koti

Wouldn't they both agree that the object is undergoing uniform acceleration just measure different rates of it?

In my opinion infecting people, especially children with delusion is far more dangerous than any disease. Crackpot teachers are my kryptonite.

Randolphin I noticed in your profile that youre a teacher. What do you teach ?

I used to have this problem myself. It kinda creeps up on you sometimes because Einstein's relativity is so counter-intuitive at certain points and that's because our brains are stuck in an environment here on earth which does not reflect relativistic nature of reality at all. Since always, for thousands of generations we are stuck in that environment and our brains are tuned to perceive reality how it is presented to us - non-relativistically. Even a genius like Newton was not able to break that cage and it took Einstein 250 years later to notice what is really going on. It is fun to try to understand how time dilation and length contraction works and how GR and SR works in general. Treat it as an exercize for your brain. Start with that time dilation is a fact for moving, relativistic frames. Time really does run slower for fast moving objects - it really runs slower. There is a multitude of films on youtube which graphically explain how this works, maybe you can find something that will help you get your mind on the right track of thinking.

Frankly Mordred, my explanation in post #6 as crude as it is, is easy for me to understand. It's not that Planck length and time are involved implicating other factors - they are the fundamental and only reason for the spinning top not capable of reaching a longer, single rotation spinning time than the stated 100mln x the age of the universe. I had an issue with this analogy which I no longer have so definitely +1 for your explanations.

If we were to try to revolve a stationary top by a smaller distance than the Planck length we would in effect move it by the Planck length anyway. On the other hand, we also cannot move the stationary top through spacetime by an increment of the Planck length in a longer period of time than the Planck time unit thus the time limit in which the top (or any other piece of matter independent of its size) cannot exceed in its movement. Is it as simple as that and I just missed it initially ?

I understand that it is an example meant to illustrate that spin is quantized under QM and I am familiar with these very basics of QM however it's shocking to me that a macroscopic object could actually abide by these principles. Ah Mordred... you and your beautiful latex math. I kinda hate you for it - I think I told you that in that other thread few months ago Okay, although I had to google "Hermitian Operator", what you wrote is more or less clear to me. What is unclear to me is what Sean Carroll and yourself are doing here - using QM formalism to describe behavior of a macroscopic spinning top. Unless I'm being dense here and this is just an illustration and the spinning top could actually take an infinite time to revolve 360 degrees ?

This means that since we had a kid 12 months ago both of us suffer from chronic amnesia. Or my second half suffers from it according to this study.

First off, kudos to Stringjunky for this great find: At 26:37, Sean Carroll mentions a spinning top which cannot revolve slower than a single 360 degree turn once in 100 mln times the age of the universe. Could someone explain the principal behind this? Where does this matter vs spacetime limitation come from?

Check a recent thread on this here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/104978-negative-mass/

The key point I think is that the "negative mass", "behaves unexpectectedly" Check out this video, I think this might be relevant: https://youtu.be/y8mzDvpKzfY

Yet another email which I sent to myself (with the link to the lecture)

I too am done with this thread.

I know this quote by Mark Twain iNow, I very much agree with it and I also am guilty of not walking it myself many times. Nevertheless I am not arguing in this case - I'm stating hoping that it will make a difference. After all, everything else has failed.

Pymander, there are some very decent people here who actually take time to read and answer your posts in a meaningful way and even take time to engage you in a civil fashion explaining basic coherence to your ignorant mind - I am not one of those people as I'm convinced you do not deserve it. I genuinely BELIEVE that your posts are damaging to mind and soul and should bare a "keep out of reach of children" tag. I would urge the moderators to add such a signature tag to your profile so students and children who are participating in this forum can be sheltered from your moronic, ignorant, damaging preach. Considering your up-till-now activity here, I say you cannot be a child nor a troll and you seem coherent enough for me to assume that you are not mentally challenged. If this is correct, and I'm convinced it is - I despise the combination of your stupidity, stubbornness and ignorance which are all clearly your choice. I also despise your blatant, ignorant straight-forwardness with which you treat yourself as an authority while preaching your damaging shit to people who do not deserve to be treated with such input. On top of everything I wrote so far, you also have no shame for yourself. I think that finding that part of yourself which will enable you to regain the shame for your own self should be at the top of your to do list.

Yes, In my opinion the term "openness" is abused in this study as it is such a subjective term and they throw it around like it's one dimensional.

I'm with you on that one. I too have difficulties with multi tasking as I get older. Youre not taking into account one very important factor - the quality of your single-task thinking about a complex issue at age 50 for example requires that you access your 50 year old hardrive containing a magnitude of data and experiences wheres a kid (I was one so I remember) can multitask easier because his storage is almost empty and experiences are still yet to come.

It sure would be nice to witness such hatching.

Looks like they dropped the charges against Stephen Fry: https://www.joe.ie/movies-tv/stephen-fry-blasphemy-investigation-dropped-gardai-couldnt-find-enough-outraged-people-587610

Gosh I hope they will not screw this up. The soundtrack suggests that they won't. I think the sounds in this are incredible and are worthy of the original film:

Ah, what a wonderful Stephen Fry interview. I sincerely hope he's going to raise far more than the 25k euro that he potentially needs and use it to spread more "blasphemy"

Right...the journalists develop their own biased language which is more "scandal friendly" If I were that journalist I'd state it like this: "Being religious can lead to brain damage" I googled the original manuscript and browsed through it. Apparently this study is nothing breathtaking but at least they stated that... "Several study limitations should be apparent in light of our rare participant sample. Our participants were all male Vietnam combat veterans. Only CT scans could be used to identify lesion location and size given the presence of metal within the brain due to low velocity shrapnel wounds. Further studies using larger and more diverse samples, including female and nonmilitary samples, are necessary to confirm that our conclusions are applicable to healthy individuals or other clinical populations (e.g., epilepsy patients)" ...which is nice of them to do. I certainly appreciate the fact that we are living in times when these kinds of studies can actually take place - it wasn't long ago when they'd be hanged for this. Out of curiosity I just checked if blasphemy is still a felony here where I live and it turns out that blasphemy is a criminal offence subject to a fine, penalty or imprisonment of up to 2 years. I presume there are far more European countries with such laws in place. Sigh.

What bias, where would it be? I don't understand.

This is very true and is the essence of what people here are trying to convey to you. Show us the evidence !