Jump to content
Science Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Amplituhedron last won the day on October 3 2019

Amplituhedron had the most liked content!

About Amplituhedron

  • Rank
  1. From the above link: This is nothing but propaganda aimed at stupid people! The CDC did NOT lie! It NEVER SAID that it could PROVE, or provide evidence or studies, that vaccines DON’T cause autism! What they SAID, correctly, and STILL SAY, correctly, is that there is no evidence, studies, or science, to show that vaccines DO cause autism! And that is all that they are REQUIRED to do! Do you really not understand this? Or are you just playing dumb? Or are you actually an anti-vax weirdo activist, rather than simply a credulous gull? Here, “reflect on” this, dumb ***: As a matte
  2. Issac, The idiocy of your post is just beyond human belief or even comprehension. Just take this: I mean, seriously … where are you getting this? So, sez you, Einstein’s “happiest thought” was that there is no gravity at all? Get an education. The rest of your post is downhill from there.
  3. I mean, seriously … what??? I’m not going to wade through all that legalistic argle-bargle that you just uploaded. I don’t have to. The CDC’s claim is NOT false. Their claim is, that there is no EVIDENCE that vaccines DO cause autism. And this is correct! This is QUITE different from, “There is no proof that vaccines DON’T cause autism.” There is also no evidence that vaccines DON’T cause you to expectorate invisible fairies that go on to spread the corona virus. There is also no evidence that vaccines DON’T cause there to be a teapot that orbits between Mars and Jupiter. There is
  4. Borges: ”God moves the player, who moves the pawn./Which God behind God begins the conspiracy/of dust and time and dreams and agony?” Schopenhauer: We can do what we will, but we can’t will what we will. The issue is that people have different, and notoriously slippery, ideas of “free will.” Compatibilist free will acknowledges that our choices are determined, but holds that this is fine — indeed, necessary — provided we are able to act freely, without coercion or deterrence, on our determined choices. Libertarian or contra-causal free will argues that something stronger is necessary, f
  5. You and Mutex have nicely restated compatibilist free will — the idea that free will is not only compatible with determinism, but actually requires it. Without determinism, how could we reliably predict that our determined choices would produce the desired results? A completely non-deterministic universe would be so chaotic and unpredictable that sentient creatures could not exist at all. Tegmark models this with toy universes consisting of more of fewer spatial and/or temporal dimensions — he concludes that more dimensions would be too chaotic for sentient life (no reliable predictions possib
  6. Bold by me. Here, right out of the gate, you out yourself as loony-tunes, regardless of the balance of your argument (which, as it turns out, is blather). The allegation that anyone who disagrees with Israel about the illegal settlements, or, by extension, anything at all, is an anti-Semite, is a despicable slur. It means, by extension, that millions of Jews, both in Israel and abroad, are actually anti-Semites, since they disagree with the settlements and with many other policies of Israel. Do try to show a little logic, if not human decency, the latter of which is evidently beyond you.
  7. Ralf, You want to banish length contraction from special relativity. In my view, you are going about this all wrong. The problem is twofold. First, you disdain philosophy. Second, you think that maths are the the be all and end all of reality. Both are (philosophical!) presuppositions, and both are false. Science is simply shot through with philosophy: theory undertermination, adjustment of auxiliary hypotheses, the demarcation problem, the pessimistic meta-induction, and on and on. Science can no more be separated from philosophy than the Cheshire cat’s grin can be separated from the cat
  8. Ralf, you are right about length contraction. There is no length contraction. Let there be a rod at rest in the reference frame of A. B is in relative motion with respect to A and the rod. A and B meet at event E, and then each measures the rod that is at rest in the reference frame of A. The outcome will be that B measures a shorter rod than A. Why? Not because the rod shrinks, or space contracts or deforms, or anything of the sort. It is because A and B are measuring two different 3d rods. But the rod itself is not 3d — it is 4d! It exists at all its moments in time (as do A and B, who
  9. Excellent projection, worthy of your hero Donald Trump! :lol:
  10. But — good god! — this has been explained to you, many times, by many people, including me! Burt Jordaan explained it to you years ago to you — here is his explanation! Evidently you just don’t understand the explanation, alas.
  11. Yes, I completely agree. I was just addressing Ralf's specific question about "permanent" time dilation vs. supposedly impermanent length contraction, pointing out, as did Dale, that a clock is a record of time dilation and length contraction both, and that you could have a similar record stressing mainly length contraction if the ship had an odometer.
  12. I don’t understand your objection. I wish I had thought of the odometer myself. I thank Dale for the example. The clock on board the traveling ship measures time, and the odometer measures distance. Surely the difference between the two is obvious? Yet as measuring devices, though different, they are inextricably intertwined, because time and space, though different, are also inextricably intertwined. You keep saying — if this is still your position — that you can have relativity with time dilation only, and no length contraction. But the addition of the odometer to the twin’s experiment s
  13. In fact, of course, the answer from Dale in this link, labeled 123 (or 124? it seems the numbers change, for some reason) in the upper left of the answer by whatever numbering convention they are using there, is exactly right — and corresponds precisely with what I told here months ago. There is neither “permanent” length contraction nor “permanent” time dilation. In the case of the twin paradox, the traveler’s clock is NOT dilated, when it rejoins the stay-at-home twin — it does not even make sense to say that a clock is “dilated.” Rather, as Dale notes, the clock, which shows less time hav
  14. Of course, another believer in evolutionary psychology! What a shock! Those who want to see this sort of nonsense thoroughly and repeatedly debunked are recommended to read P.Z. Myers' Pharynguyla blog.
  • Create New...