Schneibster

It's too late. The closest the "edges" can be is past the horizon. Unless, of course, we invent FTL-- which seems highly unlikely at this time. If there is, we can't ever find it, in other words.

Yep, and it's called the "Casimir effect."

No. You've forgotten the results of one observer looking at another observer in a non-comoving frame. Every unaccelerated observer sees their own frame as inertial. Only acceleration/gravity is absolute. Later: There are an infinity of frames in which measured mass is minimal, length is maximal, and time is not dilated. They are all special. That's why it's called "special relativity," actually.

Davidivad will tell you that eventually, yes, we might find out there's a quantum field theory for gravity that will tell us the difference (if any- it's entirely possible it's just gravitons in some unknown odd state or other) between dark energy and regular gravity. But right now, the proof we have is based on our standard distance measurement techniques. We could have a two page discussion about Cepheid variables and such, but the fact is our best long range marker is a particular type of supernova that has a very strong correlation between its intrinsic brightness, and the decay over time of its light curve. Thus, by measuring the light curve of such a supernova, we can determine its distance. This therefore means we can determine the distance of any galaxy such a supernova occurs in very very accurately. And these supernovae, called Type 1a, are visible for tens of billions of light years; and luckily, they even occur in galaxies that are very young so we can measure the distances of galaxies almost all the way back to the Big Bang and out to the Horizon of the Visible Universe, currently 13.6 billion light years away. Now, in addition to being able to measure the distance of these galaxies, we can also measure their redshift; and this not only allows us to calibrate the Hubble Flow, but to see if it is changing over time. And in fact, it is. What we see is, for the first seven billion years or so, our universe was expanding more and more slowly as the gravity of the matter in it pulled against the outward momentum; however, about seven billion years ago, that deceleration stopped, and acceleration started. That acceleration is "dark energy." So as you can see, the evidence for "dark energy" is pretty much incontrovertible.

Yes, I understand. Your current interpretation is not useful. We are trying to show you correct ones. (Technically we're all saying the same thing; just from different points of view. This is useful because it makes it more likely one POV will "click" with your other knowledge and you will learn something new.)

That frame is called an "inertial frame." And yes, such a frame is always perceived by an observer in it to be experiencing undilated time. However, you must also understand that two such frames can be moving relative to one another; there is no one "master frame" or any reference from which to measure "absolute motion." No, just as you cannot observe a length contraction less than zero due to motion, you also cannot observe time compression due to motion, only time dilation.

I will only add that you can't drive your car at the speed of light; however, you can get very very very close, and when you do, you will see nothing abnormal when you turn on the headlights, except the road will seem a lot shorter!

GR specifically deals with acceleration; technically to discuss what happens when you accelerate we have to discuss gravity, because the Equivalence Principle says gravity is locally indistinguishable from acceleration; this is where the "enclosed elevator" scenarios come from, where one observer is in a closed elevator in Earth's gravity, and the other is on top of a rocket accelerating at 1g. GR says neither observer can perform an experiment inside their respective elevator that will tell them whether they're on Earth or on the rocket. That's the Equivalence Principle. Unlike movement and velocity, acceleration is not relative. And, of course, neither is gravity. You're thinking of the Special Relativity Principle, which says there is no special frame of reference against which motion can be measured. There is no such principle for acceleration/gravity. Also, are you sure "fictitious" or "pseudo" force means what you think it means?

No. I accept that you do not intend to be a solipsist, but if you don't believe in measurement you don't have a lot of choice about it. The equations that say these effects on length, mass, and time are real, are the same equations that say nuclear weapons work. We have extremely dramatic proof of it, I'd say. Furthermore the reality of these effects is how GPS works; the time differentials between the satellites' signals are the essential data. And those time differences have to be corrected both for Special Relativity (which is what we've been discussing here on this thread) and General Relativity (which is a whole other ballgame).

They get mass and angular momentum from their formation. Electric charge, however, is another matter.

Lol, I've gotten to the part where Abelard gets talked into taking an extended EVA and says to the bugxxxx dude he's talking to, "No drugs, man. I don't want any drugs." and the dude goes, "No. man, you can't take drugs. If you take drugs the Sun won't talk to you." Bwahahahahaha.

+1 for your good attitude.

No. Different durations would result in different amounts of dilated time on each clock.

LOL, freedom from possessions is one way to go. Personally I'm a packrat.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/fermi-data-tantalize-with-new-clues-to-dark-matter/#.Uz-BRURpcnV The Fermi X- and gamma-ray satellite has measured excess gamma rays from the Galactic Center of the Milky Way that cannot be explained. They are believed to be the signature of dark matter which is concentrated in the Galactic Center near the central black hole of the Milky Way. The high gravity is believed to concentrate the dark matter making the effect strong enough to be visible to our instruments in the region of the Galactic Center. There is currently tension between three different experiments intended to detect dark matter in particle experiments deep underground, using instrumentation similar to that used to detect neutrinos, huge pools of water filled with particle detectors, buried miles deep in mines. Two of the experiments show probable detection; one claims to have ruled it out. This new experiment detects gamma rays generated by the dark matter, from Earth orbit where they are not blocked by the atmosphere, coming from where the dark matter is concentrated in the Galactic Center, rather than trying to see signatures of individual dark matter particles in quiet caverns deep underground. And it appears to be successful: an excess of gamma rays has been detected in the expected spectrum, 1 to 3 GeV, over a region stretching some five thousand light years out along the plane of the galactic disc from the Galactic Nucleus. This in turn implies dark matter particle masses in the 30-40 GeV range. This is perhaps a third to a fifth the mass of the Higgs. There is still uncertainty, in the 1-in-12 range. The signal could be false. But those are pretty good odds: 11-in-12. Ongoing investigation, and data collection, will establish the matter in other galaxies nearby in the Local Group.

Elegant.

I think there is a tendency to confuse resolution to present an unpopular view with being impolite. Furthermore, I think presenting an unpopular view gets treated as trolling. And I think that's a bad idea. I'm trying to remain within the rules here, but I admit to an agenda. I'd furthermore like to point out that there is also a marked tendency to blame the messenger, when there is no evidence that the view being presented is that of the presenter. I find it extremely impolite for people to assume I hold a given view simply because I ask how they would react to it. Not asking me is the worst kind of discourtesy. And now let me say all that in another way: I don't really believe in trolling, so if I troll you it will be brief and I will kid you about it; and if I don't like you I'm unlikely to troll you, since I do it only in play. If you're not absolutely sure then ask; I never push trolling so far as to deny I'm trolling. But I might kid you, so ask if you're not sure; I might laugh at you but I'll tell the truth. I'm not one of those people who likes to mess with peoples' minds. Finding out what they think is hard enough without complicating it with that crap. It's not worth a moment's amusement to pollute all future information from a source. The quote function is a bit freaky here.

I have never had a book disaster, so I still have stuff from my adolescence. I am knocking on all wood within reach. As for the 20th Anniv. GEB, there are fixed typos, updated examples that eliminated superseded physics, and some editorial changes, mostly at the beginnings or endings of chapters where he felt he could have been clearer. Certainly it wasn't a major rewrite. It's not going to teach you something so new it's worth reading if your original edition copy is in good shape, but it's worth the re-read if you've read it before. I enjoyed it. Douglas even fixed some of the Achilles/Tortoise stories, particularly ones with djinn!! My book collection currently comprises two eight-by-five adjustable shelf cases, containing most of my hardbound books, some 300 or so, and another three six-by-five cases adjusted entirely for paperbacks, of which I estimate I have about a thousand. In addition to all of this, my wife and I each have another of the six-by-five cases in our offices, each of which is filled with technical manuals and software and hardware specification and reference books; many of the well-known O'Reilly titles fill my shelves, whereas my wife tends toward the Microsoft Press titles of equal renown. We read freely from one anothers' libraries, unless there are intellectual property issues.

I'm in a fiction phase now. I have not yet read the last book of "The Wheel of Time," A Memory of Light. There are at least two Varley "Thunder" books I do not own, and one I have that is out of order and I cannot read until I get its predecessor. Iain M. Banks has at least two books out I have not read; one or both is a "Culture" novel. I think there are probablyone or two C. J. Cherryh "Foreigner" novels out I have not even heard of. I haven't even investigated what Gene Wolfe, Kim Stanley Robinson, and Neal Stephenson have been doing and have yet to finish Galileo's Dream. So it's definitely going to be fiction for me for a while. I'm contemplating whether it might actually be easier to catalog my books, then buy electronic copies, and a Kindle or whatever, than to put them away. I have at least four piles of books which I have read in the last year and was too dang lazy to put away. (We moved, so they were completely disordered anyway. It's not like I made a new mess. Shrug.) Have you read the 20th Anniversary edition of GEB:EGB? I bought it, read the old edition once more for old times' sake, and gave it away to a deserving young man and have read the 20th Anniversary edition twice since. He has not completed it yet once, but has begun asking questions about recursion that indicate it's beginning to have an impact.

To the thread title and the OP: No, it is nationalist. "Racism," as generally used, means "prejudice against a race," and races are generally identified by physical characteristics rather than national origin. (I have a rather different definition myself, but it is of little importance in this conversation; the result would be the same.) That is of course not to say that most persons of a given national origin, who become refugees, are the same race, and that prejudice against their nationality does not arise. But technically this is nationalism not racism, though the underlying motivation may be racist. In common parlance, however, because the refugees are generally all a different race from the population they are forced to settle among, this kind of prejudice is often called "racism," though technically it is anti-nationalism.

Could take a heck of a long time to identify a real troll with that list. Also, you know, I see people like that at work. This conversation could get a lot wider. Meanwhile if they're really a troll, troll's getting what troll wants while we screw around deciding if they're really a troll. And if it's at work, then the problem is even worse. I didn't mean by my statement to say that there are no trolls. I just think real trolls are far rarer than they're made out to be. In companies that do sophisticated work, my experience is they're few and far between. Either you can do effective things and contribute to the work product or you're a slacker and no one will talk to you, and pretty soon they move you to the office in the middle of the downstairs floor next to the bathrooms. I remember the guy they got me to supposedly "train" about our security protocols and their implementation, who had been out drinking all night and playing FRP games, whose breath smelled like an outhouse, and who fell asleep several times while I was "training" him. Losers like this wind up shuffled off into clerical jobs where they can't do any damage. Was this guy a troll? Well, before that he had been, because he had access to the VP. After my boss finished reporting to the VP, they didn't ask him to get involved in our security protocols any more.

I'm with ajb; I still haven't seen a definition of "troll," either the verb or the noun, that I like. Too many people think it means "someone I disagree with who is persistent."