geordief

Well it seems (perhaps naively) to mean that the brain does produce secondary em radiation of some kind as the electric charges move along its neural pathways ** even though these are chemical processes. Maybe this radiation (another word for "light"?) is unprocessed and escapes as inconsequential "waste". and of no bearing on how the brain sees (processes light) Unless the speed of movement of the charges is too low to produce any em radiation at all ? ** hope I am not parroting medical jargon

Feels like scratching an itch but does this movement of charges in the brain also produce em radiation of any kind? Do (moving) electic fields exit without em radiation? (am I OT now?)

Is there a distinction between visible and detected ? If light is not detected then it seems ("previously") invisible but with the right apparatus it can be detected at any point of our choosing and so then it becomes "visible". The retina is just one physical point amongst any** where the light can be detected (ie "seen")? I am not clear as to what happens to the signal between the time it meets the retina and the time it is finally processed by the brain. Does it remain "em based" all this time . Are all mental processes fundamentally em processes? ** any point between the emitting source and an observer ps is it just me or is this an incredibly slippery subject?

Trump is claiming that the retweeting of the far right video was "not a big story" in USA "http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42829555" Any truth to that? Shame on the US media if it was not considered important (although I can see exasperation levels could be construed as signal noise) Curious as to how it came out that Trump seemingly tried to fire Mueller only for his own counsel to threaten to quit . That was not privileged information of some kind? Counsel has not broken some code? A leak from within the FBI?

Is this a nice illustrative picture? If the man is first set to spin (by external force ) on a N/S axis ,followed by the E/W axis and then the axis perpendicular to the screen (if the man is straightened up at the outset to be looking directly out at the viewer) do we have 3 simultaneous rotations? Do the 3 rotational effects add linearly? Can they be described as one overall rotation or are they separate?

Because they (presumably ) can't be measured does that mean they don't exist? Would quantum effects come into play when the conditions were small enough?

But gravity waves are an integral part of the gravity effect,aren't they? .The gravity field we currently experience was perhaps "built up" from the earliest period we have knowledge of by tiny increments of changes due gravity waves (which themselves could not come into existence without a pre-existent local(?)gravity field..

If all regions were graded according to smell and none were identical would that identify the region most efficiently? Getting there might not be so efficient.

Would it not no longer be an absolute vacuum only at the point the photon was actually detected? Photons don't have a path ,do they? Do vacuums also exist in the empty spaces within atoms ?

Are there any attempts along those lines? "Quantum Gravity "? (I assume)

Including the(or a?) numerical value? (those equations themselves are faulty in that they don't account fully for the relative motion between the electric charge and the magnetic charge** I think I have learned) ** if there is a magnetic "charge" as such

I understand c can be seen as a conversion factor between the spatial dimension and time.Is this value of c purely an observed quantity or is there/could there be any (possible) a priori reason that it should be as it is (or otherwise)? If it is purely observed do we just "shoehorn" everything else around it?

In science I think the answer may simply be a region of space where nothing is measured (perhaps I am wrong and it is not simple at all) Are there any other ways of defining a vacuum ? I recall that topological types boil down to how many "holes" there are in the overall shape. Might these "holes" have any bearing on what a vacuum is?

Thanks.

" Its a result of interparticle field interactions" perhaps.Would that be QM terminology ? Might this part of the post indicate that both GR and QM have things to say on time dilation and are in agreement?

I was a bit surprised to come across what felt (perhaps naively) as QM terminology used in the same sentence ( and context?) as GR references in this recent post. (thread now closed). http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/112754-how-gravity-works/?do=findComment&comment=1033487 I know that Quantum Gravity is a work in progress (which I have no understanding of) and so I assumed that GR and QM were worlds apart in terms of compatibility. So apparently they do "talk to one another" in some areas.Are there any areas that would be of particular interest to a layman? Concepts perhaps that both theories agree on?

Seems to me if you find that hard to accept you will find it impossible to accept anything more involved. "Even" Newton was comfortable with that surely. Relativity predated GR by many centuries as far as I know.

Would you be defining "state of motion" and "state of rest" as opposites or does/can a (local) "state of rest " describe a non-acceleration? Can the distinction really be more fundamentally along the inertial and non-inertial lines ?( I have been wondering that for a long time) Hope I am not too vague.

When is it flat ? Is it when two observers are at mutual rest or is it when there is no presence of mass-energy ? Is flat spactime an idealization (a limit as curvature tends to zero for the two above reasons) and is curvature the "default" description? Is the universal speed limit "responsible" for spacetime curvature or are they separate phenomena? Do we need to specify "spacetime" curvature or does "curvature" or can we refer to it simply as "curvature" ?

covfefe(had to copy and paste) All heil the covfefe.....

Can the Mobius strip be curved like the surface of the sphere? Does it have to be stationary? Motion seems to be built into the description as after one (or two ?) revolutions you return to the "same side" (isn't that it?)

The huge physical demands of going straight to or extremely quickly to .9c seem largely unrelated to the fairly minor changes in overall time discrepancies and seems to bear out what I have heard being said that acceleration per se is not a cause of time dilation -relative motion is. That is my gut reaction

But a hypersurface is as I described? If they are , are they solely mathematical curiosities or are there practical applications? (hypersurfaces ,;not surfaces that is)

I have been a little confused by this recently When are surfaces 2D and when they higher dimensional? I understand hypersurfaces can be of any number of dimensions so long as they have one less dimension than the space they are embedded in. But are there also 2D surfaces embedded in these higher dimensional spaces? And how does this apply to 3D+1 space-time?

Why don't you get Freeview on satellite? It is free . All you need is a dish and any satellite receiver . I get BBC,Red button ,ITV, Ch4 24hr NEW etc etc I don't give a Rhesus' about 4K ....