Strange

Does The Doctor learn something from each of his new incarnations?

Maybe Einstein's train / lightning thought experiment is helpful here: the lightning flashes at each end of the train are simultaneous in the frame of reference of an observer on the platform. For the passenger on the train, the one at the front of the train happens first (because they are moving towards it) while the one at the back happens later. So you can, I suppose, consider the platform observer seeing the passenger's "past" and "future" happening at the same time.

See, told you a written source would be better. 😃 If it described it with great clarity, you wouldn't have needed to ask the question 🤨

I watched a bit from where you linked. It made little sense to me. I suppose it might make more sense if I had watched the whole thing and so understood the model he was trying to explain. His explanation seems to be at the level of "this is what happens (trust me)". Maybe you need to watch his "more mathematical" video to understand. Or find a better source. Personally, I find videos about the worst possible medium for learning and understanding things. I would prefer a good book or article. Why spend hours watching video, when you could read the same content in 30 minutes and it would have a clearer (hopefully) explanation.

! Moderator Note Moved to Relativity

relindwto6 has been banned as a spammer. (We have had a number of spammers recently who ask a sensible questions, get some answers and then post an answer themselves, with spam links. In this case, I thought the answers might be useful to others.)

This is simply an effect of stimulating the retina and the visual processing areas of the brain. (Not "energies".) You might find this interesting: https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-math-theory-for-why-people-hallucinate-20180730/ The article is about drugs stimulating the visual system, but you can get the same effect in other ways: bright lights, extreme tiredness, etc. Isaac Newton stuck needles in his eyes and reported similar things.

He derived that from well-understood physics. Who said anything about experiments? You claims to have a theory (of everything). But you can't use it to calculate anything, so it is just a guess? You have't answered any of my questions. Why is that? What about the visually impaired, who can't see you photos? Why are you excluding them? Why not just type your notes here.

Also true in Camden in North London 🙂

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations Where do these numbers (-25, +50, +100) come from? Please show the calculations. Why isn't it -1, 0, +1? The [strong] nuclear force has a very limited range. It doesn't really extend outside the nucleus to a significant extent. What is this neutralising force? What evidence do you have for it? What is a "moment of singularity"? It is not acceptable because is hard to read an impossible to quote from. It has NOTHING to do with your dyslexia (there are other dyslexic members, and they manage to obey the rules). If you can write it on a piece of paper, you can type it here. Most important question: what would prove your idea wrong?

I guess mixture of 1 and 2, with almost zero going for the other options (not even the "if it's possible, why haven't we done it again" crowd). I assume there are people who think all space missions are faked.

! Moderator Note There have been several very constructive threads on this subject. Have you looked at those?

! Moderator Note You were told not to bring up your "theory" again.

"craic" not crack. Really? Why told you that? No one on this forum. Yes, the English name "Mary" came from the Greek. (See my earlier post, where I said exactly this.)

! Moderator Note Rule 2.7: you need to make your argument here, not require people to follow links, watch videos or read documents to know what you are saying ! Moderator Note "The caloric theory is an obsolete scientific theory" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caloric_theory It is also against the rules to use logical or rhetorical fallacies (in this case, a straw man argument).

! Moderator Note Not “Science News” moved to Speculations

I see nothing wrong with this. I have always been very happy to ignore/block people who are irredeemably stupid. On most forums, a large proportion of my ignore list end up being banned (even where I am not a moderator!). And I think my list of blocked people on Twitter is many, many times larger than the number of people I follow. Incidentally, on at least one forum I know, it is explicitly against the rules to say that you have blocked a specific member. I think it s an unnecessarily provocative statement so I think that is a good rule. We don't have such a rule here, but I am guessing we would take a bit of a dim view of it.

Z) Those with serious issues: "There is something wrong with time" (yes, I am thinking of the Time Cube guy) Isn't that like saying you have to imagine reading all the digits of pi to know what its value is? Pi has a well defined value that does not depend on time passing. Similarly, the colour in that drawing is a function of the y (or θ) coordinate in a way that does not depend on time.

It is illegal to wear high-heels in Carmel, California.

How about "interested, open-minded but not really too worried about it" !? (I wasn't bothered by "hardliner", BTW)

That isn't quite my view. But I do tend to adopt it it response to "time doesn't exist" or "time is just change" arguments. There are, of course, complexities around how time is modelled in different physical theories (as something that "passes" vs just another dimension vs ...) and philosophical;/ontological/psychological aspects: why does it only "go" forwards? Is that just because of human perception, or is it a fundamental aspect of time? And so on. I think this is an utterly brilliant answer to the question. (My naive answer would have been "of course you can't have change without time." How wrong I was.)

! Moderator Note You have no evidence for these vague claims. Do not bring this "theory" up again.

! Moderator Note @sergupstart You have been asked to quantify the size of this effect. Do that in your next post otherwise this thread will be closed for not meeting the expected standards of rigour.

Obviously. This is why science never "proves" theories. Contradictory observations can disprove a theory. You say this trivially true (and well understood) things as if you were providing some deep insight. Instead all you do is demonstrate how little you understand of either science or philosophy (or any other subject, as far as I can tell). Another bizarre non-sequitur. Dodging the question again. And we do understand gravity. We understand it so well we have two theories!

There is a great series of lectures by Andrew Ng at Stanford University: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLssT5z_DsK-h9vYZkQkYNWcItqhlRJLN He starts from pretty much nothing and quickly builds up to a pretty good level of detail of most aspects of ML. Also available on Coursera, if you want a more structured approach with tests of your understanding, etc: https://www.coursera.org/learn/machine-learning/home/welcome