Recent content by danR

Let's say since 'facetious' crackpottery is not allowed, there is not only not a lot of it, there is virtually none whatsoever. It would be quickly deleted on sight or report.

How does one differentiate crackpottery, obvious crackpottery, and facetious crackpottery? There's a great deal of the latter, even among senior posters. Since obvious crackpottery can receive an infraction, it might be well to understand the subtext of the rules.

"...can you help me, short answer would be good." Based on your previous posts, shorter questions would be better, and I agree with the previous poster. Science is concerned with phenomena that are observed, and why they are there, not with phenomena that are not observed and why they are...

The source of your quote is here: http://the-balancing-act.blogspot.ca/2005/07/journaling-class-lesson-6.html I don't know if the blogger is your instructor, or if the quote was taken from there or what, but I assume it's posed simply for your comment, to see what you would do with it. In...

I can't speak for Mike, but I assume he means is that we (Bob) remove the box and its contained observer (Alice) to a (hypothetical) gravity-free region (yes I know that's impossible), but we don't tell Alice we did that (we are very sneaky Bobs). We also give Alice a powerful sedative before we...

Keep in mind that the relativity forum is for relativity discussion, and what you are suggesting is an alternative, competing, classical theory. For that reason, unless you start a new thread in the Classical section (I think there's also an Alternative forum), I can't get too much into it...

I've noted your question, and sketched out a reply to the original thrust of it: is there an alternative 'process-hypothesis'? I think the big kids ran away with it.

Essentially, in the box.

:biggrin: This should be pinned, and every newcomer made/allowed to read it before they do anything else.

Let us go back to your original question, because I think a lot of 'observers A, B' and 'A' and 'B' suddenly parachuted into the discussion from who knows where. You're proposing there might an alternate theory, which is good, based on an actual 'process', which is better. Science cannot...

I hope the intervening discussion has not lost your original question(s): And actually, to add to your headache, an actual 'observation', in terms of say, taking a pico-second photograph of an object speeding by at .9 c, there would be an 4D geometric 'rotation' illusion showing in your...

Lorentz regarded the contraction as real, and involving a literal 'decrease' in the space between atoms. This is not the modern picture, and in fact it is meaningless to talk about length contraction. What is decreasing is the measure of the length, as far as an observer moving at a different...

But I don't want to take the matter to far down the speculative road of consciousness and philosophy. In my own liberal arts hand-wavey fashion, I'm even considering if the notion of some a-temporospatial realm, where quantum stuff entirely does its business, is falsifiable. In the hard sense...

As one non-expert to another, I can tell you that the matter was extremely difficult to deal with until I decided it lay in the assumption that distance and time were something deeply fundamental, and that a meter stick cloned from some Geneva (or Greenwhich, or wherever it is) invar standard...

I mentioned this notion speculatively last week and assumed it was nothing but another of my usual own layperson's metaphysical babblings. Inasmuch as most inflationary cosmogenies seem to entail some sort of 'quantum fluctuation' originating at a nanoscopic scale, why should we assume that its...