michel123456

Have a look here: http://sciencesense-eyesopen.blogspot.gr/2008/02/why-c-squared.html Quoting myself, I'll re-post here my comment about that (you''ll find it in the link in the discussion part) The question still stands. ------------------- as much as I know, things in physics go like this: Physicists measure some quantities according to their ability to measure: they measure weight, time, distance, velocity, acceleration, etc. Then, completely randomly, they try to make mathematical operations with theses measurements. When they succeed to get a correct measurement from the mathematical operation of 2 others, they (the physicists) encounter orgasmic pleasure. For example, Newton established the law of universal gravitation on the basis of the square of the distance not because it follows from some logic, but because it gives the correct result. Simple logic would tell that the attraction between 2 bodies would be a function of their mass and of the distance between the 2 bodies. The use of the square distance is alltogether a touch of genius and a very strange feature. Why the distance squared? Not even twice the distance, but suddenly a measurement in meters that you have to square to get a surface in squared meters: something that you cannot measure. Exactly like we were measuring the square root of "something else". The same strangeness occurs in e=mc^2, but since the equation gives the correct result, who cares?

but Planck units can be translated in SI units: Planck length=1.616 199(97) × 10−35 m Planck mass=2.176 51(13) × 10−8 kg Planck time=5.391 06(32) × 10−44 s You cannot "change the units of distance and mass according to Planck's units" and obtain G=1. The only thing you can do is erase the units completely and retain the numerical values. When you insert proper units, dimensional analysis shows that G must keep units. G=1 is only a mathematical trick.

But G has units. You can't say it is equal to 1.

How do you call a test-particle? A testicle. So Cern found Higgs...(photoshop censored)

The search for elementary particles involves a presupposition: that size is an absolute feature. If suddenly one admits that size may be a relative feature, then the search for fundamental blocks will vanish. Quoting J.Barbour from Scale-invariant gravity: particle dynamics. Classical and Quantum Gravity 20 1543 (2003). (arXiv:gr-qc/0211021) Note: quoting again J.Barbour from the same link

Belgians Know what it is. It was predicted some time ago by a serious publication. lookhere bottom of the page and here A synopsis is here.

How can an evolution be static? Don't you need time for any kind of change to happen? See dicussion this thread where the conclusion seemed to me that change doesn't exist without time. And "evolution" is a kind of change, isn't it?

"strong indications" is a way of speaking that I (myself) understand as ευσεβείς πόθοι. Of course anyone is free to understand it as he(she) wishes. So yes, you are correct, my comment was too strong. I should have stated that they found "strong indications" and no "decisive finding" and I apologize for that. And what I meant is that today's announcement is from CERN, not from TEVATRON, and is supposed to be about something more than "strong indications". This is what we waited for http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2012/PR17.12E.html

This is from Tevatron. they found nothing (they don't have the adequate equipment) but anticipate the results of LHC. They celebrate Wednesday on Tuesday.

Numerology finds its origin in ancient cultures that used letters of the alphabet as numbering symbols. For example ancient Greeks had that system, where letter Alpha was number 1, Beta was 2, and so on - not exactly "and so on" since still today in modern Greece the ST (Sigma-Tau) floor in the building is the 6th -instead of regular 6th letter Zeta. This system that mixes letters with numbers had the terrible disadvantage to give some litteral sense to any number, and vice-versa. I guess we'll never get rid of this.

I suppose the question summarizes as to evaluate how long it takes for all heat on Earth to dissipate in the form of radiation (no convection, no conduction, no mass transfer). Since there is no mass transfer, my guess for the answer is: never.

I thought it was about measurement: when you measure it in order to prove it is a particle, you find it is a particle, and when you measure it in order to prove it is a wave, you find it is a wave. In my simple mind governed by prehistoric logic, since a macroscopic wave is a kind of phenomena build from a bunch of smaller things, maybe the photon is not a single fundamental particle, but the result of a bunch of interacting things (ROABOIT). Hit me.

Because "Nothing" is exclusive. You cannot have "nothing" and something else. If you take as granted that anything possible can occur, "nothing" is so exclusive that it should be logically provable that "nothing" cannot occur and thus "nothing" is impossible. However that proof escapes from my mind at this right moment.

This is a picture of Villagers in Bawomataluo on Nias move a megalith for construction around 1915. In this case, the aliens are shown on the photograph, they are wearing helmets and extra-sensorial rings around their necks, their wear no shoes for gravitational shielding, their chief standing on the stone wears a stealth protection. Another one in the background on the left has an electromagnetic photon-screen over his head (an umbrella).

I haven't read the entire thread, only the 2 first pages. I am surprised that the discussion bypasses (did it?) the reference to Cramer waves. I knew nothing about Cramer waves & Transactional interpretation. I learned something today. Thank you Aethelwulf.

That happened to me too. I also had the bad experience to lose entire posts due to a default of the server. Now, before posting, I always make a Copy (Ctrl C) of the text before posting so that even in the event of full failure, I can save it in a Word file by pasting it (Ctrl V).

Maybe you're right, it may be a different subject. Following your list of critical thinking, a catholic priest can "critically think" of a religious text by 1. application of the criteria of reasonableness, relevancy, and sufficiency to all important claims 2. distinguishing what is important from what is not according regularly reevaluated principles 3. careful attention to the meaning of terms 4. balanced use of relevant expertise 5. unwillingness to accept any claim that is inconsistent with out own carefully anylyzed experience. 6. careful assessment of motives (or own and others) 7. respect for conflicting views when they are reasonably defended. 8. refusla to take legitimate criticism of arguements pesonally. 9. asking interrelated and relevant questions. 10. a willingness to be moved by reason 11. being open to the possibility of error. 12. willingness to suspend judgement until sufficient evidence is found 13. objectivity A Freethinker will do more than that. He will "not accept ideas proposed as truth without recourse to knowledge and reason. Thus, freethinkers strive to build their opinions on the basis of facts, scientific inquiry, and logical principles, independent of any logical fallacies or the intellectually limiting effects of authority, confirmation bias, cognitive bias, conventional wisdom, popular culture, prejudice, sectarianism, tradition, urban legend, and all other dogmas". (italics from the wiki article)

(Bypassing your question) I see no reference to freethought.

(continuing) -there could be also a point system for giving rep points (and not only for receiving). So the one who gives constantly neg rep to others could be considered as a very rude person (though knowledgeable maybe), and the one who gives a lot of pos rep points could be considered as a nice guy.

Some notes of mine: A.the bad things about the rep. system (IMHO) 1. When you vote pos or neg rep., you are supposed to vote for the quality of a post. When the result goes to the poster, it becomes personnal. The result could go to the thread as well(a thread with a lot of neg rep stinks) 2. I have caught myself using the rep. system not to vote about the quality of a post, but as a support to the poster because I agree with his opinion.. So it becomes opinion on opinion: not good for a science forum. I try to refrain doing this but so many times its too late: I vote instinctively and it cannot be undone. 3. I just voted neg in this thread and I guess nobody could notice it. (post#63, HyperIodine has so many pos that a neg from time to time doesn't change anything, the post had 2 pos and now has only one, and I disagreed with his opinion, see points 1 and 2 above). 4. some part of the problem with neg rep is the red color (no red color in post#63, no problem) 5. I have noticed that my best posts (IMO) have got no points (they seem to interest nobody except me). Usually I get pos. points for some "clever-stupid" comments or in the jokes subforum. 6. I also have noticed that rep points are related to how long one is rambling on the forum. Evidently, a newbie will have a low rep., even if he is a Nobel Prize. He may even get neg. rep. for being understood as arrogant, and may even go away after a few posts. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the rep. system is the most effective way to evacuate the brightests minds from this Forum. B. the good things about the rep. system 1. it exists (as an analogy with democracy: a lot of things are getting wrong with democracy, but the simple fact that democracy exists is a good thing) 2. for the few people who resist the envy to go away, it improves politeness. 3. even if you are an arrogant individual (because you know your own credentials, you know what you're talking about and you know that you are right), you may not show it here so evidently and keep arrogance for elsewhere. 4. [insert here, surely I forget something] C. can it be improved? Yes. _For example, as noted above, linking rep. to the thread and not to the person. (how can one reasonably argue that the rep system as it is today is not personnal???) _ If you want to keep it personnal, in order for the members to get an idea about the quality of a poster, we could add some statistical features like: .the absolute number of neg points (and not only the result of the sum of pos minus neg) .the absolute number of pos points .the ratio of neg/post .the ratio of pos/post _to allow rep system for serious subforums only (not for the jokes). Maybe also evacuate the rep system from politics & religion (suggestion) _maybe introduce a separate rep system where only mod & experts can vote (not very democratic but very instructive0 _[insert here, surely I forget something]

Just to keep statistics: Michel today has 2994 posts divided by rep 242= 12.3719 That means I got a point on average for each 12,4 posts (against 13,8 in the past) And also for the last 941 posts I got 93 rep. , that's almost a rep point for each 10 posts. I really doubt the increase is caused by the quality of my posts, it must be caused by time as I stated in the other thread. Bolded part is terribly correct. IMHO. Now that I am thinking about, that's maybe the unconscious purpose of this post of mine...

With your descriptions it looks like there is time in this sheet of paper.

exactly. Note: if considered thread hijacking please split or ignore: on the spaceship with the machine gun, at any ship's velocity, the measured velocity of the bullets will remain constant (as measured from the spaceship). If you put a "mirror" tied at the front of the spaceship, the mirrored bullets will come back at constant speed. No matter the speed of the spaceship. From this POV there is no difference between bullets and photons.

What other word would you use? transformation?

You made a point. The second line is not the first line changed, it is something new, on the paper. But when someone undertakes a derivation, the 2 lines are logically connected as a change, isn't it? that's what I am looking for: an example of change that is not related to time. If you take as granted that by definition change means time then for sure if you will encounter a change that is not related with time you will say that "it is not change". No comment.