's right. It's all my fault. You were right all along and I just wanted to make it personal, while you and others were simply trying to discuss the topic. I'm so ashamed.' Sound familiar ( and condescending ) ? I thought it was obvious. ( nothing to do with being 'hard', INow; get your mind out of the gutter )

How about good laws that punish injustices when they happen,not try to fix them 200 years later ? How about a Constitution that enshrines human rights for ALL States, not the mix-match of different laws and rights for different States ? How about an impartial Supreme Court that doesn't do the bidding of the party that appointed them ? Need I go on ? Other countries have things like this. Also gun control and Universal Health care. Why must the most advanced country in the orld be the most backward in some respects ?

OK. You originally claimed to be neutral wrt racial bias, and I think iNow (and I) took that to mean you had no biases. But you've cleared it up that, of course, we ALL have biases. So isn't the idea that one can be bias-free only be held by either a fool or a liar? Is anyone defending the belief that they are completely unbiased? I think he's only calling YOU a fool or a liar if you believe you have no biases. It's the same response I'd give if someone told me they could survive a twenty-story fall wearing just a grin and a Speedo. How are you going to take such a huge leap without addressing instances of discrimination, which is the actionable part of racism? The law doesn't say anything about punishing racists, just those who discriminate against groups of people. This seems like you're saying "The first step in winning any race is to cross that finish line!" Don't you have to do a LOT of little things first to insure that you have a chance to put a toe on that line? And this insistence that a focus on the victims of state discrimination is wrong simply because those victims were singled out BECAUSE of their race and the only ways to make it right, by definition, is by using race as a factor. OMG, MigL, you may not be a racist but they want you as legal counsel. Using your definitions, the US will never have to compensate any taxpayer funded discrimination done to groups of people. I'm sorry if I missed it, but have you suggested alternatives that involve more than just "Stop that!"?

How is that working out ??? The first step, before redress of any prior injustices, is ending racism, Phi. It doesn't make sense, to me, that the mechanism used for mitigating the consequences of those past wrongs, uses racism. Just my opinion. If you want to call that 'doing nothing', then you're not serious about this topic. And after you all accuse me, and others, of wanting to do nothing, Zap acts all butt-hurt, when called out on it. ( I'm sure you can tell, but I don't give neg reps,Phi )

Way off base there. I learned the old-faahioned way: listening to black people, and working as a social worker for a decade. In the US. Where understanding systemic racism and discrimination is rightly considered to be essential to having America live up to its Constitutional principles. The only way your hypothesized Self-Reliant Minority can get political traction to fix things in the US is to coalition with other groups who share their goals. 12‰ of the US population is not going to remedy 400 years of discrimination without another 39% (or at least, a strong plurality in some cases) lending some support. And given how the voting system deck is stacked, probably more than that. Progressives here are mostly committed to coming together to help Dr. King's dream along, and not shaming each other on personal experience credentials. I also have never been a woman seeking reproductive care, or gay. Are you suggesting I shouldn't bother to march with them, too, or donate money or publicly express support? I'm curious what sort of America we'll have if white guys like me sit meekly with our hands folded while all those discriminated minorities try their luck on tje streets and in the courts.

Co-write the script with your son, get Sandra Bullock and George Clooney to star, and shoot the space scenes in a studio?

Who said 'merely stopping' ? But it should be the first step, as was explained to Phi yesterday. If you have a problem in your house, such as a water leak in the basement, that ruined your rug by making it moldy and stinky, is your first step to replace the rug so that it matches the rest of the nice decor, or do you fix the root problem first; the water leak that caused the 'injustice' to your rug ? You see, there's that intelligence at work ... Yeah, that's not going to happen. If you sling mud at others, then complain when it occasionally gets lobbed back your way, you should grow thicker skin. Last I checked, this was my OP, and I have the right to respond to anyone posting in this thread. If you want to be left alone, you can choose not to participate. ( I would much prefer you grow up, take some responsibility, and continue posting )

Well I hope you can be more reasonable that the other guy here, who seems to be calling white, black. So really? You are willing to honestly discuss this, and concede valid points one by one if I should make any? Then APPLY those valid points to the hypothesis? Ill start by asking "Is Physics ONLY interested in comparing predictions of Equations to observations, and any explanations of why or how the equation was derived is simply irreverent? Swansnot seems to be saying that Einstein may as well written, "Donald Duck doesn't wear trousers, and e=mc2, go check it out. (the textural explanation is not required because of peoples opinions.) Math alone is what Physics is all about. Funny, I thought Physics is what Physics is about, and Math is about Mathematics. But Swansnot is then more than willing to believe certain peoples opinions over others opinions regarding the meaning and interpretation of experiments. (which we know can not be proof of a theory)

You DID say that you are not interested in the text based analysis of the hypothesis. (analysis is only opinion) Rather you were ONLY interested in the Math, because the value of the whole paper is really in the ability if the Math to make accurate predictions. Therefore, its not inaccurate to conclude that as far as you are concerned, Einstein COULD have talked about Donald Ducks trousers, as long as he gave an equation that seems correct, is all that matters to you. You made up pseudonym is not even a real Name, therefore YOU may have spelt it wrong, I was merely suggesting a better spelling.

I was expecting that you were going to give me a concise mathematical version of the simple English statement " In all Inertial frames of reference, the Laws of Physics, Kinematics, Optics and Electrodynamics are equally applicable." I don't see that anywhere in your suspiciously overly long collection of advanced math and unrelated equations. You actually fail big time when you say, "Now due to length contraction these Euler angles are no longer preserved so we need transformation rules " because as Einstein was proposing his Postulates, there IS NO SUCH THING AS Length Contraction at this stage.. so those fancy looking equations that follow are inadmissible as part of a math based explanation of the way, way more concise plain English statement, " In all Inertial frames of reference, the Laws of Physics, Kinematics, Optics and Electrodynamics are equally applicable." It is no wonder that Einstein had his whole theory outlined in simple words, in the initial first few pages, because Physics principals are more easily communicated through simple words, and the Math can only follow afterwards, and must be based squarely on the simple plain language hypothesis. So much for that attempt. Lets move forward. Now back to the topic which was up to a question that I asked. So can you answer the question or not? Do I have to repeat the question yet again? So now that you have FAILED at this task, please answer my Question. Or ask the help of an Expert, if it is too hard for you. (also, why on earth are you including General Relativity in a conservation that is specifically on Special Relativity according the 1905 Paper?)

I clarified exactly what I meant, 3 pages ago. I don't think you were reading what I actually wrote, but rather were looking for fault because I was being contrarian to your opinion. I replied to you on the very first post back that I accepted everyone had biases. Then I get asked over and over if I think that. Just read what I wrote, it's all there. Everyone with eyes can look, but did you 'see'? I have answered all of your questions before you asked them, again. Honestly, I never actually realised racism was going to be so difficult to fix in the USA. Now I get it! What you see as 'compassion' I see as busy-body interference. It seems to me that the reason you, as a country, went to war over this issue and it STILL didn't solve the problem is that you have two white groups, i) those that see themselves as superior to blacks and can therefore discriminate against blacks accordingly, ii) those that see themselves as superior to blacks because they have the power to solve their problems for them and seek solutions for them accordingly. That's not remotely what I said. I said I would be very cautious over butting in on stuff that's not my concern. (Imagine a march of 'Women who fear men' over abuse by men, and a group of men go and plant themselves in the middle of the group without being invited. Nice!!!) I said did they ask to be invited. I said, if they ask for assistance then give it. America, you need to start listening to people from countries that were abolishing slavery when you were writing new ones. You had a civil war over the issue, FFS, which was extremely destructive and still largely ineffective. Maybe start listening to the 'neutral' viewpoint of others that have not been immersed in this senselessness and don't believe it likely that America will be able to find all the answers for itself any time soon, as evidenced by these serial failures. ..... because if you keep going on with that patronising attitude, that you can't even see because you are so immersed in your middle-class liberal American culture, then you can expect ongoing civil violence. You need to STOP SEEING PEOPLE AS BLACK!!!!! It is AN IMAGINARY CONCEPT that you have been brought up to see. Stop patronising them. You follow your social conditioning as instinctively as 'another' social white group in America which looks down on them. That is what the OP was all about. You see blackboards and whiteboards, you are conditioned to see it and you cannot separate your American social upbringing that's conditioned you to from that perception, whether it is to discriminate or patronise, one way or the other. I see "writing boards". Some writing boards are mean to other writing boards, and we put those ones in the basement.

Look, as you are evidently hard of hearing, I'l repeat again, that I intend to give the Math errors, but first there is the matter of explaining how and when the problem was first developed, that led to the errors. This is logical approach is it not? Its the same approach used in all Universities by the best Professors. So far every time I've tried to broach the specifics, I'm met with total silence, just a big ignore. as if I had made no statement at all. My comments just disappear into the history and are never mentioned by anyone. its like talking to a brick wall. but at least the wall can maybe provide an echo. Unless I pinpoint the source of the Math error, which is in the logic of Einstein's argument, then its not going to be of any use supplying an alternative equation that has no context. Is that not correct? You will simply loop back to the source of the problem to defend Einstein's math, because you have not realised that its the problem source. Its a case of circular logic. I try to remove any Logical errors, not surround myself in a protective fence made of them.

OK, I accept that connection you are making. So, why are these companies paying out and not saying 'we're not liable it's the US gov what did it'? Chat GPT gave me those figures after I asked for a list of cases settled for redlining. Go argue with Chat GPT if you are declining to accept that list of data, but maybe YOU need to find your data first before accusing these companies of not fulfilling their liabilities already? It seems that this 'black group' have gone and done exactly what I said they'd done here in UK. While the 'Very-offended-of-white-middle-class-America' has been wringing its hands and saying that they will do something, the 'black group' have got fed up with you waffling on about it and gone and sorted it out for themselves. Name a black person who has not received their compensation from these legal cases, and we can move on to discuss 'that' and what to do next. In the absence of you being able to name someone 'from the black group' that is asking for any recompense for redlining, can we at least for now put that aside and move on to some next injustice that you want to address? Is that it? Anything else?

About Einstein’s thought process in the1905 Paper. Einstein made two comments which he then elevated to the status of Postulates. First is: "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate," Second is: "and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." I want to stop here and examine the logic of so far. Please consider the words “which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former,”. So in what way is the simple statement that light has a constant determinable velocity, irreconcilable with the Laws of Physics, of the Laws of Kinematics specifically, as the study of Motion is called Kinematics and Einstein's moves on to “the Kinematic Part” of his Paper immediately after the introduction. So what is “apparently irreconcilable” about Light having a constant determinable speed with the Laws of Kinematics? (Newtons Laws of Motion to be precise) Pause for your consideration and reply. But Einstein actually spelled out exactly why he believed there was a conflict. Because the Purpose of the whole paper is to SOLVE this conflict, thus opening the door to new explanations for other related "problems" such as Maxwell's work and Observations such as M&M interferometer. So what is the answer? I know all this. Great, so all of you have believed in exactly the same things because you have all been instructed with the same information in the same way from the same books by the same professors. "If you keep doing what you have already done, you will still get what you have always got." That explains your solidarity. So great that you are all in the big sciency club, much like a Church Group, all have to accept what you have been told. But an appeal to such Authority is of course a Logical Fallacy. None of you would have those Letters after your names if you have stepped one inch off the prescribed track back in Uni. (about this particular faith in Einstein's claims) I would prefer to just discuss the claims Einstein made, and see if his logic and conclusions are really valid. Or is it all based on error? As "experts" you ought to be able to look at Einstein's work from a totally critical angle, ignoring your own cherished pre set beliefs.. But clearly you are totally unwilling to do that. And that is a sign that you have not been taught well in the way of Science, where there is no settled beliefs, and anything could be wrong or right, and any theory can be challenged, by ANYONE regardless of the FAME of the theory's Author. You guys are NOT EXPERTS on Science , you ARE experts on WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD. Science is the continued striving to understand, and its not owned by any University or enshrined in any sacred text.

Obviously, you did not look in the right places for the error that you say you initially suspected. And then you gave up way too soon. Einstein's theories are cunningly well contrived deceptions, and I'm not going to speculate on whether the deceptions are intentional or accidental. If you are really so open, they you would not be fighting so very hard to not consider fairy what I'm trying to say. And the error is EASILY provable to be where the error is in the 1905 Paper. And I told you. MEASUREMENTS are NOT LAWS. Light's Constancy of Motion can be considered as a Law, but it's necessarily subjectively measured numerical value can ever be considered as a Law, because any measurement is certainly a relative value. And that is where you got tricked. Where is that measurements relative origin of the measurement? Einstein pretends that it doesn't exist. But it MUST, or you cant take a measure of anything. I challenge you to make a measurement of ANYTHING, when you have no starting point. Give me one example that this is possible. I'll wait for your intellectually honest reply.

I made a mistake, it was said by Mordred. But as all you guys are on the same page on this matter, the idea still stands. Unless you want to distance yourself from what Mordred said? Do you have another belief about this? Ok, its Swansont. I never intended to cause you endless grief and harm. Please try to get over it. Test all you want. But when the data and results are both gathered and then massaged by the application of the equations of the same theory that you claim to be trying to discredit, your argument becomes implausible. Anyway, I'm still waiting for someone to answer my Question. Which is an outstanding matter that needs to be addressed.

I wondered when this pathetic argument was going to rear its ugly head. The good old fall back position based on a logical fallacy, "you are just too stupid to understand my superior arguments." I actually understand Special Relativity better than you, and that's why I can ask question s that you are scared of trying to answer. But let's say I'm an ignorant sod, son of pig farmer, incapable of putting together a sentence of more than a half dozen words not containing more than 2 syllables a piece. So please now answer the Question not for me, but for some other more intelligent person almost as smart as your gifted self, for their benefit. Go on, grace us with enlightenment of your awesome intellect and inexhaustible knowledge. Or you could just back away quietly and let someone else answer the question. However, based on the way that the others here have kept quiet, maybe they all think you are the smartest one here.