imatfaal

VandD - trying to get head around what you are saying. In your space time diagram explanation what exactly are the rocketbased scientists observing? When they are at rest with respect to p,earth, and andromeda you state that they all in sync with time 12:00 - is this something they take on faith, communicate with colleagues, or observe? It seems from your explanation of your diagram that you contend after acceleration at 1201 (rocket time) that P clock has (during the acceleration which has now ceased) run backwards and is at some time shortly after 1100 - how is this known by observation? calculation? Similarly that at 1201 rocket time Andromeda clock is ticking at a bit after 13:00 - again what is this observation? calculation? signal reception? thanks for clarifying

! Moderator Note Mike This thread is on gravitational waves and aether - it has wandered a bit already - but I am not going to let it become your handwavy exposition of half-remembered and poorly-understood loop quantum gravity Please get back onto the topic. Do not respond to this moderation within the thread.

If you have a (very large circle) and you take it close to a (fairly small) black hole keeping the line which passes through the centre of the circle and is perpendicular to the the plane of the circle pointing directly at the blackhole would you not end up with a case in which you still have a circle but that to travel across its diameter you have to travel a greater distance than travelling around its circumference / pi. I realise it is extreme and silly - but the attraction at the centre of the circle will be greater than at the edges because it is marginally closer to the centre of the black hole(tidal forces); in terms of geometry is this not similar to saying that path for a photon/test mass to cross the diameter would be curved. If i haven't got my terminology wrong: this would be the intrinsic curvature version of what with extrinsic curvature we see as the difference between a great circle route between washington and london and the shorter direct route through the earth's crust. [mp][/mp] Sorry - the whole point of the above ramble was - is this not still a circle; but one that the ratio of diameter to circumference is no longer pi

Why do we have to vary pi? A vague feeling of disquiet is not enough ! Moderator Note And as this is a speculation rather than Science News I am going to move the post to the correct forum

Monty cannot reveal a door chosen at random - he might reveal the car

This is out of my zone completely - but I think you need to read up on quantification and relationship between the two types of uncertainty http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Uncertainty/typea.html http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Uncertainty/typeb.html I hope I haven't misunderstood

! Moderator Note Agreed. Phyti - last warning. Despite members taking the time to go off site to read your paper you have still not done the other members the courtesy of posting a summary here. Do so in next post or I will lock thread.

what are you trying to ask as a question? Can you narrow it done to a simple paragraph without all the packing?

hmm - alcohol is about the only thing that makes the sequels bearable

yes

! Moderator Note moved to speculations. Please ensure that your next post is a summary / abstract so that members can discuss without having to go off site (per the rules)

What a great paper - his enthusiasm for his subject shines through "A great deal of beautiful error analysis" etc. One thing he said the experiment was designed to avoid was the noise caused by 0.2 hertz ocean waves - couldn't they just rent a lab somewhere midcontinental USA, Asia, Africa or would that open up more difficult cans of worms

The strong version of that claim would necessarily preclude any empiricism - there are no glitches in the matrix. The fact that the worldstate described by the claim is utterly indistinguishable from our own tends to make me think it isn't worth worrying about. A weaker version - in which we can occasionally glimpse behind the curtain and see the matrix is more interesting but would need a decent piece of experiemental evidence before it was worth investing time in

Could I just point out that the existence of machine consciousness is not necessarily the same as human knowledge of the existence of machine consciousness? I think it is highly unlikely to the point of impossibility that my microwave is conscious - when they link up supercomputers over the internet to perform massively parallel fuzzy logic / self replicating / genetic algorithms I begin to think that consciousness is still unlikely but I wouldn't be at all surprised. I don't think we will suddenly see a 3-d face of an infeasibly attractive but slightly sexless woman (like Hwood have done it ad nauseam) - but many years after the event historians will be able to discern the first traces of the ghost in the machine

Average win rate for all the players [latex]\neq[/latex] Average win rate for the group as a whole

Empiricism Rocks. Buy some cheap fish you don't mind repeatedly nailing to a target and experiment. The only time I used a speargun the shaft was hollow with a heavy screw-on tip (changeable for trident, barbed, or plain) - if yours is of similar design maybe try weighting with fishing split shot and testing the underwater penetration on your deadfish. Post photos, videos and results. I will tell you that the spear gun shafts and heads were significantly heavier than the arrows I was more accustomed to using - which makes me think it is a medium thing rather than a penetration thing. In archery you change the head to small narrow and pointed to pierce armour; to wide, barbed and bladed for hunting; and rounded and smooth for targets. The force on a shaft due to fluid friction / resistance is not going to change if you use a heavier material but the same shape. Force equals momentum change over time - which is to say mass times velocity change over time. If the force remains the same but the mass increases then the change in velocity is decreased. Perhaps it is also worth thinking about how the fluid would behave around a very fast moving object - would you start to get cavitation? - would small inconsistencies in the symmetry of the projectile change the flight in a non-linear way?

I have seen adverts for Graphene bicycle tyres (added element rather than made from) ! Not sure that is anything other than mad hype - although my current tyres do have kevlar so they are not averse to adding some pretty exotic materials to them

! Moderator Note thread locked. The OP failed to provide the necessary mathematics to back up his claim and showed a lack of knowledge of, and a refusal to engage with the physics underlying the question at hand.

One of the major points of any academic research is an understanding of the work that has gone before - you don't look for articles to cite but rather you cite those articles which have helped develop your idea. Normally the first thing masters / doctoral candidate will do is an exhaustive document search and current research review - this means you know the stuff you would need to cite (in fact you know current work backwards, forwards, and any other way) and your question would not arise. You would also know whether your idea has been raised, disputed, and disproved many years before

or you could look at some of the basic courses at edx.org or any other the other open universities.

Let's not turn this into yet another gun-control back and forth. There is a huge amount of room in the Politics forum and we already have threads on gun control - can we focus please?

Damn - that is one bad article. Dunning and Kruger have found themselves a Champion! I particularly like the idea of putting quotations around a phrase that is hugely changed from the most common formulation - furthermore the provenance of which is actually disputed and was probably attributed only through spite. Is actually reading your sources unfashionable and too much like hard work?

ceci n'est pas une pipe

This is not a logic based riddle

! Moderator Note Moved to speculations. Take a moment to read the rules of that forum - thanks