Genady

OK, next time. When the object is something more interesting than soul. DNA, for example.

How can I know what is a metaphorical DNA?

If you write it down, it exists on paper, which is outside of our brain.

May it be this: Unsolved Problems in Number Theory (Problem Books in Mathematics, 1): Guy, Richard: 9780387208602: Amazon.com: Books

This is not a way to get peer reviews. You need to clearly describe your research in a clear format such as Abstract - Introduction - Materials and Methods - Results - Discussion. Then peer reviewers will relate and respond to its content.

Humans create lighthearted things of this type, which, contrary to the ChatGPT's compilations, are not empty of content. See, for example, Picasso at the Lapin Agile - Wikipedia:

Why wouldn't you get peer reviews from a scientific journal in the corresponding field of science?

Yes, you're right. That was how it started. However, I did not discuss her claims as I did not see the video. (Perhaps this led to this thread being split.) I wanted to point out that causality violation appears in SR as a result of FTL also without a signal being sent back in time.

No, I don't. I know that causality is violated. Assuming that a 'signal' moves faster than light leads to violation of causality. This is my whole point. See the OP here: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/130520-paradox-split-from-is-ftl-actually-possible/

The Lorentz transformation gives times of the same two events in another observer's frame knowing their times and coordinates in the first observer's frame.

Yes, it took time 1 in the A's frame: the signal left the source at time ts=0 and arrived at the target at time tr=1.

Let's say some signal moves with twice the speed of light in observer A's frame. It is sent, the event S, at time ts=0 from the origin xs=0. At the time tr=1 it arrives at the distance coordinate xr=2, where a detector blows a bomb. This is event R. Observer B moves with the speed v=3/5 c along the x axis, with their x axes and origins coincide. In the B's frame, the event S occurs at ts'=0, xs'=0. The event R in his frame occurs at tr' = gamma*(tr - v*xr/c2) = 5/4 * (1 - 6/5) = -1/4 i.e., 1/4 before the event S.

If that person received the signal while moving, yes, according to this person as well.

According to my research, men can basically get sex more or less when they wish, just as Also, women ask, and men choose as commonly as In general, my data support the old Russian proverb, "любовь зла, полюбишь и козла" (love is evil - makes one love even a goat; note that the noun "goat" in the proverb is masculine.)

Thy signal is received before it is sent.

In the paradox I've described, no signal is sent backward in time.

How come? Let's say events A and B are spacelike separated. Then there are observers moving with a normal, i.e., < c, speed for whom event B occurs before event A. If A is sending a signal and B is its receiving, then for these observers, the signal is received before it is sent. Isn't it a causal paradox?

If it is programmed / trained to throw away the wheat and to keep the chaff, it will do it as well.

Macro scale acid? What does it mean?

I've noticed that the current spam posts appear in quick successions. Is it possible to limit new members to 1 post per 10 minutes for the first day? It would take about an hour to post the 5 allowed posts.

Like @iNow has mentioned above, we learn concepts by being exposed to them, via experience, interactions, demonstrations, explanations, etc.

I don't know what "learn the existence of concept" means.

ChatGPT is a regurgitated Internet search. Are there any rules about a financial product advice acquired from Internet search? The same apply to ChatGPT.

Concepts in mind are not visual entities. When you try to visualize a concept, you get its visual representation. Concepts are different from their visual representations.

How do you get this? How come B is in N? How do you get this? What fluid?