joigus

It could have been E. O. Wilson... I know his topic of expertise was ants. I don't remember him as making a big deal out of cephalopods. They're all Greeks to me now LOL. I'm getting old. I've just whatsapped my friend. See if he can remind me and it rings a bell to any of you.

We know observationally, actually. The surface of last scattering has still not disappeared behind the kinematic horizon. The fact that there are features not totally explained by the standard cosmological model doesn't mean that we must throw everything away. All of them photons. All of them subject to extreme redshift when close to c as receding velocity. So your point is moot.

Very interesting points. I don't seem to remember (or successfully google up) the name of a very influencial biologist (American/Australian/British...?) who called for more attention to cephalopods, and proposed to study them as models of radically different body plans that could be the basis of intelligent multicellular life other than mammalian. I'm sure you know who I'm talking about... Very interesting topic btw.

There are at least two reasons why this isn't true. One of them is that long enough ago (which is automatically implied by "far enough away" as you should understand if you want to do cosmology and astrophysics) the universe was opaque to radiation. A little farther beyond it was opaque to neutrinos even. And also there's a kinematic horizon, as Swansont explained. Photons from so long ago and so far away get redshifted into total invisibility. 🤣

There are gauge bosons (particles mediating the interactions) that acquire mass via the Higgs mechanism though. The W and Z bosons of the weak interaction are the famous example, because they were the first particles for which the Higgs-Kibble-Anderson-etc mechanism was proposed. Back in the '60s it was known they shouldn't be fundamentally massive on account of a very important symmetry --called the gauge symmetry-- being broken if they were. They must be acquiring mass from something that's dragging them. Another field. Thereby the Higgs. People knew they must be massive in practice, as the weak interaction is short-ranged. So it's kind of peculiar that some of these mediating particles (gluons and photons) don't acquire mass via the Higgs mechanism, while others (Ws and Zs) do. At least I find it so. I think that's a very good question, btw.

Not really. A gravitational orbit plus a dissipative environment will be a possible model to account for closing spiral orbits, as @exchemist has pointed out. It just doesn't seem to do what you claim it does. I would relax about getting credit for this idea for the time being.

The acceleration of a rotating body is towards the centre of attraction. It's called centripetal acceleration. Tangential acceleration would require a completely different force field. Have you seen @Ghideon's picture? Do you know why he drew the acceleration the way he did?

Very far from what? There are galaxies in every direction. It cannot be very far from everything. However far is "very far". Yeah. r is the distance, and m is the mass, and q is the charge, and I is yours truly. Distance between what and what? Again, there are galaxies in every direction. And galactic halos in every direction. How does that reproduce the velocity curves? You are mixing and mis-matching the expansion of the universe with the v(r) law for galaxies from the centre outwards. Very different things. One goes by the name of dark energy. The other, dark matter. Different names for very good reasons. The galaxy rotation curves are rotations of stars around the respective galactic centres. Expansion of the universe is about galaxies getting away from each other. You're not making any sense. At least about the universe we observe.

He doesn't. They don't. I'm very partial to Sagan though, on account of the child in me, who got fascinated by science thanks to Sagan among others. If children today get to love science because of Tyson, he would prove to be a worthy disciple of his mentor. Do we need more? Neither one of them managed to shatter the earth in scientific terms. So I agree with @dimreepr: Does it matter? Do you have an opinion on it? I think you mean someone like Carl inspired someone like Neil. Don't you?

I'm sorry to say you did. Here it is: (my emphasis) Reciprocal? What does that mean? I would have guessed "inversely proportional", but no. You at least displayed the maths, so there's no doubt what you meant. So yes, you did claim that, as then I asked, quoting you, so there could be no ambiguity about what I meant. Then you said, And now you change your statement. Other members have problems with the way you use units, justify your concept of "chronovibration", and ignore quantum mechanics, so taken as a whole, I'd say I have very well-founded misgivings that your theory could ever be turned into a sound one, considering you only claim to explain the anomalous quantum Hall effect. You've proven to me you have no understanding of what magnetic charge means in the context of the classical electromagnetic theory.

I'm afraid that wouldn't work in keeping with what we know about electromagnetism. If the ratio of magnetic to electric charge is the same in all particles in the universe, you can then rotate every (electric, magnetic) pair to a new definition, \[ \left(\textrm{new electric quantity}\right)=\cos\alpha\left(\textrm{electric quantity}\right)-\sin\alpha\left(\textrm{magnetic quantity}\right) \] \[ \left(\textrm{new magnetic quantity}\right)=\sin\alpha\left(\textrm{electric quantity}\right)+\cos\alpha\left(\textrm{magnetic quantity}\right) \] And the new magnetic charge can be defined to be zero, with all the physics being the same. The Lorentz force law that @Mordred mentioned would have to be re-defined to be, \[ \boldsymbol{F}=q_{e}\left(\boldsymbol{E}+\boldsymbol{v}\times\boldsymbol{B}\right)+q_{m}\left(\boldsymbol{B}+\boldsymbol{v}\times\boldsymbol{E}\right) \] These are called duality transformations for the electromagnetic field. Unfortunately, neither the Wikipedia article, nor the Scholarpedia one, do a very good job of explaining what it is. If you're interested, I can do more, or suggest more material as an exercise. It's not hard.

Ok. Thank you. I couldn't believe your statement. 😅

I think you missed an "m"...

I see. I don't think much that is essential has changed since the time it was written though. Ok. In that case the Amazon description could be misleading. It's only concenced with the postulates, and their logical consequences. IOW, whether or not the postulational basis of QM can be seen to describe the picture of a mathematical reality. Whether the logical implications correspond to empirical truths is taken for granted --it does-- and not a main point --or even a relevant point, AFAICR-- of the book. I see.

@Eise is the local expert, if I'm allowed to say so. Eg, I'd heard about this David Z. Albert that he mentioned, but I'm not familiar with his work. The only book I can recommend is Michael Redhead's wonderful, Incompleteness, Nonlocality, and Realism, which I liked quite a bit. Carl Popper and Russell etc, are of course classics, but I assume you've got that covered. Bohm was very philosophy-inclined, but his philosophy is sometimes perceived as impregnated with mysticism. Really --and Eise's and others' recommendations pending--, Michael Redhead's book is a very good and very serious read. I assume you meant physics, of course.

Maybe it's just an impression on my part, but I think many scientists are unaware of changes in philosophy having taken place in past decades, plus the relatively recent coming of age of a new breed of philosopher scientists.

Does that same ratio hold for every charged particle in the universe? According to your theory, that is. I'll be working on other members' queries, btw. And I'm just curious. How did we come out in your tolerance test?

You're denying the possibility of intrinsic growth. 'Intrinsic' as in 'intrinsic geometry'. Things you can find out about without necessarily embedding them into a bigger, wider, more comprehensive ambient reality. 'Intrinsic' characterisation of geometric properties was a fundamental concern for Bernhard Riemann. Isn't it possible to define intrinsic growth? This is a question that I pose to you.

Are you positing the existence of magnetic monopoles as a cause of anomalous quantum Hall effect in different ferromagnetic materials? Are you aware that magnetic monopoles have never been detected?

It seems to me that you don't really have a theory. It's a non-falsifiable vague answer to a vague question: Things 'seem' fresh. Why? Do they, really? In what sense? Rocks age, but neutrons don't. You take a thousand of them and, after a quarter of an hour, half of them have decayed on average. And we're pretty sure that's what happened in the time of the pharaohs. So in a sense neutrons get old, but in another sense they don't. But rocks do get old. The amount of different radioactive materials decreases with time precisely due to beta decay, which helps geologists in the dating of rocks. So what do you even mean? Science concerns itself with things that can be measured, not with fancy notions that take place only in the eyes of the beholder.

It was, because otherwise one rocket's relative speed to the other one is equal and opposite to the converse, no matter what relativity principle you use (Galilean or Einsteinian). It's exactly as Swansont said with 0.5, 0.5, giving 0.8 (in units of c) It's perhaps an illuminating exercise to do it with 0.99999 and 0.99999. It gives (0.99999+0.99999)/(1+0.99999*0.99999) = 0.9999999999 (in units of c) which is practically just c. But, and here's what interesting, with small velocities as compared to c. 0.00001, 0.00001, it gives (0.00001+0.00001)/(1+0.00001*0.00001)=0.00002000000000 which is so close to the simple addition of velocities that nobody could tell the difference. That's why our intuition tells us velocities are additive.

Fantastic indeed. Thank you. The Suite muffled by the voices was great for setting the mood. I've long felt that all music gravitates towards Bach... or emanates from it. Or something like that. I feel that music before Bach is a preamble to Bach. And music after Bach is a corollary to Bach. Even atonal music seems like an attempt to break the shackles of Bach while still doing music. Like 'how little Bach can one get without making just noise?' I'm very partial about Bach, you see. I'm very Bach-centred. So thank you.

If you don't summon any other observer, then it's 0.99999c relative to each other, as Swansont and others said or implied, and/or/thus I'm missing the point. / / 🤷‍♂️

Moon, I think you're trying to think of an "impartial" observer who's sitting on some dock of the aeronautical bay, so to speak, and watches both approaching each other at 0.99999c. Then they would see each other approaching at higher than that, but never c or higher. You must run the Einstein velocity transformation formulas that to see how much. The relative speed from their POV would indeed be closer to c than that 0.9999c (or however many pieces of c she/he sees them from the dock. If you actually run the calculations, you'd find, I don't know, something like 0.999999999999999999999999999999c relative to each other (you actually must run the calculation if you want to know how many 9 digits closer to c). I think you're implicitly thinking of this "impartial observer" but failing to say so, and causing some amount of understandable confusion. Is that so? Does that help?

(My emphasis). I think the importance of this comment cannot be overstated. How can there be a discrepancy between an energy density and an energy? It's like stating that there is a discrepancy between the speed of light and the radius of the proton.