Genady

Like consecutive circles of latitude? (btw, the link works for me, strange...)

Spherical spiral? Project.pdf (redwoods.edu)

I cannot do it on my side. Guess we need another player here.

Here is the next step in this little experiment. I copied the previous bot's response as a query, repeated here: And here is what the bot had to say about it:

I would be very surprised if the response were identical. And it is in fact quite different:

I think my bot agrees with you. Here is its response:

I remember Susskind mentioning that Feynman "certainly was a showman".

If you accelerated a particle to a speed which is arbitrarily close but not equal the speed of light, then there is a reference frame in which the particle is at rest. To accelerate in this frame, you have to start all over again.

I didn't download the attached paper. But I think exceeding speed of light contradicts causality, regardless of what happens to mass/energy.

There are many regularization schemes leading to the same result. AFAIK, Riemann zeta function is one of them and is not necessary. Regularization is not just a mathematical trick. It has physical basis. As explained in Zee, A. Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell: Second Edition (p. 72). Princeton University Press,

Just a little bit. 😉 I got that. This is what Carl Sagan is good for.

Drive carefully!

What makes you think that the brain's model is frame dependent? Let's assume for a moment that the brain's model is based on Newtonian mechanics. Then it is frame independent, because Newtonian mechanics is frame independent.

It is a short for "frame of reference", but different frames differ in many ways, not only if they are moving or not. They are different coordinate systems in spacetime. For example, cartesian/ polar/ cylindrical coordinates are different frames in space. Just rotating a cartesian frame makes a new frame. I use the word 'frame' because it is shorter than 'system of coordinates.' If a specific frame is inherent part of a model, this model is frame dependent.

I think that your predictions by cherry picked simple extrapolations are, intentionally or not, grossly simplistic for the real world. "It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future", but I am certain that something very different will actually happen. To @zapatos, you remind an Evangelical preacher. To me, you remind a communist propagandist. Just substitute "classless society" for "human technological advancement" and you get a "hyperhyperdrive" to universal happiness.

Yes, a frame independent value can be measured in a frame. Such a value is 'real'.

I'm sorry, but I don't see a connection. Perhaps we are talking about different things and call them "frames". A frame I'm talking about is for example one that identifies a meeting at 5 pm on the corner of 27th street and 5th avenue. I don't think that frames are real.

"Frames" are coordinate systems. They are arbitrary and there are infinitely many of them. Uncountably infinitely many. They are not models and not interfaces. They are just systems of mapping between some sets of four numbers and events.

Isn't this set frame dependent?

Me too. So, a "whole" is a collection of events which can be causally related?

What is "things"? Do you mean "events"?

In the entanglement, particles do not affect each other.

I don't see how these examples make everything NOT be one whole. Entangled particles, for example, stay entangled regardless of the distance and without any physical interactions between them. The observable universe stays one whole by the virtue of common history.

Of course, there is. Where in science?

Unfortunately, the problem is not limited to a few certain persons. Yes, obviously it is a good thing that these issues are exposed. That's why we need police. Medicine is plagued by untrustworthy clinical trials. How many studies are faked or flawed? (nature.com)