Leaderboard

I also heard about at least one hotel in the path of totality pulling the same stunt that some pulled during the last eclipse, canceling reservations that had been made well in advance once they realized how much people were willing to pay for a place to stay in the eclipse path. In this particular case, it was a travel agency that had been booking "Eclipse packages", and had been making arrangements with this hotel starting 2 years ago. Suddenly, and just recently, the hotel informed them that they were canceling the contract. I missed the '79 eclipse due to clouds(even though I lived in the path of totality), and almost missed the one in '17 due to fog/low clouds(we had a lucky encounter with a sanitation worker who told us that by driving up a certain street and up a hill, we could get a clear view.)

I tend to abbreviate my explanations in discussions here to make them accessible to all. I understand how natural and artificial selection affects the brain of domesticated animals. However, the science for me appears to suggest that both natural and artificial selection are essentially driven by the experiences of the animal rather than the experience/perspective of their domesticator. There is no disagreement in the science that domesticated animals have smaller brains than their counterparts in the wild. In the brains of domesticated species, the parts associated with aggression and fight/flight behaviors are significantly smaller than their versions in the wild. The theory behind this difference is that the ancestry of domesticated animals were selectively bred by humans for their non-aggressive traits. This would suggest that humans were unknowingly selecting and breeding animals with naturally smaller and smaller amygdalas. I contend that this shinkage occurred as a result of the safe and relatively stable environment of the animal rather than selective breeding between decreasingly aggressive animals--these brain changes occurred because of the animals environment (experience) rather than breeding. This perspective, in my view, is support by the rare reversal of brain volumn of domesticated animals that returned to the wild. Some might suggests that such reversal is a result of natural selection, which again to me suggest the environmental adaptations in behavior that changed the brains of these animals. The question I ask is, "Does experience influence brain architecture?" The evidence suggest that it does. The next question is, "What does this infer about the savant brain's architecture as it may relate to memory retention?" It's clear the seemingly eidetic memory of certain savants involve some permanently accessible neural pathway to selectly detailed memories. If evidence suggests experiences influence brain architecture and it also suggests the potential permenancy of that architectural influence, then the potential for access to the smallest detail of every architectural influence ever expeirenced is possible. The seemingly eidetic brain function of the savant suggest to me that potential possibility regardless of what theory may have been discredited.

Point 1 is wrong. Time dilation is not due to a change in difference between emitter and receiver. Such a difference change produces a Doppler shift, which is a separate effect. Time dilation is where two reference frames measure different time intervals between two events. So, for example, if you had two emitter/receiver setups. Each with a constant and equal distance between each respective pair, and these two setups were in motion, Then an observer at rest with respect to either of the setups would note that the time intervals between transmission and reception would differ between the setups. Point 2 is also incorrect. In such a mechanism, the purpose of the wound spring to to counter losses due to friction. It doesn't take any force to keep something moving at a fixed angular speed. If you were to remove friction from the example, the hand, once moving, would just continue to rotate on its own without any further input of force. This would not change due to the overall motion of the mechanism. The clock hand would be measured as moving slower by someone that the mechanism is moving with respect to, but this is due to their measuring time intervals differently, and not due to some mechanical effect acting on the mechanism. Point 3 is, again, incorrect. c is the "speed limit" in the universe because it is an invariant speed. If something ( like light) is moving at c, then everyone measures the light as moving at c with respect to themselves, regardless of the relative velocity differences between those doing the measuring the light. A universal speed limit equal to this invariant speed automatically follows due to its mere existence.

He comes over as a little cross...

Can you show, mathematically, how you transform between two inertial frames of reference in your conjecture? Especially; highlight any differences or similarities (due to your ideas) when mathematical equations are applied to brains and clocks* in different inertial frames of reference. Also highlight if any postulates or assumptions deviates from the mainstream. I know the established physics (Lorentz transformation etc) so I'm curious about a comparison. (Your explanations raises many questions regarding the logical consistency of your conjecture and explanations; I will return to these issues later) *) Your explanations seem to propose that human brains and time keeping devices does not follow the same physical laws

Progress

Listen, Gyno. You e been suspended at least once already here for arguing in bad faith and this isn’t kindergarten where you win extra points by intentionally using dismissive names.

Guys! Guys! Guys! One of my short stories has been published on YouTube!!! Illustrated and voiced by ai!!! I am thrilled!

You know, you are wasting our times with silly questions what shows you really don't take enough attention in what we are discussing. The discussion is becoming useless now this way. I never said there is no conduction. I agree in heat transferring by conduction, convection and radiation. I think your idea about what I think is wrong in something. I maintain total agreement with the mathematical definitions of those concepts. If the cup is filled with hot coffee it doesn't stay cool, it warms with T superior to the environment T. Depending on the cup considered it warms more or less but it warms and if the cup is not a so good insulator its radiation can be sensed by finger or face at some proper distance.