joigus

It's a super far-fetched idea that ignores that the universe is not a closed system and that there are sources of randomness at every level. Get some professional treatment for your depression. I join my voice to those who've told you before.

Extensive research? Really? It took you one hour to track down a paper where the authors sound like they're hedging the bets, or formulating disclaimers, which OTOH is common practice in the peer-reviewed world. So the viral RNA could not be efficiently assembled from certain techniques based on eukaryotic splicing. So what? What does that lead to, in the way of a conclusion? I can't build the Taj Mahal. Does that prove that there's no hard evidence that it exists? They're describing an assembly problem, not a signature problem. Even procaryotes have signatures of just 6 to 14-bases. It is well known that viruses have an even stronger adaptive pressure to be terse. I would expect re-assembly to be hard with eukaryotic techniques. Can you lead us to a paper that talks about signatures, instead of assembly?

Exactly, (either one of them, the reflection point or the reception point), and because the exact location of the reflection point is imprecise (we only know the Euclidean distance in that FOR), when the reception takes place is unknown. You can only take one of them as defining the x-direction with the emissor, if you will, but the other one could be at an angle. The three don't have to be collinear. I hope you agree.

But it does matter. If the mirror is on the same line where the reception point is, but in the same direction, the signal's delay will be minimal. On the contrary, if it's on the same line but in opposite direction, the delay will be maximal for the given distance, corresponding to the extreme values of the cosine in, \[\left(\boldsymbol{x}_{2}-\boldsymbol{x}_{1}\right)\cdot\left(\boldsymbol{x}_{3}-\boldsymbol{x}_{2}\right)\] The reception event is described only in terms of its Euclidean (spatial) distance to the emission in the given frame. The reflection point being at certain distance does not determine the time it takes for the photon to get to the reception point. It's not a "home-run," but an open trajectory in Minkowski space in which we only know the radial distance from the emission point. In what directions? The problem is under-determined. Maybe I misunderstood something...

Hawking worked in mysterious ways...

LOL. A noose, that's what it is. <giggle>

I was thrown away from that discussion with the escape velocity.

IOW, why are acids so important, so central to chemistry? They say the basic unit of chemical exchange is the electron. But that's only half the story. Protons are very powerful mediators of chemical reactions too. And the reason is that the size of a hydrogen atom compared to the size of just a proton (ionized hydrogen) is like the size of the Earth compared to the size of an orange. So when you have a substance that is capable of liberating protons, you're liberating myriads of little "positive versions of the electron," so to speak. That's why there is no central concept in chemistry of how easily a substance can liberate any other ion, like e.g. Na+. But liberating H+ is very powerful, very reactive. Protons are elementary particles, small as can be, and move about very freely, especially in aqueous solution. The mitochondria in your cells are powerful proton-pumps.

Mmmm. Interesting problem, but some technical difficulties I can see there. The first thing I see is that going from event 1 (emission) to event 2 (reflection), and from there to event 3 (reception) involves three relevant events, IMO. This implies two 4-vector translations, and their sum. Let's call them d12, d23, d13. They satisfy: d13=d12+d23. But unfortunately, \[s_{13}^{2}\neq s_{12}^{2}+s_{23}^{2}\] If you write down the correct expression, you get, \[s_{13}^{2}=s_{12}^{2}+s_{23}^{2}+\left(x_{2}-x_{1}\right)^{\mu}\left(x_{3}-x_{2}\right)_{\mu}=\] \[=s_{12}^{2}+s_{23}^{2}+c^2\left(t_{2}-t_{1}\right)\left(t_{3}-t_{2}\right)-\left(\boldsymbol{x}_{2}-\boldsymbol{x}_{1}\right)\cdot\left(\boldsymbol{x}_{3}-\boldsymbol{x}_{2}\right)\] You can see very clearly in this expression that how much it takes for the signal to reach the reception point depends on the relative positions (including orientation) of the whole "triangulation." It is not specified well enough by Euclidean distances only. This may be at the root of the problem that @md65536 sees. In your second post it looks like you're trying to get a differential equation that relates r and t. There's a problem there too. In the words of @md65536: I would re-word it as: your problem is under-determined, which I think is what md65536 is saying. The back and forth rays belong to different hyperbolas*. In fact, from the differential equation that you're trying to get at, which is correct: \[\frac{dr}{dt}=c^{2}\frac{t}{r}\] You get, not only the outgoing ray r=ct, but also the return trip r=-ct, plus the unwanted free gift of an infinite set of constant accelerated motions, \[r^{2}-c^{2}t^{2}=K\] with K being an arbitrary constant. So going back and forth implies jumping from one inertial system to another (in the case of the light rays, one relative sign to another in r, t). Sorry I took the whole thing to the language I understand better. I hope that helps, and I hope it has some bearing on the problem. *In the case of the light rays, they're "degenerate hyperbolas", meaning straight lines in Minkowski space. Corresponding to K=0.

You mean like magic?

The scientific name is the Anthropocene, but I'm going with Zap's description.

Then I can trust you. Some people even proactively overreact. I always consider things reactively or retroactively.

I hate agreeing with Swansont, but: Look into why people who believe things believe things and that will probably be pretty much the reason why scientists who believe things believe things. Scientists are not a different species. Nevertheless, scientists seem to be more demanding when it comes to believing something.

I'm reading more info about it and I also made a mistake. It was 5 times. I've read it was 7 somewhere else. But Ian Plunkett's --Twitter's spokeperson-- words are: When someone "proactively implements" something my BS alarms go off. And the adverb "proactively" would really make it worse, not better, if it did happen. OTOH, these claims seem hard to just make up. The guy took screenshots. Are they fake? Why no explanation about the screenshots? And it's true that Trump's Twitter account is small potatoes, but this guy has access to top-security material, I suppose. Can't anyone give him a quick tutorial on safety security procedures? I know you've proactively considered these possibilities, @iNow.

Careful. They could hire you as digital-security expert. Oh, I always think things can be made worse.

@CuriosOne, while the word 'garbage' wasn't the nicest choice possible, it was directed to your posts, not to you. And I agree that your posts were a bunch of undigested ideas, very difficult to make sense of. Then you missed the most important comment: And after that "rude" comment, your next topic improved considerably, focusing on one particular theme and without bringing up just about anything that crossed your mind. Be positive, and try to get better, clearer. That's good advice. You will get better and better answers. Good answers to a bad question are impossible.

The story from a non-political medium: https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/22/dutch-hacker-trump-twitter-account-password/ If seven tries is all it took Victor Gevers to use the psychological method to crack the US president's Twitter account. How bad is that for the Western world? Your thoughts eagerly awaited.

Thanks a lot.

I've known the set for years. There is closure under products: \[\left(a+b\sqrt{2}\right)\left(c+d\sqrt{2}\right)=ac+2bd+\left(ad+bc\right)\sqrt{2}\] \[\frac{1}{a+b\sqrt{2}}=\frac{1}{a^{2}+b^{2}}\left(a-b\sqrt{2}\right)\] for a, b, c, d rational. My question was: What's its name?

For starters, these forums would be swamped by a whole new tsunami of religious types in denial. Can you summarize?

Oh, I see. Thank you. It must be some other term. Do you happen to remember the name of the closed system that Studiot mentioned?

Pi is even worse than irrational. Garden-variety irrationals like sqr(2) are solutions of polynomial equations with rational coefficients. As @studiot said, you can get some kind of "restricted number system" with them, similar to complex numbers. I think those are called "ideals" --correct me if I'm wrong. Transcendental numbers cannot even be obtained in that way. Generally you need limits to define them. The funny thing is pi can be very well approx'd by fractions, yet such humble irrational number as the golden ratio, \[\varphi=\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}\] which is the solution to, \[x^{2}=x+1\] stubbornly resists approximations by rationals. Its approximations by continued fractions are really, really bad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continued_fraction It's sometimes referred-to as the most irrational number. Generally irrationals are approached by an expression like, \[a_{0}+\frac{1}{a_{1}+\frac{1}{a_{2}+\frac{1}{\ddots+\frac{1}{a_{n}}}}}\] For rationals, the expansion ends at finite order. But for the golden ratio it is this bad: \[\varphi=1+\frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{\ddots}}}\] All the a_n's are 1. If you mean "approached", all can be approached; some better than others. But if you really mean "defined," then, as @Markus Hanke says, it's impossible.

No, it's not the same thing. "Random" is the opposite of "determined." "Causal" means "happening as the result of something." You can have random variables that show no causal connection between them. You can have random variables that show causal connection between them. You can have deterministic variables that show no causal connection between them. You can have deterministic variables that show causal connection between them. And then you have "casual," which is the way most scientists dress when they're working. And then you have cassowaries, which are not casual at all, and seem to dress up all the time.

I had the great pleasure to attend one of his conferences. A great man. RIP