geordief

Oh ,I didn't realize Cruz may have been suggesting anything like that.(or that anyone could imagine such turpitude) Can see why even Trump despised him if that is really the case.(of course despisal for Trump is merely transactional)

Well(Trump's advocate here) that is permitted ,surely.If a juror honestly disagrees with the other 11 is he or she not duty bound to vote accordingly? I don't see how that is "taking one for the team" Of course they can also be persuaded but if only 11 out of 12 is required then that should be the law. The unanimity impressed me ,whatever was said in the jury room that the verdict was strong. Any appeal might lean on the judge's instructions. I like the fact that he gave them a choice of 3 crimes but perhaps they might say it was too innovative?

I understand that the model we have goes back to T+10^-43secs. Did spacetime form then ,at that (those?) moment or did it happen when the Higgs field was created? (or emerged?) Since the time it did form ,has it evolved into what we now measure in a continuous fashion?

My feelings too.This trial was really all downside and no upside(for Trump's opponents) Did this trial delay the others at all because it was the one that the Dems would gladly have sacrificed for the others? I would not be surprised if the Trump voters paid zero heed to the outcome of this trial as far as their voting intentions are concerned. I did ,in my own mind discount the chances of an acquittal but was very taken aback by the unanimity of the guilty verdict. But then I didn't pay as much attention to the trial as those 12 jurors or the judge. Was Trump's error to think he could or should just subsume this trial into his electioneering? It was probably within reach to get a hung jury if he had taken it more seriously and respectfully(and let his lawyers do their job) He could have spun a hung jury as (a) a finding of innocence ,(b) even in New York they couldn't find him guilty and (c) they had to invent a new type of crime to try and fail to take him down("they think I am Al Capone -must have been listening to DeNiro"-insert new nickname for him and try out his Italian mobster accent) .

The sunk cost fallacy?

When I was in Paris ,aged 15 my host family took me out for the day to look at the Arc de Triomphe. As we looked at Napoleon's different victorious battles and dates that were inscribed on the monument I asked out loud and in complete naiveté "Where is Waterloo?" To complete silence . I was completely unembarassed .I think I was put right when we got home. Later I amused my friends by describing bad things as "terrible" when that actually means "really good"( a mistake categorised as a "false friend") Ps "espèce de con " or "espèce de conard" is a fine insult and "Le Canard enchainé" was the main satirical weekly magazine back then.

1s it considered at all plausible that two ( more?) universes could be created from a shared event? Or is that just "intellectual incontinence"

I wonder ,does the Planck unit of time also dilate along with spacetime curvature(under extreme conditions, of course)?

I didn't know there was absolute time at any scale. For a t=0 in the context of the earliest part of the universe what reference frame is chosen for t to apply to? Any frame that is not actually specified as "the beginning"?(and as close as possible to it for "simplicity's" sake?)

Would that be into multiverse theories? I think there are ideas(or one that I have heard of) about looking for physical evidence for them. As for behaving differently might it increase the himan self satisfaction quotient if we developed a model that went back to the origin and out the other side?

I didn't realize that t+10{-43} secs was really as far as the model went. What happens if we plug t-10{-43}secs into the equations? Do we come out the "other side"? Is the "dead end" in the equations because of quantum effects?

How many fields are there supposed to be at 10^{-43}secs. Are the 10^90 particles all from the one field? If all the particles are identicle ,what is exciting the field? (doubtless very naive and wrong headed questions)

Do we have any idea of what was in that volume? Was whatever it was differentiated in some sense or was it simply composed of densities of the same thing? Is it believed it was a closed system? Does the small volume as compared to the volume that we see now mean it was "actually" small-or does it just indicate that it was highly ordered and the volume is only of any consideration in relation to what we see now? Are the indications that the volume at T+10^-43secs was bigger that the volume as one tties to model further back in time?

Is it plausible to view the BB (if we are all talking about the same thing**) as an "implosion"? Intuitively (to me) that MIGHT better help me visualize a process where all subsequent points pointed everywhere and anywhere when looking for the "source"? Like someone at the centre of a bicycle wheel looking towards the perimeter(that perimeter having been at one point -or as good as -initially).. **Maybe I am thinking of an event before the BIg Bang?...

😟

I think you forgot the link to the video....?

Get in touch with these guys and suggest they add a few blind portals around the globe? https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2024/05/09/portal-dublin-new-york/73633531007/ "Two massive circular livestream video "portals" now connect New York City and Dublin, Ireland – all part of an artist's plan to bring the world closer togetherQ Maybe with the odd random side effect generated by the passers by? (as in "we are all a part of the nothingness")

Could we not just make the world a little bigger and carry on as normal? Dig a hole into the centre of the earth and let off a nuclear bomb ( or an anti gravity device ?) so as to increase the radius of the planet to a suitable degree. The surface would expand and there would be endless opportunities for new resource exploitation and enough lebensraum for all. Those who don't like the idea could just sign up with Elon Musk.

"The Jewish Cemetery at Newport " By Henry Wadsworth Longfellow(1852) https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44634/the-jewish-cemetery-at-newport https://www.mainememory.net/sitebuilder/site/3327/page/5254/display?use_mmn=1

Was everything expanding like there was no tomorrow until the Higgs Field " condensed" out of whatever there was before it? And that put a brake on things? Is that when spacetime curvature began ? Was the Higgs Field the last Field to form?

A friend of mine was scammed by someone pretending to be from Revolut. First they sent her a text pretending to be from her electricity company with a link (that she foolishly followed) to a fake website and how she might avoid being disconnected by updating her account. They followed this up with a call from a man claiming to be from the online Bank Revolut affecting concern that there had been activity on her account and offering his help to recover the cash from the apparent scammers. He got her to authorize payments in the supposed aim of recovering the supposed money that had been withdrawn. Half way through she started to wonder "who is real here?" She lost some and saved some. A lot of money,people

If we had a snail's pace (with no extra acceleration or deceleration) the difference in the clocks would be similar or identical but ,as an example it could be a billion years as against a billion and one years , depending on a great distance and a slow speed.Make sense? It only stands out as remarkable when the speeds are relativistic.

I was going to argue my point further but I now see that the ship could also be traveling at a snail's pace over a longer time and we would get the same time dilated result. Correct? What difference ,I now wonder if any would it make if the ship was to add acceleration to its velocity? Would that increase the time dilation? I mean its average velocity was the same but it kept accelerating and decelerating linearly all the time.. Would it just make the velocity picture more detailed(the ship travels further)?

Sorry ,didn't see your post. Well I had been thinking about the twins but I was interested generally in an accelersted system ,biological or mechanical. I was thinking how ,in a rocket that was accelerating a beam of light would ,to a person on board to bend. And so it seemed to me that ,since all(I think) interactions between objects inside the rocket would depend upon the em forces then those forces would similarly be bent. So I was wondering if the distortion of the em field inside the accelerating rocket might be responsible for time slowing as compared to the unaccelerated frame of reference of the stay at home twin (not on Earth but somewhere really unaccelerated like ,as per your example in the ISS as a close approximation) If light is curved in an accelerated frame would that have a bearing on the way that objects inside that accelerated frame interact with each other? If they interact less with each other that would mean that they (ie the system as a whole)age less,mightn't it? Am I wrong to see a connection between em radiation and the forces that cause interactions between objects(it would hardly be the first time I have been wrong in our discussions!)

I was interested in a possible mechanism whereby this could be observed(or , rather modeled in real time.) An observer in the rest frame against which the acceleration takes place only interacts when the accelerated body and it "share the same event" or perhaps is close enough for a signal to be sent and returned. And any observer in the accelerated frame will see the time involved in any interactions as the proverbial "one second per second". What about my musing in the OP that the interactions in any system under acceleration will(unobservably) be altered in regards to the time between them because the em radiation involved in interactions (I think) travels in a curved path and is affected by blue /red shift? I think I am trying to see what actually happens(or should happen) without it being possible to verify by real time measurements. When the twins separate ,they could do so from a nonaccelerating point in space and time. Have I replied appropriately to your post?