Hypography Science Forums: coldcreation - Viewing Profile - Hypography Science Forums

pamela, on 28 February 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

Thanks Pam,

I must have missed your post.

I await further testing, and until then side with Einstein's view that nothing can travel faster than c, not even neutrinos.


CC

maddog, on 27 February 2012 - 02:11 PM, said:

Hey Maddog. Do you have a link that discusses the "faulty wiring (lose connection) and an issue with the clock circuitry"?

Thanks

CC

Work! Ecstasy! Smash your brains! Chew, stuff yourself, gulp it down, mix it around! The bliss of giving birth! The crack of the brush, best of all as it stabs the canvas.
- Max Pechstein

forests, on 10 February 2012 - 05:04 PM, said:

From Moontanman's wiki link:

Quote

Bold added.

Clearly what you write is incomplete. Lankester was perhaps the first "biologist" to come up with the theory of devolution. But devolution was originally a creationist idea, first presented as an evolutionary mechanism in 1857 by a devout Catholic, not circa 1880-1910 (as you write).

Whether the physician Bénédict More should be considered a biologist is irrelevant, so too is the possibility that Lankester may have been the first biologist to adopt the idea of devolution. Key, is that Morel (the devout Catholic) produced the hypothesis of devolution prior to Lankaster (in excess of 20 years prior). Lankester could have been aware of Morel's work, though Morel is not mentioned in Lankester's book: Degeneration: a chapter in Darwinism, 1880 (Lamarck is, however). In 1857 Morel published Traité des dégénérescences physiques, intellectuelles et morales de l'espèce humaine et des causes qui produisent ces variétés maladives, in which he explains the nature, causes, and indications of human degeneration. This book may not have been translate into English at the time, so it's excusable if Lankester was not aware that Morel published first. He may well have been oblivious to what was transpiring across the English Chanel.

Interestingly enough, the idea of degeneration was not new, even at the time of Morel's publication (though he gave the expression a biological twist).

Quote

Bold added.


CC

sigurdV, on 06 February 2012 - 07:09 PM, said:

Having something to rotate in is not a necessary condition of rotation.
Euler's rotation theorem works for rigid bodies rotating in space, as it does for coordinate systems (what you call "environment").

In physics, according to the theory of special relativity, the Lorentz transformation describes how two observers' varying measurements of space and time can be converted into each other's frames of reference.

In a homogeneous space, the Lorentz transformation is a linear transformation. It may include a rotation of space. Since relativity postulates that the speed of light is the same for all observers, the Lorentz transformation must preserve the spacetime interval between any two events in Minkowski space. The Lorentz transformation describes transformations in which the spacetime event at the origin is fixed. These can be considered as a hyperbolic rotation of Minkowski space. The more general set of transformations that also includes translations is called the Poincaré group.

Special relativity can be considered to operate in a four dimensional space (spacetime), three spatial dimensions and one temporal. This space is linear and the four dimensional rotations (called Lorentz transformations) have practical physical interpretations. If a rotation is in the three space dimensions, i.e. about a plane that is in space, then this rotation is the same as a spatial rotation in three dimensions. But a simple rotation about a plane spanned by a space dimension and a time dimension is a "boost", a transformation between two different reference frames that together with other properties of spacetime determines the relativistic relationship between the frames. The set of these rotations forms the Lorentz group. The restricted Lorentz group is generated by ordinary spatial rotations and Lorentz boosts (which can be thought of as hyperbolic rotations in a plane that includes a time-like direction.



A visualisation of the Lorentz transformation.
Only one space coordinate is considered.
The thin solid lines crossing at right angles depict the time and distance coordinates of an observer at rest with respect to that frame;
the skewed solid straight lines depict the coordinate grid of an observer moving with respect to that same frame. (Source).




All rotations are described relative to a particular frame of reference. In two-dimensional space there is only one plane of rotation, the plane of the space itself. In a Cartesian coordinate system it is the Cartesian plane, in complex numbers it is the complex plane. Any rotation therefore is of the whole plane, i.e. of the space, keeping only the origin fixed. (See Euler's formula). In three-dimensional space there are an infinite number of planes of rotation, only one of which is involved in any given rotation.


EDIT> You may also be interested in reading this article about rotating reference frames, which discusses phenomena such as:

Quote

CC