MigL

That episode wasn't about overpopulation, Waitforufo. It was about war. The two planets at war had so 'sanitized' war ( computer simulated attacks and computer generated casualty list who must report to disintegration chambers ) that there was no incentive to stop and the war had lasted 800 yrs. Roddenberry's message was that war SHOULD be terrible and brutal. That would make it something to be considered only as a last resort. ( sorry for going OT, but I guess I'm a Trekkie )

If I'm being too personal, Jimmy, just tell me so. But were you religious before the tragic events happened in your life ? I was raised R. C. but decided I have no need for it . You, on the other hand, may have been looking for answers, the 'why' if you will, of the tragedy which put your life in turmoil. We don't have answers for such tragedies, and I believe most of us here would be searching for some spiritual comfort if something similar happened in our lives. Even as people get sick or older, and become concerned with death, they often seek spiritual comfort. I don't think it's my place ( or anyone else's ) to deny people in need, that comfort. Even if some might call it a 'crutch'. As to your point concerning the effect of religion ( any kind ) in helping to establish an ordered society... We are basically animals. Natural instincts tell us to take advantage of those with less power than us. We see it in a pride of lions with a dominant male. We see the wildebeest sacrifice the young, old and sick/weak to the lion so that the others may survive. But religion has always taught us to take care of our fellow human beings, and the message was strong enough to overcome our natural instincts. So I would agree, it has helped to shape our civilization. A few of us, however, are still ruled by those base instincts, and will take advantage of our fellow humans. Structured groups, like governments, religions, cults, etc. make this easy for unscrupulous people, and the structured group ( religion ) gets tarnished as a result. Most of these guys trying to 'sway' you will argue that its not Islam's fault that a few idiots are misinterpreting a religion of peace to spread terror through the Middle East and the world ( and they'd be right ), but in the same breath, will tell you that the fault of Christianity lies in the religion, not the unscrupulous people who use it to their own ends. But that's OK, I still like them.

You can hit your thumb with a hammer. We know our thumbs are real. And we can see the atoms that make up our thumb. One could make the case that we can even 'see' the electron orbitals of those atoms, and so, they must be real. According to our best model they are manifestations of quantum fields. But ( and I think Swansont has brought this up in a thread a few yrs back ) there are many quantum fields which have associated quantum particles. Do particles like phonons, inflatons, etc. actually exist ? will we ever be able to see them ? Or are they just mathematical constructs which make calculations easier ? As has been mentioned already; it all depends on your subjective definition of 'reality'. Can there evenbe an objective definition ?

Any field that can be quantized will have an associated particle, Mike. That does not mean that the field is composed of those particles, nor does it need to 'hang' from them. The facts still remain, that anything which could be considered an aether, a medium for the propagation of EM and gravitational waves, will need to have some pretty fantastical properties. Such properties will make it undetectable. The current best theory we have, GR, has no need for this medium or aether; it has been well tested and its limits explored for the last century. That makes the aether un-needed. When you combine the two, undetectable and un-needed, most people stop looking. You haven't got a case of OCD, have you Mike ?

If your medium ( new aether ) is composed of granular atomic or neutrino sized particles, how do adjacent particles interact ? Is there a field or wave that allows for this interaction ? And if so, what is the medium for this interaction? Since the adjacent particles of this granular aether have some separation, according to your thinking, another medium is needed between them to allow for this interaction. Your model is just digging a deeper hole.

Time dilation or 'contraction' is only WRT another clock. It is not, nor can it be, observed on a single clock.

As to your last assertion that light comes to 'rest' at the singularity of a Black Hole... Light, by definition cannot come to rest as it is massless. However it does have momentum, and as a result neither light ( photons ) or any other quantum particle can come to rest at a singularity. It would then have a clearly defined position in space-time, and according to the HUP, its momentum ( and total energy ) could be any value, from zero to infinite. That is one reason I am skeptical of singularities.

Do you maybe mean polarization. Such as an EM wave being polarized in two directions perpendicular to its direction of travel, but that third polarization direction being forbidden ?

Sorry, I made a bad joke.

Say you are looking at a distant object that is moving relativistically with respect to your frame. All the properties of that object that you can measure from your frame, will affect you. Any that you cannot measure from your frame, have no effect on you whatsoever, and might as well not even exist. If that object is moving towards you and shining a visible light in your direction, that blue shifted light WILL burn you, even if it's only visible light in its rest frame. If that object is moving away from you, its light will be red shifted and you may not even be able to detect it, even if its shining as bright as the Sun in its rest frame. Maybe you have a different understanding of 'reality', but, what affects you ( i.e. what you measure ) is what is 'real'. Not what you think may be there !

Was there a bad pun in there ?

Unlike some others I don't think your beliefs make you stupid or intelligent. They are after all subjective BELIEFS, and have a foundation in your life experiences and circumstances. This is however, a science forum. And we discuss things that can be backed up by observation, experiment and at least some math. Beliefs by definition, cannot. So there really isn't anything to discuss then, is there ? Also, some people on this forum are displaying their own ignorance and intolerance by claiming higher intelligence than you. And they should know better. Here we argue with facts and math, not with name calling.

Mike, the very theory which predicts and forms the basis for gravitational waves has not needed an aether or medium for the past century. I find it rich that you can now claim that the gravitational waves are proof of an aether or medium. If it wasn't for mediumless relativity, no-one would have even been looking for gravitational waves. Its been 30 pages now and I bet Moontanman regrets the OP. Its getting tiresome, especially since you're not presenting supporting facts or mechanisms. Wishing and hoping don't count for much

Well, apparently a lot of high ranking Republicans are not only withholding their support for D. Trump, But are actually backing H. Clinton. That may end up being a successful policy. Especially if she can work with both sides when ( or if ) she's elected.

The OP wasn't asking if its a choice or predetermined. It may be 'fashionable' but I don't think anyone would choose to put themselves through the hell that most gay people have to endure. The OP asked whether it was genetically determined. Genetics aren't the only variable. Hormone changes while in the womb probably have as much to do with who we end up being. And upbringing, along with life experiences certainly shape who we are and what we think. All these and possibly other factors, to varying degrees. When it comes to human behavior, things are seldom simple.

Sooooo... All observations/measurements are valid/real in the frame they're made in. All information, i.e. anything from the cow that can affect you ( the observer in your own particular frame ), is what is changing. The cow itself, in its local frame is not. But you will never experience THAT cow unless you join it in its local frame.

And again you're missing the big picture... The 'cow' is the cow , locally; that doesn't change. But that information has to get to the 300 different observers in their various frames. That information transfer is subject to the various constraints of relativity, such as finite SoL, invariant SoL, etc. So whereas previously you would have had 300 different observations/measurements of the cow's color, and the world would have made no sense, with relativity we know how and why we have the 300 different observations. And the world makes sense again.

Great explanation as always Markus. I hope we all learned a lesson... Never bring a cow to an argument !

Is the cow 'really' blue ? Don't be silly. Cows don't have a color ! What you're seeing is the frequency/wavelength of the light reaching you from the cow. And yes in one case the light is REALLY blue, in the other the light is REALLY green. The cow itself doesn't change, but the 'signal' from the cow ( the light ) does change in accordance with relativity. Relativity hasn't made the notion of reality redundant. As a matter of fact. it make it a valid notion again. The differing observations dependent, on the observer's frame, only make sense if you consider the space-time and the interval ( as Marcus has previously explained ). If you take the non-relativistic approach and consider just space or just time independently, you end up extremely confused, Michel, as there appears to be no 'reality'.

I think just about everyone is asking themselves those questions. Your 'relevance' is slipping away fairly quickly.

Michel's problem is his rather simplistic approach to defining speed and acceleration, and he has the same problem in the other thread about the consistency of the SOL. He is using rulers and clocks as anyone would, but doesn't recognize the ( not so subtle ) fact that speed is calculated from the translational motion across a 'fixed' ruler, while in the case of expansion, there is no translation across a ruler, the ruler is not fixed, it is variable and actually expands. This is not a speed. You could get a similar effect by modifying the clock. Consider two observers watching a well defined event ( a distant rocket moving across a star ) occurring at near c speeds. One observer is in nearly flat space-time and the second is in a deep gravitational well. The second observer will see the 'clock', signals from the event, blue-shifted. The units of the clock he is using to measure the speed have shrunk, and so he will see 'apparent' superluminal speeds during the rocket's transit. Is this an actual speed ? Of course not. It fails to take into account the modified clock or signal. So it doesn't matter that whole clusters of galaxies have 'moved' farther away. The separation between us and them has grown larger. The 'ruler' has changed and grown larger. The clusters have not moved across a fixed ruler. It is NOT a speed or velocity. And any change in the rate of expansion cannot be considered an acceleration of the clusters of galaxies.

Using your logic, I have a 1/2 probability of winning the lottery. Either I win, or I lose. Never mind the fact that there's millions of ways for me to lose , and only one way to win !

Just to be clear... Pretty girls have made us all do unreasonable things at one time or another.

You have the wrong idea about causality. No relationship need be involved. And expansion is still NOT a speed, information transfer or causal connection.

I don't get annoyed CharonY. I spent a lot of time ( almost every weekend ) in bars and clubs in the western New York area in the 80s and 90s. Our bars closed at 1am, theirs at 3 or 4am, and before 9/11, all you needed was proof of Canadian citizenship to cross the border. You're right,, we are very much alike. In my home town in Italy, that I left in 1968, whether Canadian or American, all are called 'Americano'.