geordief

He is naturally clunky but he is attuned to what people want to hear. Unless you believe he is sincere

Is it not certain that a Trump presidency is going to disappoint those who voted for him even if he tries to implement any of his "policies" ? What will be the playthrough ** of that scenario? Is he going to be able to find some scapegoat as to why he cannot do what he said he would (without it being transparent) ? **perhaps not how that word is used (or what it means).I meant how the scenario will play out.

I just log out first.

I am not sure what you mean by "from an intuitive point of view" . I thought intuition was not considered to be an argument for the truth or otherwise of an observation. Does a phenomenon need to have one cause ? Can time dilation be "caused by" both relative inertial motion and the invariance of the speed of light in all inertial frames? Do you think there must be a "chain" of causation with the speed of light being at the top of the pyramid" (mixing metaphores.perhaps)

thanks

If I find the expanding sphere more satisfactory/appealing ,is it OK for me to try and work out those time dilation diagrams using that model ? Does it give a more intellectually satisfying result?

Is the path** "empty" apart from the points along it where an interaction takes place ? Is the "expanding sphere" model any way superior to the "line" model ? **is "trajectory" the correct term?

Here is an example http://users.sussex.ac.uk/~waa22/relativity/Complete_Derivation_files/derivation.pdf My question is whether these diagrams are misleading. They show these beams as unbroken lines . Is this wrong? Is it a better picture of what actually happens to draw an expanding (non physical) sphere to represent the points where a photon can be created when it meets an object? Is the line that is drawn actually just a geometric line joining up the points where interactions do take place. So this line which is drawn is actually just a mathematical or geometrical extrapolation? I mean ,in the clock mirror in my above link can we say the the light is only to be found at the actual mirror surfaces provided there is a vacuum between them and that ,even if there was no vacuum we would be talking about a "dotted line" -not a continuous line? (the dots occurring where the expanding sphere encountered "obstacles) As an analogy I remember reading (incorrectly as it happens I think ) that the human eye is unable to actually see a small electricity wire (the kind that birds might be sitting on) but infers it and presents to the mind a seeming picture of the said wire.

Yes De Niro should deliver it. He is the King of Comedy , after all.

Maybe there was some hacking campaign in the background. Perhaps the FBI's hands were not completely free. They may have been told that some information was about to come out (true or not). First the democratic process has been cheapened and now ,apparently the justice system's spine has been softened . Perhaps interesting that the most likely overall outcome will be a Clinton victory but a "hold" by the Republicans in the Senate/Congress races. (not a rout anyway)

This is such a sick campaign that I almost feel that this "good news" could actually depress Clinton's vote. I know it is too late now for the "story" to die down but this latest episode almost gives it extra life. Imagine if they had come and said they had found something requiring further investigation . That would presumably sunk her ,whereas this "exoneration" ,arguably does not even help her.

I meant moving "wrt the situation just after the Big Bang". Well , I assumed we were moving but perhaps I am wrong . I think you may be referring to the idea that the Big Gang occurred everywhere and that does seem to take the wind out of my sails "Just after the Big Bang" may be practically the same as "the Big Bang" .

What about this figure of 10^-43 seconds before/after a theoretical Big Bang (or should that be "singularity"?) which is the furthest back in time we are supposed to have "looked" ? Does Time Dilation come into how that number was arrived at? Are we looking back at a situation we have been moving in relation to ever since ?

It seems to me (a very recent realization ) that simple relative movement causes observers to view the clocks in relatively moving frames to run slower. I had (wrongly?) assumed that this property was a function of speed but I now think that relative speed merely increases the magnitude of the effect-it does not cause it. It is simply enough for bodies or frames to be in relative motion for time dilation to be the "order of the day". Since I would argue that everything is of necessity in relative motion ,is it fair to say that clocks will never agree but it is only the degree to which they disagree that can be determined? Is this simply a philosophical point or does it have any practical consequences? PS Is time dilation considered to have any applicability in the area of quantum mechanics?

Are there situations where to calculate the probability would require more resources than are available in the universe? Would you just say that quantum theory was inadequate but not actually wrong?

On the negative side ,perhaps that indicates the level of difficulty in solving the BB/singularity conundrum. I don't know if you are familiar with the Dr Who series of programs on the BBC but the good Doctor had a house that was the size of a telephone kiosk When he went in through the front door it was many times bigger on the inside. Perhaps the 10^-43 seconds we "are from" the BB/singularity might open up into an endless vista..... infinitely larger than that ridiculously short time span. Otherwise (if the circumstances can be understood) it sounds like it would be a real Pandora's box if there could be a model that would incorporate this area.

Would it be unduly "pessimistic" to imagine that this is a question that could remain possibly/probably unanswered even if human civilization and its expansion of knowledge was to co-exist with the universe itself ? ( it was to continue right up until its thermal death) EDIT:cross posted. So you perhaps think solving the BB/singularity conundrum would open the doors to other areas of knowledge such as the extent of this and other possible universes?

What circumstances might have produced a universe with a negative curvature? Would it affect the " looking at the back of your own head" scenario? Would it rule out that ever happening even by chance?(the possibility would be "unstable")?

Someone was saying on the TV that it would beggar belief that the CIA would not know what was on Hilary Clinton's server (or the White House servers in general. ) What would follow from this ,I wonder ? Is that what a country should expect from its secret service; that it should "keep tabs" on the elected leaders?

Not sure how mainstream an idea this is. I think we all know that we do not know the size or structure of the Universe (not the observable Universe , the Universe) And we can talk (maybe to limited effect) about the Universe as opposed to the observable Universe because we can (and do ,I guess) assume that the Universe does not stop just because we cannot observe it So here is my idea. : What we see as the observable Universe may well be finite in that it may have had a beginning and may also eventually have a thermal death but ,outside this observed /observable Universe there may (or may not) be other regions where similar things are happening. To try to put flesh on that , I am wondering is it possible that "our" Universe is but a minuscule part of a "myriad" ("myriad" may be to underestimate the scale -"infinite myriads" might be better) of similar, or dissimilar structures that may (or may not) have a global structure. Perhaps , I am saying nothing and there is nothing (no experimental observation to get one's teeth into but perhaps if we can "define" the possible limits of what we can know about the Universe it may serve to orient our thoughts regarding what we actually can know.....?.

If the universe was completely flat would the theoretical laser stiĺl return to its starting point? If it did not, what would it do?Just get further and further away? Follow the expansion of U?

I think I have heard that a beam of light (if this was feasible) which was emitted by an observer would ,eventually(well under strictly defined circumstances I imagine) return and strike the back of his head. So that ,perhaps the observer might look at the back of his neck whilst staring straight ahead by the time the universe had come to an end Ignoring the impossibility of this scenario (if I have not misremembered it) there seems to be some fundamental principle involved ,perhaps connected with the underlying geometry of the universe . Can anyone explain it to me? Or at least explain some of it.

I will guess that the electrons' interference patterns reinforce or cancel out each other. I know extremely little about this and am not sure how physical proximity affects this but I guess that it increases the amplitude of the waves in the area in question.

Read all about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_H._Christ A few theories, "Hallowed" ="Harold" being the most amusing.

Yes , I know. I just mis-spoke. I am interested in the way Einstein begins (I think ) by talking about measurements in space being represented by a grid or array of physical "scaffold like" metre length rods ,which turn into the purely mathematical [x.y.z] co-ordinates. These are supplemented by the ct axis and then it seems to me that the manifold is a further refinement where the lines between the intersections (points or events) are discarded . What though, is the mathematical connection between these points or events and how does it change when a source of mass-energy is in the vicinity?