archive-com.com » COM » T » THULASIDAS.COM

Total: 429

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Universe - Size and Age - Unreal Blog
    changing over time or alpha changing over time but the changing constants thing just gets more and more ruled out I ve been watching for over 5 years and the more people look and study evidence the LESS likely it seems that there is any change They rule it out more and more accurately with their data So it is probably best to ignore the varying speed of light cosmologies until one is thoroughly familiar with standard mainstream cosmology You have misconceptions Mowgli General Relativity the 1915 theory trumps Special Rel 1905 They don t actually contradict if you understand them correctly because SR has only a very limited local applicability like to the spaceship passing by Wherever GR and SR SEEM to contradict believe GR It is the more comprehensive theory GR does not have a speed limit on the rate that very great distances can increase the only speed limit is on LOCAL stuff you can t catch up with and pass a photon So we can and DO observe stuff that is receding from us faster than c It s far away SR does not apply This was explained in a Sci Am article I think last year Google the author s name Charles Lineweaver and Tamara Davis We know about plenty of stuff that is presently more than 14 billion LY away You need to learn some cosmology so you wont be confused by these things Also a singularity does not mean a single point that is a popular mistake because the words SOUND the same A singularity can occur over an entire region even an infinite region Also the big bang model doesn t look like an explosion of matter whizzing away from some point It shouldn t be imagined like that The best article explaining common mistakes people have is this Lineweaver and Davis thing in Sci Am I think it was Jan or Feb 2005 but I could be a year off Google it Get it from your local library or find it online Best advice I can give Mowgli 03 28 2007 01 30 AM To swansont on why I thought 13 b LY implied an age of 26 b years When you say that there is a galaxy at 13 b LY away I understand it to mean that 13 billion years ago my time the galaxy was at the point where I see it now which is 13 b LY away from me Knowing that everything started from the same point it must have taken the galaxy at least 13 b years to get where it was 13 b years ago So 13 13 I m sure I must be wrong To Martin You are right I need to learn quite a bit more about cosmology But a couple of things you mentioned surprise me how do we observe stuff that is receding from as FTL I mean wouldn t the relativistic Doppler shift formula give imaginary 1 z And

    Original URL path: http://www.thulasidas.com/universe-size-and-age/ (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive


  • universe size Archives - Unreal Blog
    fine structure constant alpha If c was changing then the patterns of atomic spectra would have to change There hasn t been any confirmed data that shows that alpha has changed there has been the occasional paper claiming it but you need someone to repeat the measurements and the rest is all consistent with no change Martin 03 27 2007 11 25 AM To confirm or reinforce what swansont said there are speculation and some fringe or nonstandard cosmologies that involve c changing over time or alpha changing over time but the changing constants thing just gets more and more ruled out I ve been watching for over 5 years and the more people look and study evidence the LESS likely it seems that there is any change They rule it out more and more accurately with their data So it is probably best to ignore the varying speed of light cosmologies until one is thoroughly familiar with standard mainstream cosmology You have misconceptions Mowgli General Relativity the 1915 theory trumps Special Rel 1905 They don t actually contradict if you understand them correctly because SR has only a very limited local applicability like to the spaceship passing by Wherever GR and SR SEEM to contradict believe GR It is the more comprehensive theory GR does not have a speed limit on the rate that very great distances can increase the only speed limit is on LOCAL stuff you can t catch up with and pass a photon So we can and DO observe stuff that is receding from us faster than c It s far away SR does not apply This was explained in a Sci Am article I think last year Google the author s name Charles Lineweaver and Tamara Davis We know about plenty of stuff that is presently more than 14 billion LY away You need to learn some cosmology so you wont be confused by these things Also a singularity does not mean a single point that is a popular mistake because the words SOUND the same A singularity can occur over an entire region even an infinite region Also the big bang model doesn t look like an explosion of matter whizzing away from some point It shouldn t be imagined like that The best article explaining common mistakes people have is this Lineweaver and Davis thing in Sci Am I think it was Jan or Feb 2005 but I could be a year off Google it Get it from your local library or find it online Best advice I can give Mowgli 03 28 2007 01 30 AM To swansont on why I thought 13 b LY implied an age of 26 b years When you say that there is a galaxy at 13 b LY away I understand it to mean that 13 billion years ago my time the galaxy was at the point where I see it now which is 13 b LY away from me Knowing that everything started from

    Original URL path: http://www.thulasidas.com/tag/universe-size/ (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Twin Paradox - Take 2 - Unreal Blog
    from one space point with synchronized clocks and get back to the same space point at rest by accelerating away from each other for some time and decelerating on the way back By the symmetry of the problem it seems that when the two clocks are together at the end of the journey at the same point and at rest with respect to each other they have to agree Then again during the whole journey each clock is in motion accelerated or not with respect to the other one In SR every clock that is in motion with respect to an observer s clock is supposed run slower Or the observer s clock is always the fastest So for each twin the other clock must be running slower However when they come back together at the end of the journey they have to agree This can happen only if each twin sees the other s clock running faster at some point during the journey What does SR say will happen in this imaginary journey Note that the acceleration of each twin can be made constant Have the twins cross each other at a high speed at a constant linear deceleration They will cross again each other at the same speed after sometime During the crossings their clocks can be compared Share this Click to share on Reddit Opens in new window Click to share on Voat Opens in new window Click to share on Facebook Opens in new window Click to share on Twitter Opens in new window Click to share on LinkedIn Opens in new window Click to share on Google Opens in new window Click to share on Tumblr Opens in new window Click to share on Pinterest Opens in new window Click to email this to a

    Original URL path: http://www.thulasidas.com/twin-paradox-take-2/ (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Superluminal Laser Dots - Unreal Blog
    first ray reach the observer after This reversal of the order in which the rays reach the observer gives rise to the perception of two objects moving away from the black dot If the object doesn t change during its flight the two phantom objects are identical to each other Now my question is if we see two objects in a symmetric formation in the night sky can we be sure that they are really two and not our perception of one object in motion Of course we can if we say that nothing can really travel faster than light Assuming hypothetically that we didn t know about SR and its constraint on the speed is there any way we could work out the real speed from our observation of the rate of angular separation My feeling is that there are at least two configurations one superluminal object going in one direction or two objects superluminal or otherwise going in opposite directions which will result in the same observation Algebra behind the animation This post gives the algebra behind the animation First let s define the notations used using the following figure Here the object is traveling along the thick horizontal line at a speed The black dot in the animation where the object first appears to the observer is B B is the point of closest approach Let s set the time when the object is at the point B The line of flight at its closest point B is at a distance of y from the observer at O A is a typical point at a distance x from B is the angle between the line of flight and the observer s line of sight is that the angle that the object subtends at the observer s position O with respect to the normal Let s set to simplify the algebra so that the observer s time is A is another representative point where and are negative With these notations we can write down the following equation for the real position of the object at time Or A photon emitted by the object at A at time will reach O after traversing the hypotenuse A photon emitted at B will reach the observer at since we have chosen We have defined the observer s time such that then we have which gives the relation between and Expanding the equation for to second order we get Call this equation Q The minimum value of occurs at which defines the position of the black dot in the animation the point B and it is To the observer the object first appears at the position Then it appears to stretch and split rapidly at first and slowing down later The quadratic equation Q above can be recast as which will be more useful later in the derivation Call this equation U The angular separation between the objects flying away from each other is the difference between the roots of the quadratic

    Original URL path: http://www.thulasidas.com/superluminal-laser-dots/ (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Topical Archives - Page 22 of 22 - Unreal Blog
    pondered over the things I talk about in this blog and in my book And they have articulated their thoughts in their works probably better than I have in mine Although it is always a good idea to go through the existing writings to clear my head as one of my reviewers suggested while recommending David Humes such wide reading creates an inherent risk It is not so much the time it will take to read and understand the writings and the associated opportunity cost in thinking it is also the fact that everything you read gets assimilated in you and your opinions become influenced by these brilliant thinkers While that may be a good thing I look at it as though it may actually be detrimental to original thought Taken to the extreme such blind assimilation may result in your opinions becoming mere regurgitation of these classical schools of thought Besides as Hermann Hesse implies in Siddhartha wisdom cannot be taught It has to be generated from within Ranga s words are colored Green or Blue when quoted for the second time Mine are in White or Purple when quoted for the second time Mon May 21 2007 at 8 07 PM I m to different extents familiar with the distinction philosophers and scientists make in terms of phenomenal and physical realities from the works of Upanishads to the Advaitas Dvaitas to the Noumenon Phenomenon of Schopenhauer and the block Universe of Special Relativity and even the recent theories in physics Kaluza and Klein The insight that what we perceive is not necessarily what is existed in a variety of ways from a long time However such insights were not readily embraced and incorporated in all sciences There is a enormous literature on this in neuroscience and social sciences So it is indeed very good that you have attempted to bring this in to physics by recollecting our previous discussion on this by reading through your introduction to the book in the website and understanding the tilt of your paper could not find it in the journal has it been accepted To suggest that there could be superluminal motion and to explain known phenomena such as GRBs through a quirk in our perception even in the physical instruments is bold and needs careful attention by others in the field One should always ask questions to cross perceived boundaries in this case of course the speed of light However it is quite inaccurate and superficial in my opinion to think that there is some absolute reality beyond the reality we encounter While it is important to know that there are multiple realities for different individuals in us and even different organisms depending on senses and intellect it is equally important to ask what reality is after all when there is no perception If it cannot be accessed by any means what is it anyway Is there such a thing at all Is Absolute Reality in the movement of planets stars

    Original URL path: http://www.thulasidas.com/category/topical/page/22/ (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Physics Archives - Page 6 of 6 - Unreal Blog
    this is not a good test for SR What I m saying is slightly different The coordinate transformation in SR is derived considering only receding objects and sensing it using radar like round trip light travel time It is then assumed that the transformation laws thus derived apply to all objects Because the round trip light travel is used the transformation works for approaching objects as well but not for things moving in other directions But SR assumes that the transformation is a property of space and time and asserts that it applies to all moving inertial frames of reference regardless of direction We have to go a little deeper and ask ourselves what that statement means what it means to talk about the properties of space We cannot think of a space independent of our perception Physicists are typically not happy with this starting point of mine They think of space as something that exists independent of our sensing it And they insist that SR applies to this independently existing space I beg to differ I consider space as a cognitive construct based on our perceptual inputs There is an underlying reality that is the cause of our perception of space It may be nothing like space but let s assume for the sake of argument that the underlying reality is like Galilean space time How would be perceive it given that we perceive it using light one way travel of light not two way as SR assumes It turns out that our perceptual space would have time dilation and length contraction and all other effect predicted by SR So my thesis is that the underlying reality obeys Galilean space time and our perceptual space obeys something like SR It is possible that if I assume that our perception uses two way light travel I may get SR like transformation I haven t done it because it seems obvious to me that we perceive a star for instance by sensing the light from it rather than flashing a light at it This thesis doesn t sit well with physicists and indeed with most people They mistake perceptual effects to be something like optical illusions My point is more like space itself is an illusion If you look at the night sky you know that the stars you see are not real in the sense that they are not there when you are looking at them This is simply because the information carrier namely light has a finite speed If the star under observation is in motion our perception of its motion is distorted for the same reason SR is an attempt to formalize our perception of motion Since motion and speed are concepts that mix space and time SR has to operate on space time continuum Since SR is based on perceptual effects it requires an observer and describes motion as he perceives it But are you actually saying that not a single experiment has been done with objects moving in any other direction than farther away And what about experiments on time dilation where astronauts go into space and return with clocks showing less elapsed time than ones that stayed on the ground Doesn t this support the ideas inherent in SR Experiments are always interpreted in the light of a theory It is always a model based interpretation I know that this is not a convincing argument for you so let me give you an example Scientists have observed superluminal motion in certain celestial objects They measure the angular speed of the celestial object and they have some estimate of its distance from us so they can estimate the speed If we didn t have SR there would be nothing remarkable about this observation of superluminality Since we do have SR one has to find an explanation for this The explanation is this when an object approaches us at a shallow angle it can appear to come in quite a bit faster than its real speed Thus the real speed is subluminal while the apparent speed may be superluminal This interpretation of the observation in my view breaks the philosophical grounding of SR that it is a description of the motion as it appears to the observer Now there are other observations of where almost symmetric ejecta are seen on opposing jets in symmetric celestial objects The angular speeds may indicate superluminality in both the jets if the distance of the object is sufficiently large Since the jets are assumed to be back to back if one jet is approaching us thereby giving us the illusion of superluminality the other jet has bet receding and can never appear superluminal unless of course the underlying motion is superluminal The interpretation of this observation is that the distance of the object is limited by the fact that real motion cannot be superluminal This is what I mean by experiments being open to theory or model based interpretations In the case of moving clocks being slower it is never a pure SR experiment because you cannot find space without gravity Besides one clock has to be accelerated or decelerated and GR applies Otherwise the age old twin paradox would apply I know there have been some experiments done to support Einstein s theories like the bending of light due to gravity but are you saying that all of them can be consistently re interpreted according to your theory If this is so it s dam surprising I mean no offense to you you re obviously a very bright individual and you know much more about this stuff than I do but I d have to question how something like this slipped right through physicists fingers for 100 years These are gravity related questions and fall under GR My theory doesn t try to reinterpret GR or gravity at all I put theory in inverted quotes because to me it is a rather obvious observation that there is a distinction between

    Original URL path: http://www.thulasidas.com/category/topical/physics/page/6/ (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Philosophy Archives - Page 10 of 10 - Unreal Blog
    no such thing as an optical illusion which is probably what Goethe meant when he said Optical illusion is optical truth The distinction or lack thereof between optical illusion and truth is one of the oldest debates in philosophy After all it is about the distinction between knowledge and reality Knowledge is considered our view about something that in reality is actually the case In other words knowledge is a reflection or a mental image of something external as shown in the figure below In this picture the black arrow represents the process of creating knowledge which includes perception cognitive activities and the exercise of pure reason This is the picture that physics has come to accept While acknowledging that our perception may be imperfect physics assumes that we can get closer and closer to the external reality through increasingly finer experimentation and more importantly through better theorization The Special and General Theories of Relativity are examples of brilliant applications of this view of reality where simple physical principles are relentlessly pursued using formidable machine of pure reason to their logically inevitable conclusions But there is another alternative view of knowledge and reality that has been around for a long time This is the view that regards perceived reality as an internal cognitive representation of our sensory inputs as illustrated below In this view knowledge and perceived reality are both internal cognitive constructs although we have come to think of them as separate What is external is not the reality as we perceive it but an unknowable entity giving rise to the physical causes behind sensory inputs In the illustration the first arrow represents the process of sensing and the second arrow represents the cognitive and logical reasoning steps In order to apply this view of reality and knowledge we have to guess the nature of the absolute reality unknowable as it is One possible candidate for the absolute reality is Newtonian mechanics which gives a reasonable prediction for our perceived reality To summarize when we try to handle the distortions due to perception we have two options or two possible philosophical stances One is to accept the distortions as part of our space and time as Special Relativity does The other option is to assume that there is a higher reality distinct from our sensed reality whose properties we can only conjecture In other words one option is to live with the distortion while the other is to propose educated guesses for the higher reality Neither of these choices is particularly attractive But the guessing path is similar to the view accepted in phenomenalism It also leads naturally to how reality is viewed in cognitive neuroscience which studies the biological mechanisms behind cognition The twist to this story of light and reality is that we seem to have known all this for a long time The role of light in creating our reality or universe is at the heart of Western religious thinking A universe devoid of light is not simply a world where you have switched off the lights It is indeed a universe devoid of itself a universe that doesn t exist It is in this context that we have to understand the wisdom behind the statement that the earth was without form and void until God caused light to be by saying Let there be light The Koran also says Allah is the light of the heavens and the earth which is mirrored in one of the ancient Hindu writings Lead me from darkness to light lead me from the unreal to the real The role of light in taking us from the unreal void the nothingness to a reality was indeed understood for a long long time Is it possible that the ancient saints and prophets knew things that we are only now beginning to uncover with all our supposed advances in knowledge There are parallels between the noumenal phenomenal distinction of Kant and the phenomenalists later and the Brahman Maya distinction in Advaita Wisdom on the nature of reality from the repertoire of spirituality is reinvented in modern neuroscience which treats reality as a cognitive representation created by the brain The brain uses the sensory inputs memory consciousness and even language as ingredients in concocting our sense of reality This view of reality however is something physics is still unable to come to terms with But to the extent that its arena space and time is a part of reality physics is not immune to philosophy In fact as we push the boundaries of our knowledge further and further we are discovering hitherto unsuspected and often surprising interconnections between different branches of human efforts Yet how can the diverse domains of our knowledge be independent of each other if all knowledge is subjective If knowledge is merely the cognitive representation of our experiences But then it is the modern fallacy to think that knowledge is our internal representation of an external reality and therefore distinct from it Instead recognising and making use of the interconnections among the different domains of human endeavour may be the essential prerequisite for the next stage in developing our collective wisdom Box Einstein s Train One of Einstein s famous thought experiments illustrates the need to rethink what we mean by simultaneous events It describes a high speed train rushing along a straight track past a small station as a man stands on the station platform watching it speed by To his amazement as the train passes him two lightening bolts strike the track next to either end of the train Conveniently for later investigators they leave burn marks both on the train and on the ground To the man it seems that the two lightening bolts strike at exactly the same moment Later the marks on the ground by the train track reveal that the spots where the lightening struck were exactly equidistant from him Since then the lightening bolts travelled the same distance towards him and since they appeared to the man to happen at exactly the same moment he has no reason not to conclude that the lightening bolts struck at exactly the same moment They were simultaneous However suppose a little later the man meets a lady passenger who happened to be sitting in the buffet car exactly at the centre of the train and looking out of the window at the time the lightening bolts struck This passenger tells him that she saw the first lightening bolt hit the ground near the engine at the front of the train slightly ahead of when the second one hit the ground next to the luggage car at the rear of the train The effect has nothing to do with the distance the light had to travel as both the woman and the man were equidistant between the two points that the lightening hit Yet they observed the sequence of events quite differently This disagreement of the timing of the events is inevitable Einstein says as the woman is in effect moving towards the point where the flash of lightening hit near the engine and away from the point where the flash of lightening hit next to the luggage car In the tiny amount of time it takes for the light rays to reach the lady because the train moves the distance the first flash must travel to her shrinks and the distance the second flash must travel grows This fact may not be noticed in the case of trains and aeroplanes but when it comes to cosmological distances simultaneity really doesn t make any sense For instance the explosion of two distant supernovae seen as simultaneous from our vantage point on the earth will appear to occur in different time combinations from other perspectives In Relativity The Special and General Theory 1920 Einstein put it this way Every reference body co ordinate system has its own particular time unless we are told the reference body to which the statement of time refers there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event epistemological problems Philosophy Physics unreality Anti Relativity Debates Philosophy Physics Unreal Time November 28 2006 manoj Farsight wrote Time is a velocity dependent subjective measure of event succession rather than something fundamental the events mark the time the time doesn t mark the events This means the stuff out there is space rather than space time and is an aether veiled by subjective time I like your definition of time It is close to my own view that time is unreal It is possible to treat space as real and space time as something different as you do This calls for some careful thought I will outline my thinking in this post and illustrate it with an example if my friends don t pull me out for lunch before I can finish The first question we need to ask ourselves is why space and time seem coupled The answer is actually too simple to spot and it is in your definition of time Space and time mix through our concept of velocity and our brain s ability to sense motion There is an even deeper connection which is that space is a cognitive representation of the photons inputs to our eyes but we will get to it later Let s assume for a second that we had a sixth sense that operated at an infinite speed That is if star explodes at a million light years from us we can sense it immediately We will see it only after a million years but we sense it instantly I know it is a violation of SR cannot happen and all that but stay with me for a second Now a little bit of thinking will convince you that the space that we sense using this hypothetical sixth sense is Newtonian Here space and time can be completely decoupled absolute time can be defined etc Starting from this space we can actually work out how we will see it using light and our eyes knowing that the speed of light is what it is It will turn out clearly that we seen events with a delay That is a first order or static effect The second order effect is the way we perceive objects in motion It turns out that we will see a time dilation and a length contraction for objects receding from us Let me illustrate it a little further using echolocation Assume that you are a blind bat You sense your space using sonar pings Can you sense a supersonic object If it is coming towards you by the time the reflected ping reaches you it has gone past you If it is going away from you your pings can never catch up In other words faster than sound travel is forbidden If you make one more assumption the speed of the pings is the same for all bats regardless of their state of motion you derive a special relativity for bats where the speed of sound is the fundamental property of space and time We have to dig a little deeper and appreciate that space is no more real than time Space is a cognitive construct created out of our sensory inputs If the sense modality light for us sound for bats has a finite speed that speed will become a fundamental property of the resultant space And space and time will be coupled through the speed of the sense modality This of course is only my own humble interpretation of SR I wanted to post this on a new thread but I get the feeling that people are a little too attached to their own views in this forum to be able to listen Leo wrote Minkowski spacetime is one interpretation of the Lorentz transforms but other interpretations the original Lorentz Poincarà Relativity or modernized versions of it with a wave model of matter LaFreniere or Close or many others work in a perfectly euclidean 3D space So we end up with process slowdown and matter contraction but NO time dilation or space contraction The transforms are the same though So why does one interpretation lead to tensor metric while the others don t Or do they all I lack the theoretical background to answer the question Hi Leo If you define LT as a velocity dependent deformation of an object in motion then you can make the transformation a function of time There won t be any warping and complications of metric tensors and stuff Actually what I did in my book is something along those lines though not quite as you know The trouble arises when the transformation matrix is a function of the vector is transforming So if you define LT as a matrix operation in a 4 D space time you can no longer make it a function of time through acceleration any more than you can make it a function of position as in a velocity field for instance The space time warping is a mathematical necessity Because of it you lose coordinates and the tools that we learn in our undergraduate years are no longer powerful enough to handle the problem Debates Philosophy Physics relativity Debates Email Debates Philosophy Physics The Unreal Universe Discussion with Gibran October 28 2006 manoj Hi again You raise a lot of interesting questions Let me try to answer them one by one You re saying that our observations of an object moving away from us would look identical in either an SR or Galilean context and therefore this is not a good test for SR What I m saying is slightly different The coordinate transformation in SR is derived considering only receding objects and sensing it using radar like round trip light travel time It is then assumed that the transformation laws thus derived apply to all objects Because the round trip light travel is used the transformation works for approaching objects as well but not for things moving in other directions But SR assumes that the transformation is a property of space and time and asserts that it applies to all moving inertial frames of reference regardless of direction We have to go a little deeper and ask ourselves what that statement means what it means to talk about the properties of space We cannot think of a space independent of our perception Physicists are typically not happy with this starting point of mine They think of space as something that exists independent of our sensing it And they insist that SR applies to this independently existing space I beg to differ I consider space as a cognitive construct based on our perceptual inputs There is an underlying reality that is the cause of our perception of space It may be nothing like space but let s assume for the sake of argument that the underlying reality is like Galilean space time How would be perceive it given that we perceive it using light one way travel of light not two way as SR assumes It turns out that our perceptual space would have time dilation and length contraction and all other effect predicted by SR So my thesis is that the underlying reality obeys Galilean space time and our perceptual space obeys something like SR It is possible that if I assume that our perception uses two way light travel I may get SR like transformation I haven t done it because it seems obvious to me that we perceive a star for instance by sensing the light from it rather than flashing a light at it This thesis doesn t sit well with physicists and indeed with most people They mistake perceptual effects to be something like optical illusions My point is more like space itself is an illusion If you look at the night sky you know that the stars you see are not real in the sense that they are not there when you are looking at them This is simply because the information carrier namely light has a finite speed If the star under observation is in motion our perception of its motion is distorted for the same reason SR is an attempt to formalize our perception of motion Since motion and speed are concepts that mix space and time SR has to operate on space time continuum Since SR is based on perceptual effects it requires an observer and describes motion as he perceives it But are you actually saying that not a single experiment has been done with objects moving in any other direction than farther away And what about experiments on time dilation where astronauts go into space and return with clocks showing less elapsed time than ones that stayed on the ground Doesn t this support the ideas inherent in SR Experiments are always interpreted in the light of a theory It is always a model based interpretation I know that this is not a convincing argument for you so let me give you an example Scientists have observed superluminal motion in certain celestial objects They measure the angular speed of the celestial object and they have some estimate of its distance from us so they can estimate the speed If we didn t have SR there would be nothing remarkable about this observation of superluminality Since we do have SR one has to find an explanation for this The explanation is this when an object approaches us at a shallow angle it can appear to come in quite a bit faster than its real speed Thus the real speed is subluminal while the apparent speed may be superluminal This interpretation of the observation in my view breaks the philosophical grounding of SR that it is a description of the motion as it appears to the observer Now there are other observations of where almost symmetric ejecta are seen on opposing jets in symmetric celestial objects

    Original URL path: http://www.thulasidas.com/category/topical/philosophy/page/10/ (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Autism and Genius - Unreal Blog
    autism athleticism musical aptitude etc they should all form normal Gaussian distributions Where you find yourself on the curve is a matter of luck If you are lucky you fall on the right side of the distribution close to the tail and if you are unlucky you would find yourself near the wrong end But this statement is a bit too simplistic Nothing in life is quite that straight forward The various distributions have strange correlations Even in the absence of correlations purely mathematical considerations will indicate that the likelihood of finding yourself in the right end of multiple desirable traits is slim That is to say if you are in the top 0 1 of your cohort academically and in terms of your looks and in athleticism you are already one in a billion which is why you don t find many strikingly handsome theoretical physicists who are also ranked tennis players The recent world chess champion Magnus Carlsen is also a fashion model which is news precisely because it is the exception that proves the rule By the way I just figured out what that mysterious expression exception that proves the rule actually meant something looks like an exception only because as a general rule it doesn t exist or happen which proves that there is a rule Getting back to our theme in addition to the minuscule probability for genius as prescribed by mathematics we also find correlations between genius and behavioral pathologies like insanity and autism A genius brain is probably wired differently Anything different from the norm is also well abnormal Behavior abnormal when judged against the society s rules is the definition of insanity So there is a only a fine line separating insanity from true genius I believe The personal lives of many geniuses point to this conclusion Einstein had strange personal relationships and a son who was clinically insane Many geniuses actually ended up in the looney bin And some afflicted with autism show astonishing gifts like photographic memory mathematical prowess etc Take for instance the case of autistic savants Or consider cases like Sheldon Cooper of The Big Bang Theory who is only slightly better than or different from the Rain Man I believe the reason for the correlation is the fact that the same slight abnormalities in the brain can often manifest themselves as talents or genius on the positive side or as questionable gifts on the negative side I guess my message is that anybody away from the average in any distribution be it brilliance or insanity should take it with neither pride nor rancor It is merely a statistical fluctuation I know this post won t ease the pain of those who are afflicted on the negative side or eliminate the arrogance of the ones on the positive side But here s hoping that it will at least diminish the intensity of those feelings Photo by Arturo de Albornoz Share this Click to share on Reddit Opens in

    Original URL path: http://www.thulasidas.com/autism-and-genius/ (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive