MigL

Not really. Science works the same for everyone. We deal with facts and observations, which are objective; not opinion, which is subjective.

Both sounded more Presidential tonight. Biden seemed more unflustered and coherent. Trump interrupted much less. The fact that Trump presented disinformation as facts isn't realized by most of his supporters. When 3000 people were killed in the WTC attacks, America waged several wars on terror, at a cost to the economy of billions of dollars per year. Yet Trump is obsessed with not doing any harm to the economy ( and its recovery ) even though 220 000 people have died from Covid-19. So far !

Why is everyone always picking on cats ? Really. My cats want to know. Or is this a comment on the membership, and the quality of discussion here ?

It's kind of like you don't realize there is no paradox, and further, it has nothing to do with length contraction in inertial frames. No, YOU haven't. Your attitude and 'far removed from science' ideas have. None of us like talking to a brick wall; take other's comments under consideration, instead of jumping topics all over the place.

No. What he is attempting to explain, at that point, is that anything with mass-energy ( and momentum ) curves space-time, just like the curved grid lines around a ball with mass in the 2 dimensional representation. Since the electron has very little mass-energy, the curvature is very small and localized, but the electron has a probabilistic nature and cannot be localized. The curvature, then, has to be probabilistic also. IOW, just as the electron has varying probabilities of being in different places, so should its gravity, or space-time curvature. GR, however is a classical deterministic theory. The space-time curvature is where the event ( electron ) is in space-time. QM and GR are based on differing paradigms, and GR, as it stands, cannot handle the indeterminateness of the electron's state ( or position, momentum, energy, or even time ) prior to wave function collapse. Google SuperString theory or Loop Quantum Gravity.

If you don't know, maybe you shouldn't be using the word ... Nothing of macroscopic size is truly random, especially not the larger universe. They are all causal. ( yes even lottery numbers )

Oh, now I get it ... Kitchen sinks, haircuts, Range Rovers and walnuts, IE "volume"--> space Garbage in --> garbage out. In the years I've been a member never have I wanted to start dishing out down-votes more than now.

Yup... absolutely... 😉 Do you guys even know what the measurement problem, as it relates to physics, is ? It relates to wave function collapse … https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem What exactly does that have to do with relativistic length contraction ? Stop babbling incoherent, and off topic nonsense.

When applying length contraction, we use relative speed between the 'moving' object and the one doing the measuring ( of speed and length, from a 'rest' frame ). If there is no other object in the universe, what do you measure speed relative to ??? Why don't you and CuriousOne just PM each other this nonsense, instead of polluting the forum with misinformation ?

The central 'hub' of our galaxy lies in the direction of the constellation Sagittarius. Stars and nebulae are so dense in that direction that anything beyond it is effectively obscured. ( in some EM wavelengths much more than others ) The galaxy is, of course, rotating with a period of approx. 200 000 years, so the field of view is slowly, but constantly, changing.

What if you are wearing VR glasses and can't see the mouse, only the pointer ? ( don't know where this discussion is going, it's more interesting than the OP, but I have a feeling we'll be told to get back on track soon )

Don't know about the rest of your life pursuits, but you are more than adequate in the sciences.

Pick up your mouse, Studiot, and move it around in the air. The pointer on your screen stays put. It is obviously not moving relative to 'empty' space. However, if you place it on a surface which reflects its LED light ( or turns its ball/wheels, depending on age ) it can gauge movement relative to that surface. No training involved. How can you tell if length is contracted in 'empty' space ? Is the concept even valid for an object in an otherwise empty universe ?

Quantum particles act like particles in experiments set up to detect particle behavior. And act like waves in experiments set up to detect wave behavior. What other reality ?

Welcome Rinakra. Looking forward to learning a few things from you.

Just like N Tesla … You do realize he was well educated, had an eidetic memory, and was a polyglot who spoke 8 languages. Chances are he was probably bat-shit crazy in his later years. ( death rays, motors running on cosmic rays, and opposition to atomic theory and Einsteinian relativity ) Are you anything like that ?

What ? No-one has read C Stephenson's 'Leiningen Versus The Ants' ?

You certainly don't speak any science. If x is a function of time, it is usually written as x(t). But do you understand the concept of a mathematical model describing a physical reality ? And limits of applicability ( usually determined by boundary conditions where the function goes to zero or diverges to infinity ) ? I fail to understand what energy conservation has to do with any of this. ( am I just wasting energy and time replying to this nonsense ? ) Science and math are consistent. As are you, with your misunderstanding.

Not sure, but I think it's 'jump to non-sensical conclusions when you don't even understand the concepts involved in your question' ? CuriousOne does seem to do it a lot !

What's wrong with the unit you used ? The second. Is this heading in the same irrational and nonsensical direction as your thread on the 3rd dimension ? None of us have time for that.

Make an attempt to live beyond your fingertips and eyes; not everything has to be seen/touched and be physical. Usually it means 'per second, per second', but it could have other meanings. Does velocity squared have a physical representation ? The root of -1, i, appears in many equations; what exactly does it represent physically ? Would you be happier if we gave acceleration a new unit. say a ( where a=m/s^2 ), such that there is no squaring of the time unit ?

CCC cycles the universe through Black Holes ( to restore uniformity ). IOW, if not through the near singularity of the Big Bang, then through the near singularities of many Black Holes. ( conformal scaling and mass loss/decay of fundamental particles aside ) From your link ... "The idea is that the universe cycles from one aeon to the next, each time starting out infinitely small and ultra-smooth before expanding and generating clumps of matter. That matter eventually gets sucked up by supermassive black holes, which over the very long term disappear by continuously emitting Hawking radiation. This process restores uniformity and sets the stage for the next Big Bang." Our theory of Black Holes, GR, doesn't conserve information. Quantum theory demands that information is conserved, but is nearly useless in accounting for Black Holes. ( this is an active area of research, and R Penrose is just proposing an idea; looking for any non-conforming 'rings/spots' in the CMB to further his case ) So is there a possibility ? Of course; science is never 100% sure. There is also the possibility that God did it, but we have no evidence for that either.

I guess it depends what you are looking for. Are you looking for fresh insights into solving a problem, or the repurposing of a well-tested solution to varying problems ? Both could be signs of intelligence. Or neither.

Don't be so worried 'Leiningen'. At least your hearing is good; us old folks wouldn't hear until too late and we'd have the 'meat stripped from our bones' by the little terrors.

The relic radiation that we detect as the CMB is the oldest electromagnetic radiation we can ever detect as it arises from the epoch of recombination. Prior to this all was plasma, and electrons couldn't stick to ions; IOW, there were no atoms. But life, consisting of atoms, and molecules, in various combinations ( some which we haven't even begun to imagine ) does exist, therefore it must have arisen. As Mr. Spock used to say "Once you eliminate the impossible …" ( or was that Sherlock Holmes ? )