Genady

I did not ask about acceleration. My question is about the force. The consideration was, is the force frame dependent? The charge is not attached to the frame. The frame is not a structure. You did not answer my question. But do not feel obligated.

In which accelerated frame the Coulomb force between two charges becomes zero?

How about Coulomb force? Is it frame dependent?

The reference to Asimov is appropriate because this topic, in my opinion, is no more than discussion of science fiction with a straight face, and as such is good for entertainment purposes.

I've just looked up his name and read the Wikipedia article. I don't think he is worthy of your attention, @joigus. Not more than Deepak Chopra .

Are you sure? If you have a spring stretched between two walls, its force on the walls is frame dependent?

Chinese didn't need writing earlier because they have a superior memory. They started using it later when they decided to deal with others who could not remember very well.

Thanks. Unfortunately, I cannot fully comprehend contents by listening because of a form of APD. Do these lectures exist in a written format?

I don't think it will. For a full and uncompressed description, you will have to simulate not only "every tree and animal and rock and chewing gum wrapper etc." but also every molecule, atom, electron, etc., IOW, to simulate complete quantum state of the system. But - here comes the punch line - no cloning theorem tells us that this is impossible. Thus, abstraction is inevitable.

Imagine that instead of falling toward the Earth you are on a free trajectory around the Earth. You don't need a parachute, you are not going to hit the ground, Earth is not coming toward you, etc. And there is no force.

What makes you think so? In fact, I, my family, and all my friends do not normally or commonly experience dry air and nose picking.

Fields are present in laws of physics. How they are not real but forces are real?

Yes, they - [0.1] and [0,1) - are very different. Another layer to take off has to have a finite depth.

I see leaves moving with the air, but I don't see any force.

Do we ever observe a force?

You didn't mention one solution which does not require new physics. If we could get very close to the speed of light, travel anywhere wouldn't take too long for a traveler. For example, with a speed of 0.999c, she would reach the next star in a couple of months.

There are couple suggested mechanisms on how neutrinos acquire mass. This is not specific for neutrinos. Other particle masses differ between generations as well. Electron - muon - tauon. Down - strange - bottom quarks. Up - charm - top quarks. This is not specific for neutrinos as well.

In this article, the author argues that general AI cannot be fully controlled: Honestly, I couldn't get through it and so I don't know what the arguments are and how convincing they are. Good luck! 2008.04071.pdf (arxiv.org)

IIRC they oscillate because their mass and flavor do not commute. This is logical and simple. It is not new though.

Or this one: PS. Took me 30 s.

Any such index will be soon obsolete if it doesn't take in consideration that civilization evolves. It cannot take the evolution in consideration because evolution is unpredictable. Ergo, any such index will become useless soon.

I don't see how "dry air and nose pickling shouldn't be the cause of nosebleeds" is suggested by "none of them said that they had nosebleeds". I can only see how the latter suggests that the nosebleed condition is not very common.

Compare with Can one bit of light bounce off another bit of light? | Science Questions with Surprising Answers (wtamu.edu):

Complex Learned Social Behavior Discovered in Bee’s Waggle Dance - Neuroscience News There are several analogies between bee's learning the dance and humans learning language, such as early exposure, quality, and local dialects.

You mean, human brain, I guess. No, I don't.