pzkpfw

My underline ... No, she doesn't. Her experience (of whether the flashes reach her at the same time) can't contradict the platform observers experience (of whether the flashes reach her at the same time). Given the setup, the events were not simultaneous, for her. Based on http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html , it boils down to: (warning : in the past I've found the bartleby website to do "dodgy" things; found a better source once but lost it). 1. Both observers are entitled to consider themselves as at rest (and the other observer moving). 2. Both observers, given the initial setup, are entitled to consider themselves as located between the two events. 3. Either observer, seeing the flashes at the same time, will then consider the events to be simultaneous. 4. The flashes are seen at the same time by the embankment observer, so the events happen to be simultaneous for them. 5. As shown from the embankment observers point of view, the flashes don't reach the train observer at the same time. 6. The flashes can't reach the train observer at the same time and also not reach the train observer at the same time. 7. So, the train observers experience can't contradict the embankment observers experience. 8. So the events were not simultaneous for the train observer. 9. Vice versa, two different events, which happen to be simultaneous for the train observer, won't be for the embankment observer. Notes on the above 1. In the original thought experiment Einstein is clear to say "Then every event which takes place along the line also takes place at a particular point of the train." Note the lines for A and B drawn across both the track and the embankment. People sometimes think events happen in some frame of reference. That's not right, events happen in all frames. The event of an ice cream hitting the footpath occurs whether I'm standing still next to the person who dropped it, or I'm riding by on my motorcycle. However, Einstein tries to remove that confusion here. 6. The most common way to show this, is with the train observer holding a bomb that goes off if two detectors facing forward and back detect the flashes at the same time. The bomb will either explode or not. From the embankment observers point of view it's clear the flashes can't reach the bomb at the same time, so it won't explode. There's no alternate Universe where the flashes from the same two events reach the bomb at the same time and it does explode. Another way is for the train observer to be holding two more mirrors, to reflect both flashes to the embankment observer. Consider whether the embankment observer would see those reflected flashes at the same time or not.

No, a proof like this doesn't mean that every possible number has been tested, it means that mathematical logic has been used to show that something must be true for any number in the problem space. e.g. see the concept of induction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction The example there shows how it can be proven that 0 + 1 + 2 + ... + n = (n(n + 1)) / 2, for any natural number. There are infinite natural numbers, but the proof doesn't require each value of n to be plugged in and tested.

How? From the platform observers point of view, the train observer is moving towards one flash and away from the other. The train observer is next to the platform observer at the time the platform observer considers the flashes to have occurred. Since light travel isn't instant, the train observer (according to the platform observer) will have moved when the flashes reach them. The train observer can't see both of these two particular flashes at the same time. (Two different flashes might have occurred at the same time, according to the train observer - but then the platform observer couldn't consider them to be simultaneous.) No, you have this backwards; the "train (thought) experiment" relies on the postulates of SR. Your "ignorant of the critical measurements" comment (and your next bit) seems to imply that you think there's one absolute reality - relativity tells us this isn't true. For example, whether two events are simultaneous or not is not necessarily "true" or "false" for all observers. If you are so fine with "There is no such thing as absolute time in SR, all time is relative (that's ok)" - why do you you need to argue against relativity of simultaneity? You start out correct here. e.g. If observer M is between events A and B and sees A and B at the same time, they will consider A and B to be simultaneous. Observer N could be moving relative to M, but also see the flashes at the same time (and consider them too be simultaneous) if their path keeps them at all times exactly between A and B. (In the usual thought experiment, this would be an observer away from the tracks, who travels towards or away from the platform observer, on a path perpendicular to the track). But this is a very special case in the relative motion of M and N; and does not contradict the thought experiment. No, she wouldn't, as shown by the thought experiment. She might be able to deduce that the platform observer did see these particular flashes at the same time, and thus that the events were simultaneous for the platform observer; but she'd see the flashes at different times herself, and knowing she was in the middle of the two events, and knowing her inertial frame is as valid as the platform observers', she'd know that meant they were not simultaneous (for her).

That'd be a mistake. With the Microsoft tools, you'd be better off with C# than Visual Basic. Much more like the various other common languages, e.g. the OP's previous experience. VB puts one in a bit of a backwater.

It was an accurate comment. Why start a thread and then get all mysterious about its topic?

Sorry if it's already been mentioned, but would a double-slit experiment performed on Earth, but 90 degrees rotated from "usual" satisfy? i.e. the slits are normally arranged "||", with the interference patterns seen along a strip that ranges left-and-right; instead, arrange the entire experiment so that the slits are horizontal, and the interference patterns are seen along a strip that ranges up-and-down. Would you expect a different result? Or - is there a claim that gravity causes "an effect", but that direction isn't involved?

Googled some of that text and found this thread at github: https://gist.github.com/timabell/dee2149fbb83d9965e1e Relevant?

That's not how you portrayed the question. You claimed resetting the router as the reason not to do IP-Mac affinity in the router. Now you're pointing out that isn't really an issue. Now you're babbling.

Eh? I'm just talking about people (or even your own other devices) connecting to your network. Not hackers doing anything "sneaky". The question would be how, if they happen to connect before you do, to guarantee they'd not be assigned the IP address you've hard-coded into your script. That is answered by your restriction of IP address ranges, and use of a different subnet for guests; but still, it seems easier to let the router do the most it can, including giving your device its hard-coded IP. You wouldn't need the script this thread is about. If you have to factory reset your router that often - maybe it's time for a new router!

What then stops someone else getting the IP you want before you've connected with your fixed-at-the-client IP? Have you restricted the IP range that DHCP in your router will auto-assign? On my router I've got a particular PC set to have certain fixed IP address, via the MAC address as in post #4, so I can route port 80 traffic to it; i.e. it's a web server. Had to do similar for some laser scanners to avoid having to keep changing the IP address the software was looking for. I've restarted and power-cycled the router without ever having to re-do the configuration. How often do you factory reset your router?

See also post #940.

A very very light view: Say this capital "O" is our current observable Universe. From its expansion, we know it used to be smaller, say ".". That is, the Big Bang took this "." and made it "O". But we don't know how big the whole Universe is. From it's flatness, we know it's at least many times bigger than we currently see, e.g. "OOOOOOOO". That in turn may have expanded from "........". It could even be infinite, "---OOOOOOOO---", coming from infinite denser stuff, "---........---". That is, our finite observable Universe came from something finite at the Big Bang. If the Universe turns out to be infinite, that doesn't mean it all came from the same finite origin as our own observable bit of the Universe. See: Hilbert Hotel.

I certainly think destruction of private property is shameful, but the whole thing can't be laid all at the feet of the protesters. The Trump side was making implied threats for a while about how they'd handle a loss; it wasn't all about genteel discussion. They've also been pushing hard on the fractures in the U.S.; Trump and his supporters have not just been saying "Democratic party policies are wrong for (reason)" but actively demonising Hillary. So they are partly reaping what they sowed. I think the biggest issue is that the Republican/Democrat split is so black and white * in so many ways. e.g. younger voting D, older voting R. Rural voting R, urban voting D. Not all 100% of course, but often a clear majority voting one way or the other. When a person and their peers vote in different ways because of personal differences of opinion on party politics, it's easier for everyone to just get along. But when the voting is so clearly divided, and mass peer groups all vote the same way, it's hardly surprising to see the "not my president" kind of thing pop up. It's possibly amplified by the "direction". That is, if Hillary won, there'd be entire small towns who all voted Trump thinking "not the president of our town" - but out in the country what would they be doing? Their environment is different. (* no pun intended. I'm not specifically meaning race, though that is one area of apparent division between D/R).

Interesting. Back in 1990 when I was at Uni, I talked to a guy doing the same thing with "Cowboy" music. Never found out if he got a good result.

Magnets do not generate energy. The energy you get from an alternator or dynamo comes from the energy put in to turn it.

That's "run length encoding". Take a look at RLE files.

From: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/96731-shaping-reality/ (Of course in this thread the question is reversed.)

When two observers are in relative motion, each considers the other to have slower time. That's what puts the (apparent) "paradox" in the "twins (not) paradox".

This is ID on steroids. Not only is this saying some "creator" must have made life, but by all that moving-atoms stuff, it seems this "creator" must help with every single cell activity, in every animal and plant, from germination or conception, to death. What a very very busy creator! No wonder they don't have time to prevent (insert favorite disaster here).

Isn't this is another flavour of the "irreducible complexity" argument?

I'm finding myself mildly irked by the abuse of the "status" feature to keep crankery on the forums' main page, i.e. in the "Recent Status Updates" section on the right side. Do these statuses violate posting rules 8 or 10?

The first thing you need to figure out, is where the energy for electrolysis comes from. Don't say "the engine".

I was thinking this may help: There's a standard/common thought experiment, where a person is in a closed elevator. They can't tell if their elevator is at "rest" in a lift shaft on Earth, or out in space (away from noticeable gravity) being accelerated at 9.8 m/s/s by rockets. If a person was in either elevator, would they tend to fall to the floor of the elevator, or rise to its ceiling?

I don't see why. You are more dense than air.

(See also: http://www.thescienceforum.com/physics/47068-artificial-gravity-its-effects-space.html#post603693 ) Gravity is "felt" as acceleration. Standing on Earth you're feeling an acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s For a spinning tube to make you feel "artificial gravity" (you seem to be talking about something like a space-station spinning to give the occupants the feeling of gravity) you'd need that tube to be accelerating you. That means, continually changing your velocity. You're only going to get that if you are being spun by the tube, so your scenario ("floating in the centre") means you'd not feel it. You'd need to be doing something like standing on the inside of the outer wall of the tube. (i.e. follow up question, = yes). See the movie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film) ( I don't think your scenario would work. The air would be moving with the tube, which would move you, and make you drift to the outer edge, where you'd touch the tube and start to be accelerated by it, eventually feeling that "artificial gravity". )