imatfaal

! Moderator Note Purely speculative post by 36grit hidden Do not post this sort of guesswork in the main fora. Open a thread in Speculations if you must - but be prepared to abide by the rules of that subforum. Do not respond to this moderation within the thread

! Moderator Note Do not be ridiculous. It was a cut n paste from an internet dictionary site in which you attempted to justify making wild-arsed guesses (WAGs) and posting them here in the main physics forum. Post physics here or not - but stop the complaints and self-justification Please do not respond to any moderation within the thread.

! Moderator Note Off topic post regarding definitions hidden. To be clear you do not get to post guess-work in the main fora. Stop it. In these fora, you can ask questions, make suggestions, answer queries, etc. What you cannot do is post your wild speculation - there is a special subforum for that. If you do not understand a topic - ask a question no matter how basic or how advanced; however, if you post an assertion that is contrary to accepted physics you are likely to be challenged by members and you should only do this in the Speculations Forum Please also stop ignoring blatant counters to your arguments - especially the one in the post immediately above regarding QM and SR

It is a bit more than this - time symmetry is intimately linked with energy conservation. Noether showed that every conservation law has a parallel symmetry - these are fundamental to how we understand physics. When entropy, thermodynamics, heat loss etc become involved (ie real world) then there is only one way we can envisage time flowing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem

! Moderator Note one thread per topic

! Moderator Note Whilst this thread may have started with an honest question it is descended into an argument from ignorance and incredulity. Any more of that style of argument and we will lock the thread. And btw, if the OP states that the reason our experts don't understand or agree with the proposition is because they are blinkered or unwilling to learn then I will deem it insulting and against Rule 1 "Be Civil" - I have had it with this post-factual phenomenon of posters coming to this site and slagging off our experts because the university education of our staff does not tally with what people reckon should be the case. Do not respond to this moderation

Surely any system complex enough to ask questions about itself and make reflexive statements cannot be complete and without internal contradiction. This is basically a simplistic version of Godel's Incompleteness and can be mathematically proved.

Just a few quick comments - firstly, you have an 'A' in there which I guess is meant to be an 'R'. And b and y have meanings rather than just being there; b is the transmissivity / infection rate and y is the population's death or immunity rate. Finally, to avoid confusion, are lowercase s, i, and r are the same as uppercase (I think lower case are fraction of population whilst uppercase are absolute values -this would make your setup of partial derivatives incorrect)? Perhaps post all the info ou have been given and maybe someone can help - it is not my cup of tea but others may aid you if you present correct and full information

Metrification-Stations! 100lbs = 45.4 kilograms 5 gallons (presume US) = 19000 cm^3 = 0.019 m^3 Mass density of your liquid = 45.4/0.019 = 2389 kg.m^-3 Carbon Tet and Percholethylene are around the 1600 kg.m^-3 so need denser than that (btw mercury is 13500 kg.m^-3). The seriously concentrated acids are a little higher at the 1800 kg.m^-3 mark. To get past 2000 kg.m^-3 the only thing I can see is liquid bromine at 3100 kg.m^-3 And just after finding that I found wikipedia's list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_liquid

! Moderator Note No scientific proof has been provided. This is posted in the Science only area of a Science Forum. You cannot promise scientific evidence and then welch on the deal. Thread Locked

1. It is a little odd to change the title without acknowledgement once multiple members have commented. 2. Even with the revised title - no, she is not a representation of a woman; she is a woman. The OP is either using an incorrect word in error or is perpetrating a sort of reverse ceci n'est pas un pipe 3. If the OP meant is she a (good) representative for women - then there is a question to be debated. I am not sure that she is, or that she should be. She was running for president as a fine politician, with huge experience of government, and a strong power base of committed supporters; that she is a woman is/was another reason to vote for her. But, most importantly, she was running to represent all of America. 4. I have googled Teal Swan - and I almost wished I had stayed ignorant.

It is not density related - get that out of your head. Any impact of intrinsic curvature would be existent as soon as you started - but as it is in a ratio of 10^-23 to the masss then you need a huge mass before you can discern anything

It is a thought experiment - you just measure. This is not a practical proposition. You are overthinking; what is a 3d measurement or 4d measurement anyway? Really ? That's a pretty poor way to discuss things. You said Feynman was not right - how? Your final word - which I have to presume is demonstrating your assertion is also exactly the point of Feynman's gedankan I have noticed that you responded whilst I was editing my previous post - not intentional on my side

Your example - like mine - was embedded curvature; Feynman's was an avenue to understanding the intrinsic curvature which is not so immediately apparent I am not sure where you say Feynman is not totally right - unless we are taking his idea outside the strictures of a thought-experiment. The ratio of the radius of a circle to its area is not pi in curved space, nor is the ratio of a sphere to its surface area 4 pi - this does not require the test object to be embedded in a higher dimension, it also applies to intrinsic curvature

The settling of the ball into a sphere has little to do with the problem - the ball is a given, a uniform density globe. It does not matter how you form or simulate the ball. If you assume flat Euclidean spacetime then the usual formula will apply with perfect precision - the radius is a straight line, 4 pi times the radius squared is the surface area, and 4/3 pi times the radius cubed is the volume. In a GR setting the geometry no longer works as it did in Euclidean space. Our measurements of space are no longer simple - the shortest distances are spacetime geodesics on a curved background. It is a simple thought experiment to highlight that difference.

A pair of really good binoculars with a tripod - plenty of other uses and makes enough of a difference to observations to settle any doubts

! Moderator Note Please open a thread in Philosophy if you wish to further discuss ontology of time. This thread is now locked - to avoid it becoming another 30 page ramble in poorly thought-out philosophy like the last long time thread. We really mean it - please open a thread in philosophy; the discussion is a good one to have but here is not the place PS - And feel free to open another thread here on time iff it is a question of physics rather than metaphysics.

! Moderator Note Can we lose the nitpicking please? This is not the design of an experiment nor a piece of legal draftsmanship - the import is obvious and has been answered. Take a spherical cow... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow And obligatory XKCD Do not respond within the thread to this moderation

This is, unfortunately, entirely a thought experiment; one could not begin to do in reality. It relies on a uniform density sphere to do the calculation of what the radius would be in euclidean flat space etc. If you look at the calculation r_excess = G/c^2 M ie r_excess = 10-11 / 1017 M = 10-28 M The real imperfections of the earth would overwhelm such a tiny fraction - the difference is around one part in ten million million million

Type 1a supernova all "go boom" at pretty much the same mass - they reach the Chndresekar limit and it is taken from there. Mass luminosity relationships given by Mordred apply to stars not novas. With regard to your other questions - angular momentum and charge would be conserved so I am not immediately sure how that you could rob energy which would also be conserved; but frankly it is something to think about. The supernova explosion is well modeled and seems to match with theory very well. No standard candle is going to be perfect - but the number that we have means the chances of a mistake, miscalculation etc are very small Quite - but we have assumed this from our position on earth; tht leap can only be made if you were to compare multiple viewing positions. So the Cosmological principle of homegeneity and isotropy say that any large enough region of space will have the same stuff in and which ever direction we look in will give us the same results. The centre of a sphere of water - every direction you look is exactly the same to the limits of your probing (it is a large sphere) - but this is clearly a preferred position; other position would not necessarily be limited and could discern an edge or at least a gradient that was not uniform. Cosmological principle boils down to we are not in a preferred position. On the contaminations - these principles work at the large scale; glass with contaminations can be isotropic, for instance coloured glass. If the bits are small enough and any decent size sample will have the same number then we are still within the cosmological principle If there are a significant number of black holes then that would sounds as if they are gravitationally bound to each other - gravity is far stronger and they will remain in orbit with each other. Expansion takes place in the huge gaps - if there is enough stuff in the volume you are considering then you either will not observe any expansion (smaller scale) or you need to look at such a large scale that the gaps are in the megaparsec range and the stuff is once again statistically homogeneous

It is nothing to do with compression. The surface area of a sphere is 4 pi r2 where r is the radius. That is a Euclidean measurement - ie when there is no intrinsic curvature to the geometry of space; the mass of the earth causes an intrinsic positive curvature and the euclidean ratios no longer quite apply. The easiest way to think of an analogy is in an extrinsic curvature situation - a curved 2d surface in our 3d world; that is to say the surface of a sphere. Draw a large circle on the ground, go to the centre of the circle and measure the distance to the circumference by walking a tape measure from the centre to the line, then measure around the circumference. We would expect the ratio to be Circumference = 2 pi r; but it is not. In this example it is clear that it cannot be because the "radius" we have walked from the centre to the circumference is curved; we can easily see this as the curvature is extrinsic (ie it is a curved object embedded in our 3d space). In Feynman's example the background geometry itself is curved - there is an intrinsic curvature but it still screws up ratios and expectations which are made on the basis of flat euclidean geometry. The amount that the radius is excessive compared to flat geometry (if the sphere is constant density) is simple and directly proportional to the mass [latex] r_{excess} = \frac{G}{3c^2} \cdot M [/latex]

Anything that measures or interacts with a quantum mechanical system such that any superposition is/would be lost If the quantum mechanical system can maintain a state of superposition / entanglement then no - but if the interaction is such that it the system moves from a state of superposition to a classical defined state of particles then yes

Thanks Capt

A beautiful passage - nicely demonstrating the physics and incidentally the genius of Feynman as a teacher. Good find and thanks for posting