joigus

I meant "conform" rather than "content". My mistake. No religion of the kind that I mentioned before has brought contenment to people. Only conformity.

Intervening years of peace between different periods of organised, faith-based religion are few and far between, I'm afraid. These religions never bring periods of peace by themselves. But general contentment they do try to usher in, because they need general contentment to control people in periods of strife, during which they tend to thrive. A laudable religious attitude, if any, should be a personal positioning in reference to your own existence, to other people, and your connection with the cosmos, that includes compassion and well meaning to others; not a creed that some authority spoonfeeds you or forces you to believe. As long as we're discussing matters of belief, I feel free to say what I think without worrying too much about making it philosophically watertight. It's common sense to me.

Everything can be said to be business, under a cynical perspective. Art is business. Healthcare is business. Religion is business. Manufacturing is business. Entertainment is business. Even adultery, friendship or murder can be business as well. Toys, education, music, literature, sports, holidays, and food are business too.

I see. Any kind of danger, physical danger, danger of being deceived?

"Curing" autism? I don't think that's the approach. It's like trying to cure Van Gogh, or Ramanujan, or one who has the potential to become like them. They don't need a cure. It's us who need an intensive wisdom-acquiring treatment. The sooner and the more widespread, the better.

John Von Neumann. There is no other book that has been cited more times by people who haven't read it. After it was published, QM would never be the same.

In principle it is quite possible to formulate EM or other quantum fields on a curved background. The problem, generally outlined, is that curvature tells you about where the particle is and in what direction it's moving. So it's not possible to be entirely consistent with the physics we know. You are finally led to admit that the metric must be subject to the uncertainty principle too, and thereby satisfy quantum commutation rules, and so on. Otherwise, you could in pple. circumvent HUP by measuring gravitational fields. I think the argument was developed by Feynman in his famous Lectures on Gravitation. Maybe later I can give you a more precise citation.

I totally agree. The narrative needs override everything else. I've thought about this same example many times. Sometimes you even hear the predator roar while still in stealth action. And I've thought, 'what's the point', you might as well walk in plain sight?

I didn't mean Bohr here. Bohr did formulate his quantisation principle with the potential energy very much in mind. I meant the Sommerfeld-Wilson-Ishiwara quantisation principle, which doesn't explicitly mention it, but it implies it. (My emphasis.) I think the word "deduction" points to a very interesting feature of how new principles come about, and why it's anything but easy to get at them. The immediate temptation we all have is that we must deduce the new underlying principle --it is perhaps a consequence of our overridingly-deductive education--, when actually what time and again proves to be the essential step is an inductive reasoning. Something along the lines of, What simple assumption must I adopt so that all these facts can be an immediate consequence of it? It's what Markus, in other post, called the overarching principle. It's what Einstein was a master at.

No. I think: 1) It has nothing to do with the Earth's curvature to start with 2) There is a possibility that the video has been manipulated. I don't know, and I don't think that's so important, because: 3) Even if it's an honest to goodness video, there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for that kind of effects that has to do with optics

As bufofrog said, So it's not about the Earth being flat, but about curvature in the proximity of the lake. Explanations could range from: The video was tampered with. The light is known to bend over the terrain when there are intense gradients of temperature, because the refraction index varies with temperature. This is the reason why you see a piece of the sky under the horizon in the desert.

Historically, they started as axioms, as said by Swansont. Those Einstein-DeBroglie axioms helped Schrödinger guess his equation, but he took a further step, because he involved the potential energy, which plays no role in the DeBroglie, Einstein, Bohr, etc. set of old quantum rules. Heisenberg used a more algebraic approach (matrix mechanics). Dirac proved that Schrödinger and Heisenberg's formulations are equivalent. But it was all guesswork. But in the modern formulation, you can deduce them by using the postulates. In particular, the canonical commutation relations. \[ \left[ X, P_x \right] = i \hbar I \] as well as the correspondence principle. Even today quantization of fields rests on the correspondence principle, which relies heavily on guesswork, because there is no unique way in general to postulate a quantum operator for a classical observable.

Irrefutable proof that there's virtually no limit to how expensive and silly a game can be at the same time.

I have serious doubts about the plausibility of an idea like this. Trying not to insist on previous points, with which I very much agree: 1st of all, similar ideas have been tried for centuries: anything that satisfies local conservation will spread following an inverse square law when expressed in the right variables 2nd, energy is not even an invariant or covariant concept, in GR it's not even well defined in general 3rd, energy is a very derived concept, constructed in each case from many different variables that do not relate to each other (charge, spin, non-linear terms in the Einstein tensor in the case of gravitational waves). 4rth, how does it relate to gauge charge, which is invariant? 5th, energy is bosonic, not fermionic, how does it build up fermionic states? 6th, reports of a new ToE candidate coming from the blackboards of young science professionals trying to draw attention to their speculations are ten a penny lately; the press is partly to blame for this noise effect And so on, and so on. If they can explain the Aharonov-Bohm effect with "just energy", I will eat my words, I promise. I know they can't.

(My emphasis.) All science is cartography. Get over it. But not anyone can build it. And thin air is not its substance. It's what the engineer does when trying to predict the behaviour of a device, and calibrate its parameters. It's what the biologist does when trying to understand the functions an interrelations of organisms. It's what the computer scientist does when trying to simulate a system with code. And it's what a physicist or a chemist does when trying to understand how particles and fields work. The very concept of particles and fields are cartographic references. And I'm damn happy that we have them. Otherwise we'd be lost in a bleak world. --- I'm sorry I can't react more today, as there were two brilliant comments before mine. LOL.

Rest assured I'm not going to understand why you're thinking anything. You've got your toys and I've got mine. I'm playing with the toys everybody plays with. They're sanity-tested toys. "Our time" you say. I can tell you, you're taking a lot of mine. A post unread doesn't clarify anything.

No, no, no. First come numbers. Then comes topology (neighbourhoods in a set defined by the relation \( \subseteq \) "contained in") Then comes geometry (defined by distance, a number assigned to pairs of "points": \( d\left(x,y\right) \)) From metric (distance) come angles, defined as ratios of distances, as @Sensei has told you. Topologies are possible to define even when there is no notion of a metric. Numbers don't have geometry built in them. You need numbers first. How else could you define the distance, which is a positive number? Topology is more primitive. You only need a notion of inclusion, open and closed sets, etc. Closed set: contains its boundary Open set: does not contain its boundary Edit: Dimension you can define with vectors (tangent space) or with analysis (number of real variables necessary to describe your set analitically). And so on... What a wasted effort!

I told you, and it's in bold letters. Are you saying I'm no-one, or are you saying I didn't tell you? Which one is it?

Because you couldn't be farther off the mark. That's not what bases are about. I and others have been telling you until we're blue in the mouth. You're using the oldest trick of the game, which is non-sequitur. It's as if someone tells you, "Mountains arise from mechanical tensions and thermal processes in the Earth's interior" and you say, "Then why are elephants winged creatures?" 1st) Elephants are not winged creatures (a false premise embedded in a question is called a sophism) 2nd) The question does not follow from the previous statement at all (that's called a non-sequitur) If you think for a moment most users here don't see right away what you're trying to do, you're quite wrong. You're not discussing in good faith. It's not about disagreement. It's about you not being intellectually honest. You're free to keep playing your game for as long as you want, but you're just calling for action from the mods and very justified annoyance from other users. Have a good day.

Although nothing would amuse me more than the picture of you being preyed upon by legal counsellors, I'd advice you to think it twice. In a previous post you bitterly complained about not being offered a job, as some kind of reward for your brilliant thinking. Set your priorities right, is all I can say. I don't wish you any wrong, in spite of your misled smugness and total disregard of the efforts of many users trying to help you to the best of their --our-- abilities. The bullying that you mention is about a post by @iNow on another thread that didn't even mention you. I almost forgot: numbers are not geometrically motivated. They come first. You can study their properties with topology --a basis of neighbourhoods-- or with geometry --distance, metric--. If you have n-tuples of numbers, then you can introduce angles, also from the metric.

That's probably because you're ready to ignore all answers and keep diverting into new questions. Case in point. Is that a question, or word origami?

I didn't write any computer code. That was all by hand. They way it was done before computers arrived, other that Leibniz's calculating machine.

Sorry, I wrote 1/2 in binary. As I was presenting them in decimal, it should be, \[\frac{1}{2}=0.5\]

There is no chance that you can get it right, even by mistake. Acceleration in Galilean relativity is not relative. It's actually what all inertial observers agree upon, so it's a more invariant concept than velocity or position. In Einstein's relativity it's more involved, although you can generalise the concept by introducing proper time, but look who I'm talking too. What that has to do with OP, Newton and bases is anybody's guess.

CuriosOne, I've never seen anyone who understands so little and claims to understand so much at the same time. I'm very nearly done with you too.