geordief

What if our instrumentation was only equipped to see things on a (say) solar system level would that make any difference to our appreciation of physical conditions on (say) the Earth? If our level of distinguishing processes in systems directly came to a stop at a level around that of the size of ,say the solar system would there be any similarities at all to the way we appreciate quantum effects ? (some similarities but more differences,perhaps?)

Not my quote btw. Your cut and paste went awry.**That was Markus' . **or whatever happened

A representation of the likelihood of a physical event (of an electromagnetic character) taking place?

I understand it has been said that light does not require a medium to propagate . However I have also come across the idea that it propagates as a disturbance in the em field. Are these two interpretations complimentary or is there any contradiction between them ?(apart from possibly semantic) Can the em field be condsdered a medium of any kind or is it simply an ordered set of measurements?

Could the paper be manufactured at the same time the lines were drawn (made to measure ) The paper would be judged "straight" in the same way the lines were "straight" Maybe manufacturing "straight" paper is just as important as making drawings...... Why is this not a relativistic effect if we are talking about gravity or curved spacetime?

Would (large) drawings on Earth not use lines very close to the lines we see on a map of the globe whilst parallel lines drawn in Space would only meet at greatly increased distances?

I see. There is zero difference between drawings made in zero g environments and drawings made on the Earth for example,no matter how large the drawings?

Well suppose we made the graph paper big enough** would the students' ("students" for realistic effect:it could be machines) efforts be distinguishable according to the different levels of the artificial gravity "well" they were situated in? How would the students (or machines) draw their gridlines according to what they perceived as Euclidean principles (without using readymade rulers?) Draw two points ,join the dots and extend the line in the same direction? Then construct perpendiculars and you have the graph paper.... Then compare results from different levels ...... would there be any perceptible difference in the "straight lines" from one drawing to another? **I mean size would be unlimited ,especially if the "students" are replaced with drawing machines.

Suppose one creates artificial gravity in a rotating space craft, is it possible to show that geometry aboard the craft has been curved? For instance if there were different decks representing different gravity levels and students (on different decks) were to be doing regular (Euclidean) geometry lessons on graph paper with gridlines that they had made themselves, would the otherwise identical drawings appear the same when they were compared side by side at a later date? Would it be possible to say ,by looking at the drawings on which deck the drawings had been made? Or would perhaps the drawings need to be animated for this to be possible?

See it now? https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/115411-confused-about-antisemitism-in-the-labour-party/?do=findComment&comment=1065494 I don't argue that....

All wars have grey areas when it comes to legitimacy and I can't say which side was in the right in 67 but I doubt all the right or wrong was on one side.(I remember well Nasser saying that he would drive Israel into the sea before that war) The establishment of Israel was an internationally recognised legal agreement and has to be honoured.

So your position is that the establishment of Israel was illegal. I disagree. If it was sanctioned by the UN ,it was legal. We have to move forwards not backwards I imagine there is zero likelihood of revisiting 1945 .

If the war that Israel fought against its neighbours (was it 67 or was there also one earlier?) was legitimate then it is also arguably legitimate and prudent for it to keep territory gained such as the Golan Heights and possibly other strategic areas. I agree that the settlements are indefensible. But Israel has a right to defend itself (ie a right to exist ) in the same way as any other nation unless one is going to revisit the settlement after the war (which I assume had the rubber stamp of the UN at the time ) Yes it was (see the earlier post). You are right but the spoils of war is a grey area(after the war parts of Germany that were lost had a referendum to see if they wished to remain French or revert to Germany ,as they did)

Why can Israel's right to exist be referred to as "so called" ?

As I understand it Corbyn's justification is that he is attempting to be avaIlable to both sides in a conflict that needs a political solution. In the same way as Blair et al negotiated with the IRA. Not sure how successful he is in this aim. There is no doubt Hamas got a democratic mandate ,although whether the elections could have been called fair..is extremely dubious

Feel the love......but not too close.

Did you read my post just now? Edit: missed the sarcasm

How to react to petty trifles when forced to do so against one's inclination? In my view that was a potentially very dangerous situation and I have been in danger on the road at times also. Once,in Texas **me and my girlfriend ,when hitch hiking were picked up separately by two trucks . I ,in my lift was warned that my driver had a gun . Nothing happened to my girlfriend (and we made a few miles to El Paso) but that was the last we tried hitching in Texas. In Phi's place I would have done anything to avoid contact with the driver behind (would not have waved to him) , would not have stopped the car under any circumstances and would have taken his number (not obviously) in case he was likely to subject anyone else to his behaviour. Regarding coffee drinking ,it is a good idea . Better to drive in comfort than thirsty so long as done reasonably. It is mobile phone users that infuriate me and I fantasize about recording them doing this with a dash cam ...... **40 years ago

Apparently "Respect" was an Otis Redding song. He said she "stole" it when he heard it on the radio

Is it of any consequence that energy is relative when talking of the energy of the vacuum?

I think there are theories where information is treated as "bits" rather than as aggregates(and interpreted by the mind) .Sadly I am not familiar with them

Just on that point (before looking at your post in more detail) it may refer back to why I thought this (not so much trying to justify it:perhaps I may be able to do that,I don't know yet) btw I think there may be a difference between "infinite for practical purposes" and actually infinite which might really occur if the values of permeability/permittivity were zero.( which would imply in my mind a different kind of vacuum that that which has been observed)

So speculative I should have known. Still quantum fluctuations are not speculative and so we have to start connecting the dots somewhere.

Have I understood this correctly? Is it really proposed that this may have happened with with a symmetric or asymmetric balance of negative and positive "energy? Any evidence or proposed experiments along those lines? Quantum fluctuations don't normally "run away with themselves do They?

I have often wondered whether c might be another way of seeing a speed as infinite. but I think I have decided in my own mind against that (1) for the reason I gave above but also (2) because I am supposing that the process of transfer of information and the process of cause and effect are identical. I feel that there is nothing to distinguish information carriers from any other form of matter. So in the same way that information cannot be everywhere at the same time , the information carriers (along with any form of matter) must travel at a finite speed. Why this should be the c that has been measured I do not know.... Well ,that is how I have reasoned this out over the past period of months or years and I accept it may be(badly) flawed and that I may have to fill it a few (or many ) gaps to find an explanation that I will be comfortable with.