Leaderboard

Of course they celebrate distinct groups. Columbus Day in Boston celebrates Italian-Americans and their culture (in other places, it may just celebrate Columbus himself, though that's receded in the past few years). The same with Chinatown festivals in San Francisco or Seattle. Or the Czech Festival in Wilber, Nebraska (Czech-American girls are insanely pretty, based on reports from sixteen year old me). African-Americans are not just a race (a vague and discredited anthropological term), but a group with shared history and culture that came mainly from West Africa. and endured a couple centuries of chattel slavery. Black Pride celebrates that particular ancestral experience, not melanin levels. It's a distinct ethnic heritage, and different from that of, say, British Carribean Africans - one of whom is our vice president's father.

There is always an interesting group of "allies" who advocate for delayed or denied rights/justice, since that will be in the best interest of those who have been harmed. 'Delay gay marriage since it will give people time to get used to the idea, else they will fight you.' 'Impeaching Trump will only embolden his supporters. It is in the best interest of Democrats to let his transgressions slide so that you don't risk him winning again.' 'Telling people it is time we had a black woman on the Supreme Court is a bad idea. It will be bad for black women since there will be a lot of pushback.' Sometimes I have a hard time telling certain 'allies' from the adversaries.

The process of conducting an underwater search for a lost submarine has been based on the use of Bayesian Search Theory ever since 1968, when the technique was first successfully used in the hunt for USS Scorpion (SSN-589). This nuclear powered submarine had gone missing while returning from combat patrol to its base in Norfolk Virginia, and might in theory have sunk anywhere between there and its last known location near the Canary Islands. A team of mathematicians and acoustic specialists led by John Piña Craven calculated an optimum search box area, and subsequently located the wreck at a depth of 3047m, and within about 500 metres of the central X of the primary search box near the Azores - (The US Navy thought it had sunk off the Eastern Seaboard). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_search_theory In the case of the Titan submersible, the search teams could define an optimum ‘box’ based on the known time of the loss of contact at 1h 45m into the dive, and the planned descent route to the wreck of the Titanic.

I think there are contexts where the "weak emergence" approach is certainly useful, and I would go as far as to say that actually spectacularly so. One such example is how the equation of state for a real gas is inferred by assuming finite volume for each molecule and how molecules repelling each other at short enough distances while attracting each other at longer distances gives you a modification of the ideal-gas law that results in explaining phase transitions, the triple point of water, etc. If that's not emergence in action, I don't know what is. As Hossenfelder says, conductivity and other macroscopic parameters give you other examples. There are other contexts where it's not at all obvious what the level from which the law is inferred might be. Example: People have suggested time could be an emergent property. What more basic level can we postulate so that time is a highly-derived, emergent property? I do see a domain in which it's helpful, and by no means trivial.

When I was in 4th grade, I lived in one of the last US cities to desegregate. The change was not subtle. One day, every face in our classroom was white. The next day, there were three black children. Everyone was fine with it, except one kid who enjoyed crushing insects with a hammer and had a virulently racist Dad - he thought they smelled bad. No one paid him much attention. This lack of need is rarely expressed when it's some other ethnic group. Cinco de Mayo street festivals. St Patrick's parades. Columbus Day in Boston and New York. Czech festivals in Nebraska. Russian festivals in Ann Arbor, NYC, etc. Chinatown festivals and lunar New Year all over the Western US. In fact, I seem to recall we had an Italian-Canadian member here who seemed to be proud of his heritage and cuisine. But perhaps he didn't get too carried away and "celebrate."

Yes, but the particles are not. Let's take muons as example (again). Normally they have a half life of about 2 μs. In an particle accelerator they live much longer. That's time dilation. In its own reference frame the muon of course stands still. So its half life is still 2 μs. Now imagine the muon can travel 100 rounds in the accelerator before decaying. So from the reference frame of the muon, it also makes 100 rounds. Now how can this be explained in the reference frame of such a muon?

Ugh… It’s happened again! Another trans person… using the natural advantages of their biology went ahead and changed sex and beat another cis gendered person in competition. Why do we allow this to persist!?! https://gayexpress.co.nz/2023/06/worlds-first-trans-male-boxer-wins-third-fight-over-cis-man/ Born female

Any possibility these nuisance ads could be eliminated? Banner ads are okay, but this new format makes for a pretty rude interruption. How can any advertizer, seeing what type of website this is, imagine we would respond to these in a positive way?

! Moderator Note You are entitled to your opinion, but the rules are not optional, and your attempts to explain why you won’t follow them aren’t going to be persuasive.

How do you propose to decrease the population of the US? And what are your criteria for "better"?

You could sell that. But... how would you advertise it?

That's not a phrase most people of faith use. It seems to imply some kind of proof, which doesn't fit well with the concept of faith. And Jesus hated banks, remember? Render unto Caesar, right? The best "entrance into heaven" argument I ever heard was that God doesn't do the judging, nor does it require belief in Jesus. YOU judge yourself to be worthy or unworthy of heaven, for whatever reasons. It's such a fabulous place that many will think themselves unworthy and linger outside the gates, which is the real Hell. It's only your judgement that decides.

What makes you believe only Einstein concluded c is invariant to all observers ? No physics work goes unchallenged that never happens. Every physics theory gets examined and tested by others. That is an essential part of the scientific methodology.

Really you might try using Google yourself. Try googling invariant mass, variant mass, electromagnetic mass, rest mass and inertial mass. (The last two were replaced by the first two) No I No I am referring to the nature of your responses.

It is called rest mass for a reason; the rest frame is the only frame where its value is valid. In all other frames mass would be measured different, because what we call mass, the resistance to changes in inertia, increases dramatically as relative motion approaches c . That is the main reason protons at the LHC can slam into targets with energies in the TeV range. I believe Swansont has already addressed your mistaken beliefs concerning the supposed 'invariance' of length ... So you've got no mathematical proof, nor any observational evidence. You know what that leaves ? Squat !

I have to ask this. Did you even bother looking at the link provided by Studiot ? There is a very important detail you missed with regards to \(\mu_O\). I won't tell you what it is, not yet anyways. I want to see if you can find that important detail yourself.

How come nobody but you has noticed?

So you keep claiming over and over again. Your claims do not change 100 years of experimental research and precision tests. This has been pointed out to you numerous times. However you keep ignoring or denying it. Guess what your opinion won't change the evidence. BS pure and simple You obviously don't understand physics well enough to determine anything regarding the rules of physics.

No? You can’t measure the speed of light in different frames of reference? Say, doing itat noon, and then 12 hours later, where the earth’s rotation has your lab moving in the opposite direction? And doing this at 6 month intervals, so the earth’s orbit is in the opposite direction? Surely something so basic has been done. Even if not systematically, it can’t be the case that all of the measurements of the speed of light have happened at the same time on the same day of the year. This would show up in the data, if it were true. You just asserted that mass and length are not frame dependent. You’re right about rest mass, but the mere assertion is contradicted by this claim. The least you can do is be consistent. c being invariant is proven by electrodynamics, as I have described. SR is shown to be correct by various experiments, perhaps most famously by the Hafele-Keating experiment You don’t get to judge others’ understanding of physics. They have, as I have described above. The concepts of physics are completely independent of your understanding of them Yeah, whatever.

I think the difficulty you might be having is that All measurements are frame dependent. However the difference is with invariant quantities regardless of the chosen frame or multiple frames every observer will measure the same value. Variant quantities will vary between different observers. It is the latter we often term frame dependent.

Length and time are most definitely frame-dependent. Not understanding is not the same as being irrational And yet experimental physics shows this not to be the case. Who’s right? That’s a real puzzler.

..I'm in hell when I read yet another of your posts about UFOs and nothing else.. Your entire existence is spinning around this..

Was I not talking about Maxwell's equation revealing Light speed from two universal constants? I never mentioned any theories that came later. All I'm saying is that from Maxwell's equations and Mu and Epsilon, you can not conclude that Light speed is a universal constant. Because Mu and Epsilon are not universal constants. From Maxwell, you can't get a constant in all frames light speed. In fact you get the opposite. It was Einstein's Postulate that Light speed was a universal constant, but we can now see that that postulate can not be accepted UNLESS you discard Maxwell's Equations. (because they indicate the exact opposite)

What part of "rare occurrences" are you struggling with? I said within a fairly small margin, and my link backs that up very well. And the fact that they found parts of the sub so quickly indicates that they had a very good idea where to look, in an area "twice the area of Connecticut."

The ramifications are that measurement of light speed is frame dependent. Its not possible to devise any such experiment as you describe. Changes in the perceived frequency is caused by changes in relative speed. The wave length and frequency of the signal never changes, only the approach speed of the person taking the measurements. Because measurements of ANYTHING can only be FRAME DEPENDENT. No other option exists. Only if you have already proved that SR is correct, and you haven't done that. I'm sorry that you fail to understand simple Physics, and prefer to ponder fantastical pseudo science instead. No experiment has ever tested light speed of 300 million meters per second is the same in other frames. The idea of "invariant measurements" is nonsensical and opposite to Physics principals and rational thought. The observations of "invariant MOTION states " is logical and in keeping with those rules of Physics. The "difficulty" you are clearly having which prevents you from clear thinking, is because you can't separate the concept of "constant motion", from the "subjective measurements of motion". you think they are the same. The first is universal, the latter is necessarily reference frame dependent.

I laugh at you, when i posted about depression being more than chemical imbalance some elistists laughed at me and put my post to trash. While when i asked supernerd said what it would be. Lol even APA didn't held this hypothesis ever, you are uneducated... You don't let anyone post here and if someone posts who you don't respect they get censored... Icreading evidence is showing that depression is much more and mental disorders being evolutionary functional... But pharmas spread lies about ADs (they make most of all corporations and fake trials and were convicted of all possible crimes) - geez think little critically... But academia is not place for smart ppl. 160IQ doing 4 areas of science and philosophy told me i am extremely intelligent... LUL... YOu are nothing but little salty arrogant bitches... You can't even engage with argument but starman and ad hominem lol... I am never ever going to anyone tell me in anything, but science is largely social endeavor and is more about status and reputation than anything else, or science... But you stupid you don't see that... You are weak pathethic scientists, READ NIETZSCHE BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL, WILL TO TRUTH is just weakness for weak bitches to make life more predictable and comfortable and easy and to destroy capacity for pain in men!!! You are so stupid, everyone in my life always tried to put me down and be so mean to me for no reason... But 160IQs don't think so and we can have nice polite conversation, you little scientists, you don't even know what is coming to you!!! “And do you know what “the world” is to me? Shall I show it to you in my mirror? This world: a monster of energy, without beginning, without end; a firm, iron magnitude of force that does not grow bigger or smaller, that does not expend itself but only transforms itself; as a whole, of unalterable size, a household without expenses or losses, but likewise without increase or income; enclosed by “nothingness” as by a boundary; not something blurry or wasted, not something endlessly extended, but set in a definite space as a definite force, and not a space that might be “empty” here or there, but rather as force throughout, as a play of forces and waves of forces, at the same time one and many, increasing here and at the same time decreasing there; a sea of forces flowing and rushing together, eternally changing, eternally flooding back, with tremendous years of recurrence, with an ebb and a flood of its forms; out of the simplest forms striving toward the most complex, out of the stillest, most rigid, coldest forms striving toward the hottest, most turbulent, most self-contradictory, and then again returning home to the simple out of this abundance, out of the play of contradictions back to the joy of concord, still affirming itself in this uniformity of its courses and its years, blessing itself as that which must return eternally, as a becoming that knows no satiety, no disgust, no weariness: this, my Dionysian world of the eternally self- creating, the eternally self-destroying, this mystery world of the twofold voluptuous delight, my “beyond good and evil,” without goal, unless the joy of the circle is itself a goal; without will, unless a ring feels good will toward itself— do you want a name for this world? A solution for all of its riddles? A light for you, too, you best-concealed, strongest, most intrepid, most midnightly men?— This world is the will to power—and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power—and nothing besides!”

Opposite to what? The length of an object is relative to the object itself, so never changes, nor does Mass. There is no such thing as "rest mass". So I am consistent. Not if Mu and Epsilon are relative to the frame. No, the results and conclusions have been disputed, no experiment is conclusive. I can say the same to you. And that is a pathetic failure to admit that fact that "constancy of motion" is not the same as a "measurement of that motion". Do you deny that this is true?

With that last response to Swansont you have proven to me at least. We are not accomplishing anything here.

In Einstein's paper, he has no evidence other than a thought experiment. His math is wrong and his conclusions are wrong. So why do you imagine that his postulate that caused the errors in his paper, can be applied to particle accelerators today? (that measurement of light velocity is the same measurement is any frame)

I think it's highly likely that the sound of the implosion was heard on the ship, but they couldn't face announcing it, knowing that it might call a halt to the search and rescue endeavors. A lion's roar can be heard in air from five miles away and sound travels better in water than air. They were only two miles above the Titan, and it's collapse would have generated an enormous bang. Even if it couldn't be heard by ear (unlikely I think) there would surely have been intruments on the ship that would pick it up. In their shoes, I wouldn't have mentioned it, till all hope was exhausted, so I can't blame them, if they did hear it happen.

So you caught a specific muon high in the atmosphere, tagged it, and let it go, and found that that same muon reached the earth surface? And if muons are reaching the surface at sea level, then this just shows that some muons have a longer life time than others. Or it might show that muons are not ALL created in the upper atmosphere, some are created lower down. Or it may show that you shortened the normal lifetime of a free muon during the process of capturing it in your cloud chamber after it passed through 14 inches of Perspex to SLOW IT DOWN. You see, here's the thing. ANY EXPERIMENT can be interpreted differently, depending on you prior beliefs. This is why experiment can NEVER PROVE YOUR THEORY. SO STOP GIVING ME ONE EYED EXPERIMENT CONCLUSIONS AS IF YOU WERE STATING FACT. It doesn't matter who Einstein copied his ideas from, it only matters that this concept is wrong. And I am saying that its impossible to "conclude that c is invariant" now. (but others also have done)

A recent Publication had this to say about Particle Physics: "The foundational theory of particle physics, the Standard Model, predicts that the universe should not exist!" That's how rational Particle Physics is. What Article? Oh nothing really, just a statement from Harvard. https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/frustrating-search-new-physics/ So you guys are trying to show where I'm wrong by citing half baked fringe science? When I'm just using axioms of the core of classical physics, that you all still say is valid?