Leaderboard

I'm sincerely sorry for that,how I make it appear.... however, I fear if I let my temperament go away when facing those controversial issues, then the urge in me to push doing what am trying to achieve will just vanish...all the same I will try to control my temperament...and work hard to appear polite.

No, present an example here please. This is a discussion forum and we should not be required to go off and read other material in order to understand your claims. You should be able to describe the principle your technique uses and give one simple example of how it is used. Secondly, the passage you quote, which I have highlighted in red, is nonsensical. You cannot say something is "encoded" if there is no code present, which there is not in a single number such as density. If you are drawing on other information, such as limits on possible ranges of density of certain alloys, or on compositional ranges, then that information is not present in the density number but in the other information you are drawing on. Furthermore the generalisation describing density as a "magically unique and extraordinary numerical value" conveying compositional information about, not just a limited range of alloys, but matter in general, is absurd and completely unwarranted.

Gravity being self-coupling or non-linear (which means the same in this context) means - among other things - that you cannot simply add together gravitational fields of individual sources to obtain the field of a more complicated system. For example, the spacetime geometry around two bodies in close proximity is not just the sum of two Schwarzschild metrics, especially not if these bodies are in relative motion. This is why you get eg extra perihelion precession with Mercury, which you wouldn’t expect in a linear theory. Another example are gravitational waves - when they traverse an area of background curvature (like a massive body, or another wave front), they interact in ways that deviate from ordinary linear wave dynamics. In more technical terms, if you take two metrics, both of which are valid solutions to the Einstein equations, and add them together, then the result is in general not itself a valid solution to the equations. It also means that a gravitational field can exist in the absence of any “ordinary” sources; for example, exterior Schwarzschild spacetime is everywhere empty, yet nonetheless curved. This is because curved spacetime itself contains energy, which can act as a source for further gravity (caveat: this form of energy cannot be localised, unlike ordinary sources). This is in contrast to Newtonian gravity, which is completely linear.

Actually I should not have said polite. That was the wrong word, I'm sorry. I should have said sympatico or sympathetic towards others. I realised after I posted. Others have noted a genuine desire to learn which I applaud. +1

Genady's first replies are often terse, like mine. That is because we do not want to waste time on those who are not listening. But like Marcus Hanke, his replies are usually on the money. So yes, you have the answers and so you might consider asking for the reasons more politely.

The reason is given in the post above yours:

Hi Prajna, to be honest I think you kind or needlessly torpedo'd the thread with this... "the denizens of such fora are a sarcastic, arrogant and unfriendly lot when it comes to examining such a device" up until you posted this the responses were actually quite nice interesting and helpful, in my opinion anyway. I also tried my best to help. Perhaps you were talking about your experiences on other forums. Also in another place you said something like "is a curious device and I'm curious and I can't understand why none of you are." Please don't be upset that people aren't interested in the device. It's just that its a very bold claim, far outside the realm of what people are familiar with --- it's like if you showed up to a running club and said you have a new technique that you can run 100m in 5 seconds... but no proof, you just wanna talk about it .... people's patience would be very short , until they see it, I don't it's fair to call it arrogance. personally i think it's a cool project, I don't think it will generate over unity energy, but it's neat anyway

Did you not understand my post ? I note that 'Orbital Mechanics' is listed as your favourite subject. Are you aware of this textbook ?

This is interesting. I found this article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK127546/ according to which people with the A version of the gene do not produce odour precursors while those with the G type do. The A type is very highly prevalent in people of East Asian descent and in fact only 7% of them use deodorants. By contrast, those of European or African descent usually have the G type and so it is these societies where deodorant use has become the norm.

The velocity near c is relative to the Earth frame. In the ship frame, the ship is stationary and Earth (and presumably some destination object) are moving fast, and yes, assuming the destination object is reasonably stationary relative to Earth, the distance between them in the ship frame is contracted. That is, on the worldlines of the two planets, the events of the respective worldlines of the two planets that are simultaneous (relative to the ship frame) with the ship's midway event, have less spatial separation in the ship frame than do those same two events in the planet frame relative to which those same two events are not simultaneous. A mouthful, but hopefully followable. The Earth observer is computing (not directly measuring) a spatial distance between two different events which happen to be simultaneous in the Earth frame. Relativity of simultaneity is probably what you're looking for. In the planet frame, the planets are always stationary, and the midway point of the ship journey is a fixed event at a fixed location in space, so it is half the proper separation of the planets, say 2 of the 4 LY separation of the planets. The ship is moving at 0.866c relative to the planets at that event, so the Lorentz factor is 2. The synced clocks on the planets read 0 at departure of the journey, as does the ship clock which makes the whole trip at that ballistic speed, so it takes 2.31 years to get to that midpoint event, and 4.62 years total. The ship clock reads 2.31 at the destination and 1.155 at that halfway event. In Earth frame, the two planet clocks read 2.31 and the ship clock reads 1.155. These three events are simultaneous in the planet frame. Relative to the ship frame, at the ships midway event, the ship is stationary and Earth has been receding for 1.155 years at 0.866c, putting Earth 1 light year behind, the event where the Earth clock reads 0.577. The approaching destination planet is 1 LY away and will reach the stationary ship in 1.155 years. It's clock reads 4.043. So the three simultaneous events in that frame are Earth@0.577, Ship@1.155, Dest@4.043. These are three different events (well, the middle one is the same) as the 3 events simultaneous in the planet frame above. Point is, different frames label different sets of events as simultaneous, which is what relativity of simultaneity is about. Those different events have different spatial separations from each other, and in the ship frame, the two simultaneous planet events are spatially separated by only 2 light years. In that same ship frame, the three events that were simultaneous in the planet frame are no longer simultaneous, and the spatial separation of the two planet events is 8 LY, more than their proper separation. But that's not a length since a length is by definition computed between simultaneous events.

The perspective of any observer is always being at rest. One is always at rest in one's own frame. So length contraction is the contraction of the length of any object moving in that inertial frame. It is an inertial frame thing, and different rules apply to different kinds of frames. To be as exact as I can, The front and back of some object each traces a worldline through spacetime. Points along these worldlines are events, and events are objective, frame independent. Different inertial frames (coordinate systems) assign different coordinate values (spatial location and time) to each event. In a frame where the object is stationary, all the events on each worldline have the same spatial coordinates but different time coordinates. The difference in the spatial coordinates of those two worldlines is the object's proper length. In a frame where the object is moving, each event is at different spatial coordinates. At any given time in that frame, the spatial coordinate of each worldline corresponding to that particular time differ by less than the proper length of the object. That's length contraction. It is a coordinate effect, but there are ways to manifest it physically. There are no external observers. That wording makes it sound like there's an objective, preferred reference frame, which relativity denies (but alternate theories do not). I don't think you meant that and I agree with the post other than that bit. About 'sees', I just has somebody ask what recession velocity is observed in a particular scenario, and it turns out that velocity isn't observed, it is computed. It is entirely frame dependent, and the same observer would 'observe' very different velocities for the same object in his own frame depending on the kind of frame chosen (cosmic frame, inertial, accelerating frame, rotating frame, etc). Each results in a different value for the same observed distant object.

I’m not a fan of the OP, their style, nor even their continued presence here, but to be fair this is a fairly well known philosophical argument against god(s) that’s known even to people who don’t much follow philosophy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

Yes, but one can turn the claim around. For example, mutations in the gene I mentioned earlier (ABCC11), reduces reduces the level of odorant precursors in human sweat. In some populations this variant accounts for over 90% of the population and it was speculated that reduction of body odor might have been under positive sexual selection. This might be an example of such

You are more than welcome, but you'll have to put up with me talking your ear off about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict for the 4 years.

I'm beginning to wonder if you might possibly have an olfactory issue.

A recent article in The Hill highlights some of the problems US pollsters face nowadays when conducting US Presidential election polls. https://thehill.com/homenews/4894892-if-landline-phones-are-dying-out-how-do-political-polls-work-today/ Up until the early 2000’s, pollsters in the USA regarded telephone landline polling as the ‘Gold Standard’ for obtaining responses from voters (some still do). The problem is that nowadays an estimated 183 million Americans (7 out of 10 US adults) do not even have a landline anymore - they rely solely on their cellphones for day-to-day communication - according to US Chamber of Commerce Statistics: https://www.chamberofcommerce.org/landline-phone-statistics Those who do still use landlines in the US tend to be seniors who are more likely to hold conservative views and favour right-wing candidates. This immediately introduces a significant bias into the responses obtained by such old-fashioned polling methods. Pollsters have belatedly begun switching to combinations of phones, text-to-web and online panel discussions to improve their response rates. But they still face the problem of reaching younger voters and ethnic minorities who are often the least likely targets to answer a call, and then sit there for 15 minutes answering a poll. Basically I don’t have a lot of confidence in the US polls right now, as I suspect their sampling methods are fundamentally flawed - a suspicion borne out by the woefully wrong ‘Red Wave’ predictions offered in the last set of mid-term elections.

I would like to hear how others reconcile with the problem of evil.

In this subthread it was you who engaged me. I gave an example of Neil botching basic physics. Link. Which was quite on topic in this thread on Neil Tyson. To refresh your memory I was talking about Neil's claim that tripling rotation rate triples artiflcial gravity. A flub that shows incompetence in basic physics. You jumped in with an irrelevant comment that you seemed to think refuted what I said. Your attempt at a gotcha does not make Neil's flub go away. I get it. You'd rather not talk about Neil's errors in this thread on Neil Tyson.