MigL

No, biology cannot. But the gun the American is carrying can. They would have known you weren't Canadian as soon as you answered, unless your answer was "Yes. I'm sorry."

Heeey! I happen to like Merlot. Very drinkable wth a plate of pasta for a Sunday afternoon lunch with the family.

Is that because of quantity, or quality? I tend to like full bodied reds, but ones aged in oak barrels, like Cab Sauv, tend to give me headaches, if I drink more than half a bottle. I find Amarone, made from partially dried Valpolicella grapes, to be good, without the headaches when I over indulge.

This is more to do with the 'instability' that DrmDoc mentioned, rather than strictly racism. The biggest motivator seems to be fear. Someone like INow, or Ken, are very worried about climate change and global warming. It will not cause the extinction of the human race, but it has the potential to massively change how we live our lives. Others, like a redneck MAGA supporters, are worried about immigration, because immigrants will take the manual labor jobs and they'll have to re-train or be unemployed. Either way, it is a massive change to how they live their lives. fear of change seems to be the common denominator.

I don't think group size matters and there is no 'critical mass'. We are hardwired to perceive differences as possible threats; most animals, like us, do so. Far better to recognize that this is a part of our nature, and we can like, or dislike, whatever, or whoever, we choose. ( we can even choose to change our likes and dislikes, as most are fairly fluid ) It is acting on those likes and dislikes that needs to be controlled by good laws. For example, I might like cocaine, and that is fine, but I cannot use or buy according to laws. Similarly, I might not like black people, and that should be fine too, but I cannot discriminate against them when renting an apartment; and we probably need better laws against that sort of thing.

Spoken like a person who did not see the value of investing time and effort to learn some Physics. Which then brings us to your second question ...

Usually the cost. Drink what you like. I can buy a nice bottle of Argentinian, Chilean, Spanish, French, Italian or South African wine for as cheap as Can$ 10-12 per 750 ml bottle. Yet a bottle produced in the Niagara Region ( 5 Km away )will cost me Can$ 16-18 per 750 ml bottle. And is nowhere near as good.

8 / 8 And it's Domesday book. A little history knowledge goes a long way.

I think ... I believe .... I remember when science used to start off with "I observe ...".

That isn't logical. At some point in the past there was no 'before', nor a 'next'.

I see ... You're making salad.

That statement was for clarification. My previous post indicated that the deBroglie wavelength is inversely proportional to the particle's momentum. IOW, observer dependent.

Might be COVID induced fever making him delusional ...

Pliz answer the question I asked ...

The 'rest' frame of the particle is the one where the particle is at rest.

OK Then can you explain who, or what, was conscious 13.8 Billion years ago, before atoms were able to form ?

That deBroglie relation is observer dependent. The velocity, as well as the wavelength, change depending on the relative velocity of the observer. Alternatively, the 'rest' wavelength is measured in the particle's rest frame, which, unlike photons, can be at rest. Relativity is another thing you cannot simply wish away.

How would we know what the properties of space-time actually are ? Is it flat, curved or inside-out ? Remember, I'm in the camp that claims Physics does not tell us what 'reality is, only how it behaves ( see Physics and 'Reality' thread ). All we can say for sure, is that the mathematical model, including geometric curvature, makes extremely accurate predictions about gravity, and how test masses behave when affected by it. Anyone who claims to know more about the actual 'reality' is simply confused and deluding themselves.

Hamiltonian formulation is essentially an energy equation. ( except when co-ordinates are time dependent ) And sure enough, energy is also frame dependent. Seems you just can't get away from this frame dependency thing, Martillo.

When people, or Physicists, speak of 'geometry' or 'fabric', are they referring to the model or the actual space-time ? All we know is that a model, incorporating 'geometry', or curvature if you will, manages to very accurately predict what happens with test masses in actual space-time. We have no idea whether the 'reality' of actual space-time, or its 'fabric', incorporates such curvature. But the mathematical model, which is GR, does utilize geometry, also mathematical, to make its extremely accurate predictions. Are you maybe mistaking the model for any undelying rality, Lorentz Jr. ( which we may possibly never know ) ?

A lot of Physics has happened in the last 103 years. A Einstein was smart but even he could not predict the future. A field is defined by numerical values, and directions, at each point in space. That is exactly what geometry does at every point in space-time. Why do you think 'geometry' does not define a field ?

Quite a few things relating to your diagram are non-sensical. The bottom shows "emptyness', which has never existed, nor will it ever. Even at Planck scales there are quantum fluctuations and virtual particles; this would have been a feature of the quantum foam before the hot dense state of the Big Bang. Further up you have 'dark photon' in the same box as primordial Higgs field and Photon. The 'dark' descriptor is used when we don't know the 'make-up of gravitationally interacting matter that affects galactic rotation, or an energy that provides an accelerating impetus to expansion, but if we know it's a photon, surely it isn't 'dark'. Along the right hand side you have some gibberish concerning 'consciousness hue'. Now, hue is defined as the wavelength at which energy output is greatest for a given color. How that is maximized at the Big Bang, and decreasing ver since,is beyond my understanding, unless your translator eturns 'consciousness hue' when it should be returning order ( relating to entropy ); I doubt very much there was any consciousness in our universe at the time the Big Bang started. Please try again ( to make sense ).

Wow. Go to work for a coupl of days and this thread has moved on quite a bit; and I hadn't even considered fictitious forces, Joigus. Point I was trying to make Martillo, is that you can't have a force in one frame, and not in another, and call that force 'real', as all frames are equally valid. And to be clear, both Newtonian and GR gravity are field theories, TheVat. If you consider the proper definition of a field, then geometry is the field in GR. ( quoting AJB ) I watched a movie with Ben Affleck, The Accountant, where he plays an autistic accountant to criminals and helps bring them to justice. As cover names he uses autistic mathematicians/authors/philosophers from the past, like Gauss, Carroll, Wolff, etc. Apparently they were all on the autism spectrum.

You are standing on the ground holding a bowling ball, and it weighs about 12 to 16 lbs. It is a strain to hold it at arms length. Now go parachuting while carrying that bowling ball; you will find it weighs nothing after you jump out of the airplane. Yet you and the bowling ball are still falling due to gravity. What happened to your force, Martillo ???

Just to be clear ... You can have individual 'legs' of CPT symmetry break, as long as that break is made up for by a break in another 'leg'. For example, a CP violation would have to be made up for by a T violation, thereby keeping CPT symmetric and Lorentz invariance, in order to preserve physical laws. Or am I mistaken, because I can think of cases involving the weak interaction where P symmetry is violated, and anti-matter, here C symmetry is violated. But you do it extremely well ...