@Secret : I watched a documentary on Hitler last week. What a delusional nutjob. How on Earth the German people thought he was some kind of messiah absolutely beats me.
If I could vote I'd vote for Trump. I saw Clinton lying about Farage. And we all saw what she really thinks of ordinary Americans when she was addressed that LGBT event last week. A basket of deplorables. FFS.
Anyway, does anybody know how many photons 2S positronium decays to?
@JohnDuffield you voted for the biggest mistake a country has made in a generation, now that science funding is under a huge question mark I'm sure more people will get into the whole alternative science thing though, happy days right
@bolbteppa : Trump's stance on Islamic terrorism is not "tearing up the foundational document of their country". Instead Clinton's open-door immigration policy (hoping to get their votes) is an act of betrayal. We've had all that in the UK with the Labour party. And no, UK science funding is not under threat because of Brexit.
@0celo7 : oh yes I do. Remember, when it comes to gravity, I'm the expert. Spacetime curvature is associated with the tidal force, not the force of gravity.
Everything has so many flaws, ok lets stop this, Brexit was so wonderful all the universities dropping in the rankings was going to happen anyway, this nature.com/news/… shows it was better off to leave, up is down, black is white, etc...
@bolbteppa : trust me, the UK is better off not being shackled to an unaccountable oligarchy who cook up cosy crooked deals so that global giants don't pay tax, who condemn Greece and other countries to poverty, and who sneer at democracy as mere populism.
Apparently there is more democracy in the EU in terms of countries unanimously passing laws together and needing over 60% on certain things (iirc) than there is in most of the separate countries, but they are also unaccountable oligarchs, because up is down and black is white
@DanielSank : I believe in democracy. I treasure it.
@bolbteppa : where are you getting this propaganda from? Europe has three presidents, and you can't vote any of them out of office. Compare and contrast with the USA.
@bolbteppa : I'm serious. Read what Einstein said. See the second paragraph where he said valid in the infinitesimal. That means valid in a region of infinitesimal size. In a region of no extent. In no region.
@bolbteppa : LOL yourself. See where Einstein said the theory of special relativity, therefore, applies only to a limiting case that is nowhere precisely realized in the real world. It's the same for 0celo7's proof.
Please respect each other in chat. Kindly pointing out the mistakes instead of saying "you know nothing" would be better for both you and the other user.
@DanielSank : I reject that as a reason for Germans embracing Hitler and his plans for conquest. The German people weren't poor in 1914. It was La Belle Époque.
I think he used Einstein saying SR is only infinitesimally realizable in the real world due to gravitational fields as proof the idea of infinitesimals do not exist, but they also prove a theorem about geodesic balls, not sure exactly
@daniel Flag validator off means the person is calling themselves a flag validator (possibly jokingly) then saying that they are leaving. +1 refers to agreeing with the post above.
See page 20 : "If so, it is false. In Einstein’s theory, either there is a gravitational field or there is none, according as the Riemann tensor does not or does vanish".
@JohnDuffield I mean really, you took a random sentence on special relativity and took it as a statement about infinitesimals and specks, it's like reading the sentence "the big dog" and thinking the sentence is talking about Big Ben because of the word big
Ok please clarify why you quoted that passage and said it was a proof of the theorem quoted above on geodesic balls, with reference to specks if possible (mandatory)
@JohnDuffield ok. I think I'll take my own advice and use the "ignore user" feature for a while, because I don't think I want to see the conversation that's going to take place here for the next ten minutes.
@bolbteppa : see what I quoted above (by Synge) about "the Riemann tensor does or does not vanish". It doesn't. And yet 0celo7's proof says if the Riemann tensor vanishes. It doesn't. Not until your ball is of infinitesimal extent. Of no extent.
@JohnDuffield in baby calculus, there is a topic you study called limits, try answering exercises like $\lim_{x \rightarrow 2} x^2$ by quoting Synge, you should check out those sections
@bolbteppa : what's really amazing is that the Principle of Equivalence only applies ot a region of zero extent too. Read the rest of the Synge quote:
"The Principle of Equivalence performed the essential office of midwife at the birth of general relativity, but, as Einstein remarked, the infant would never have gone beyond its long clothes had it not been for Minkowski’s concept [of space-time geometry]. I suggest that the midwife be buried with appropriate honours and the facts of absolute space-time faced."
@0celo7 : if you see something Einstein wrote that is contradicted by something in your textbook and there's no explanation as to why, you should look closely at it.
@JohnDuffield Hitler was "elected" (or rather "took over") in the early thirties. Looking at the popularity of his party, it is really quite obvious what the rise in popularity corresponded to:
oh yeah @0celo7 my textbook said something like "amedeo avogadro ... who suggested that all gases occupying the same volume under the same conditions of temperature and pressure contain the same number of atoms or molecules."
@JohnDuffield It's just important that you understand what the cause of the rise of Hitler's party was, and not get your historical facts wrong (how could you even think Hitler was in power in 1914?!?!?!?! That's seriously off!)
@DanielSank : I reject that as a reason for Germans embracing Hitler and his plans for conquest. The German people weren't poor in 1914. It was La Belle Époque.
I'll put it here because I want others to suffer. Let $A$ and $B$ be positive integers such that $ab+1$ divides $a^2 + b^2$. Show that $\frac{a^2+b^2}{ab+1}$ is a square of an integer.
Lawrence of Arabia is a 1962 epic historical drama film based on the life of T. E. Lawrence. It was directed by David Lean and produced by Sam Spiegel through his British company Horizon Pictures, with the screenplay by Robert Bolt and Michael Wilson. The film stars Peter O'Toole in the title role. It is widely considered one of the greatest and most influential films in the history of cinema. The dramatic score by Maurice Jarre and the Super Panavision 70 cinematography by Freddie Young are also highly acclaimed.
The film was nominated for ten Oscars at the 35th Academy Awards in 1963; it won...
Anybody: is there a name for any "law" which describes the magnetic force between two charged particles? As per this answer, the Biot-Savart law doesn't seem to be it.
@DanielSank : there's one field and two forces. See Minkoski's space and time, near figure 3. "In the description of the field caused by the electron itself, then it will appear that the division of the field into electric and magnetic forces is a relative one with respect to the time-axis assumed; the two forces considered together can most vividly be described by a certain analogy to the force-screw in mechanics..."
Let me quote Einstein here, who once said, $2 + 2 = $ the number of extensions in space a force-screw can turn, if you will, that being the number pointing north when a clock on the southern hemisphere is oriented in the direction that moss grows in springtime, indubitably being the number of fingers strike one on the hand of Alexander leading his golden chariot to victory, in other words, $2 + 2 = 4$
@bolbteppa : huh? See Maxwell’s On Physical Lines of Force: "a motion of translation along an axis cannot produce a rotation about that axis unless it meets with some special mechanism, like that of a screw".
I noticed when viewing a question here that a hot network question from Money.SE was formatted strangely. Presumably because it's interpreting the title as math markup.
Screenshot from this site:
Screenshot from another site:
@JohnDuffield that's been bugging me for a while too, actually. If we define time to be relative local motion, then it's not really there in actuality. It's just a construction that we use to make things easier and feasible.
Not believing in $4D$ spacetime is like not believing in virtual particles. It doesn't matter whether or not you believe in it. Whether or not it's real, it works in accurately portraying physical phenomena. I think.
@Obliv : it's the same for heat. Heat is an emergent phenomenon. But it is really there, as you will appreciate when you put your hand on a stove. Szzzzt! And get this: a hundred years will kill you just as surely as a hundred degrees C.
@Obliv : it does. But we live in a world of space and motion, not some static block universe.
@BernardMeurer : yes. I've always been into physics, but I started taking a special interest about ten years back when our then-teenage children gave up all their science subjects and I found out that UK physics A-levels were down 57% in 20years. It was like I was witnessing the death of physics. And I said to myself: not on my watch.
@JohnDuffield and the result of that is saying things like 'and an electron is a photon in a trivial knot', I defy anybody to explain that one, why do you think the people who've studied the theories (+ math) don't say things like this, just as a general observation?