Only to the extent to which you stick to logical consistency and manage to prevent the inconsistent stuff from spreading via the principle of explosion to other parts of your system. Which is what I believe paraconsistent logic tries to do. — litewave

So you agree with my point that we can (under certain circumstances) speak rationally about inconsistency. Which falsifies your claim that there can be no rational discussion if some aspect of the universe is inconsistent.

As far as the rest of it, I'm not equipped to explain modern physics. Quantum theory and relativity have been known to be inconsistent with each other since the days of Einstein and the inconsistency persists to the present day. You can use Google just as well as I can so I can only suggest that you click around to find understanding.

For example here is a popularized article, but I found it exactly the same way you could: By Googling around.

Can you formulate the inconsistency between relativity and quantum physics? — litewave

This is a well-known topic. I'll refer you to Wikipidia, for example this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_field_theory

In physics, a unified field theory (UFT) is a type of field theory that allows all that is usually thought of as fundamental forces and elementary particles to be written in terms of a single field.
There is currently no accepted unified field theory, and thus it remains an open line of research.

I mean that if you abandon the law of non-contradiction then you indeed can't have any meaningful conversation because there is no difference between what you say and the negation of what you say. — litewave

Your knowledge is simply out of date. Here is the Wiki article on paraconsistent logic. From that article:

A paraconsistent logic is a logical system that attempts to deal with contradictions in a discriminating way. Alternatively, paraconsistent logic is the subfield of logic that is concerned with studying and developing paraconsistent (or "inconsistency-tolerant") systems of logic.
Inconsistency-tolerant logics have been discussed since at least 1910 (and arguably much earlier, for example in the writings of Aristotle);however, the term paraconsistent ("beside the consistent") was not coined until 1976, by the Peruvian philosopher Francisco Miró Quesada.

In other words it is perfectly sensible to have rational discussions of the subject of how to handle logical inconsistency.

Let me give an easy to visualize example of how something like this might work. Suppose that tomorrow morning professor so-and-so in Latvia proves that there is an inconsistency in set theory, but that the inconsistency requires more than 100,000 symbols to write down [in some fixed formal language].

Therefore the following two things are true:

* Set theory as a whole is inconsistent, but

* Any theorem I can prove in less than 100,000 symbols is still valid.

Inconsistency is no barrier at all to rational discourse. We can and do reason rationally about inconsistent logical systems.

As I said, if reality contained a contradiction it would mean that something is not identical to itself - and that would be nonsense. — litewave

I'm afraid I don't see that at all. As an example, suppose that our current physical theories turn out to be "true" about reality. In that case, quantum physics is inconsistent with relativity, but the law of identity still holds. A thing is still identical to itself. I just don't follow your logical argument here.

Also it's worth noting that any talk about "reality" is not about physics, it's about metaphysics. The laws of physics are the historically contingent activity of humans, from Aristotle to Galileo to Newton to Einstein to the contemporary theorists. Physical law is always approximate and subject to change.

On the other hand "reality" might be created by God, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the Big Computer in the Sky as some people think. These are questions of metaphysics. You are not in a position to argue that "reality" is one way or the other. You have no evidence and you can never have evidence. If the Pope tells me that God created the universe, I respect the Pope's belief, but I'm not going to spend my time arguing with him. His beliefs are a matter of faith, not science.

Moreover, if you abandon the law of non-contradiction all your arguments automatically refute themselves. — litewave

This I also don't understand. If you mean that if I don't believe in Aristotelian logic that I can't have a rational conversation, that's clearly false. We can have rational conversations about irrationality. I've already posted links to articles on paraconsistent logic and intuitionist logic. Many contemporary theories of logic deny the law of the excluded middle. This is essentially a consequence of computer science applied to logic, since a set and its complement may both be noncomputable.

In short, I don't understand or agree with either of your assertions. And any claims you make about "reality" are equivalent to the Pope telling me about the Blood of the Lamb. It's a question of faith, not reason.

What are the inconsistencies in physics? Specifically. Realy interested. — Banno

Can't find a single theory that unifies quantum physics and gravity. Isn't this the most famous problem in physics? From Einstein to Witten and beyond, nobody's cracked it yet.

I didn't say there are "inconsistencies in physics." I wish you'd quote what I actually said, which was:

We do know that contemporary theories of physics can not be incorporated into a single noncontradictory framework. — fishfry

This is an objectively true statement. It could be falsified tomorrow morning, but as of this writing, it's factually correct.

Didn't I specifically quote this paragraph in this thread earlier?

At the present time, there are two foundational theories in physics: the Standard Model of particle physics and general relativity. Many parts of these theories have been put on an axiomatic basis. However, physics as a whole has not, and in fact the Standard Model is not even logically consistent with general relativity, indicating the need for a still unknown theory of quantum gravity. The solution of Hilbert's sixth problem thus remains open.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_sixth_problem#Status

I claim that reality can contain no contradiction in the classical logic sense — litewave

Well there's no way to know. We do know that contemporary theories of physics can not be incorporated into a single noncontradictory framework. Past that, we really have no way to say anything.

Out of curiosity, what's your evidence for your claim? Or even a plausibility argument?

How does your claim differ from a theological argument that God created it all in six days and watched pro football games on the seventh? You have a claim but you haven't supplied evidence.

I thought you disagreed with my statement — litewave

Banno's been responding to me but I don't remember what you are referring to. Can you help me understand why you think I'm denying the law of identity as it pertains to reality, based on anything I wrote here? Apparently my pointing out that classical sentential calculus is a poor tool for modeling modern physics has triggered a lot of people. I thought it was rather self-evident.

But do you mean to say that in reality there can be a thing that is not identical to itself? — litewave

I'm at a loss to understand why you would ask me that question based on anything I wrote in this thread. Care to explain?

The validity of the law of identity is a subject worthy of its own thread. But I said nothing about it here.

There can be no contradiction in reality — litewave

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle#Criticisms

People seem to think "logic" means Aristotle's logic from 2400 years ago. Nothing could be further from the truth. Today logicians are perfectly comfortable embracing and formalizing contradictions.

That's of course not the same as saying that modern physics is illogical, which seems to be the implication of the OP. — Banno

So take it up with the OP. It's certainly not something I said.

Odd that these replies are not about my actual rebuttal of the OP. — Banno

I admit to not reading the entire thread in detail. OP noted that there's a disconnect between classical sentential logic and the mysterious "here but not here" logic of quantum physics. I'm pointing out that Aristotle's logic is not sufficient to explain the world, especially in view of modern developments in logic. I'd think such an assertion would be noncontroversial. Perhaps you're right that I have no idea what you're trying to say. What are you trying to say? OP said that P ^ not-P is a contradiction in classical logic, yet seems to describe certain aspects of modern physics. I pointed out that modern physics doesn't seem to be well described by classical logic. I'm happy to stand by that statement.

Why bother axiomatising physics at all? — Banno

You're the one claiming physics is based on sentential logic from 2000 years ago. Today we have paraconsistent logic, denial of the law of the excluded middle, and a resurgence of interest in intuitionistic logic. You should Google around. Your understanding of logic is a couple of thousand years out of date.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionistic_logic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brouwer%E2%80%93Heyting%E2%80%93Kolmogorov_interpretation

Logic underpins the language of physics as much as of anything else. It would be absurd to think of logic and physics as incommensurate. — Banno

The axiomitization of physics is still an open problem. This supports my point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_sixth_problem

In particular:

However, physics as a whole has not [been axiomitized, and in fact the Standard Model is not even logically consistent with general relativity, indicating the need for a still unknown theory of quantum gravity. The solution of Hilbert's sixth problem thus remains open.

You could not, in other words, use classical sentential logic to describe the current state of modern physics

Logic is an earthly thing — TheMadFool

I would say logic is an abstraction. There's no evidence that classical Aristotelian logic is part of nature. And much evidence that it's not. Relativity for one thing!!

The best you can say is that logic is an aspect of the human mind. So is illogic.

But logic, as an aspect of the human mind, is an abstraction. Like numbers. Like justice, or law, or religion. These are abstractions of the mind that become part of the real world only through common agreement. Social truths, as in Searle's idea of the Construction of Social Reality.

I can barely think of anything in the real world that follows classical Aristotelian logic. Not anything that matters.

One is a principle of classical logic; and the other is a principle of modern physics.

It's like asking why you can't score touchdowns in basketball, or put hotels on Boardwalk and Park Place in chess.

Have you looked at this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_diagram

That would be the starting point for this discussion.

One para of interest:

Feynman used Ernst Stueckelberg's interpretation of the positron as if it were an electron moving backward in time. Thus, antiparticles are represented as moving backward along the time axis in Feynman diagrams.

You can't expect to look at a formalism and have it be obvious. People (including @Seagull) should study this Wiki page as a starting point for beginning to understand what this is about. You can't just go, oh 1 + 1 isn't 1 - 1 as if you have a Ph.D. in quantum physics but you don't even know how to read the diagram.

Nice. I wish I could afford one like this. — Hachem

That was Feynman's van. Wasn't sure if everyone knows that.

We can begin to think about this by considering the earliest humans. Subsistence living, short lifespans, unimaginable conditions. If they didn't reproduce then none of us would be here.

So your question is about contemporary times. What has changed? I can think of two things.

* Overpopulation. If you think overpopulation is a problem then you would want to consider the question of when it's wrong to reproduce. For the record I believe and have argued on an unrelated thread that the real problem is underpopulation. So for me this wouldn't factor in. But if you think overpopulation is a concern, you'd want to consider that as a factor.

* Privilege. Modern life is expensive. It takes a lot of money just to be poor these days. If we are wealthy and we bring a child into the world, we can give it all the advantages. But if we are poor, we condemn our offspring to a lifetime of starting behind and falling further behind every day. Food not as good, schools not as good, social networks not as good, "voted least likely to succeed."

Now on the one hand that sounds like a sensible argument. But I'd argue it's elitist and frankly evil. The poor shouldn't reproduce. From there how far is it to the idea that we should just sterilize them if they can't control themselves. You're not the first to think of that.

No of course I know you didn't mean to think of that! I'm only following a "sensible sounding" idea to its actual logical conclusion. And I'm just putting forth the proposition that the value of a human life is not measured by material things; and that if our current world is the opposite, then we should strive to improve the world, not abort the poor. Or equivalently, declare that it's a moral wrong for the poor to have kids.

Now having said all this, I believe you are stuck with the overpopulation argument. People shouldn't have kids because there are too many people. I hold the opposite because I believe wealth comes from human capital, and our problems are how to get everyone organized.

We have plenty of resources in the world, but terrible distribution systems. In the great American depression farmers burned crops because the prevailing prices wouldn't pay the cost of getting the crops to market.

So no, I don't agree that shaming the poor about reproduction is a good political, social, or economic strategy. In the end I think there's a whiff of elitism in the question. The lotus eaters get to reproduce. A baby is a cost center, not a new human being. Can't afford to give a kid an upper middle class life? Kill yourself now.

A society that develops such an ethos is doomed.

Note: I am not accusing you of being a terrible person who wants to kill all the poor people. I'm exaggerating my rhetoric to make my points. Sometimes people take me the wrong way. People these days are way too literal IMO. But I do feel there is elitism at the core of the question of who should reproduce. The other side of argument is humanism. Every person is valuable. Not just the ones lucky enough to have been born to parents who practice assortative mating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assortative_mating (*)

Perhaps the problem isn't that poor people can't afford to give their kids a decent life. Perhaps the problem is that we've arranged our society such that reproducing is a luxury not financially available to most people. That your human worth is your financial worth. And what should we do about that?

(*) The Wiki article is about a general biological phenomenon. I was using the term assortative mating in the way I've heard it, where upscale attorneys marry upscale politicians, or Silicon Valley couples give birth to kids groomed to start their own company by the time they're 12.

Critics of psychiatry point out that if a patient has a physical brain condition, they need a neurologist. And if they don't, they need a psychologist. It's not clear what psychiatrists even do. Except that these days they're just pill pushers. You're not the first person to make these observations.

I'm afraid our time is up. That'll be a hundred bucks please.

Nobody believes that the air waves carry sound from one place to the other. — Hachem

Everybody believes that. The source vibrates the medium which vibrates the little hairs in your eardrum, generating a chemical signal interpreted by your brain as sound. Of course the "sound" is in your head, it's subjective. But that's a fine point of philosophy. It's the vibrations that count.

It is different for light waves — Hachem

Yes this is very mysterious. What exactly is vibrating? I don't know enough physics to really understand what it means to have a wave without a medium.

and I am aware of the fact that my conception is very unorthodox and controversial. — Hachem

Right. There is no problem with that. But in order to have a conversation I'd have to better understand where you're coming from. I have not read your other posts, only your first post in this thread. So I can't really hold up my end of the conversation. I don't know what your rules of physics are.

The whole point of this thread, and all the others, is that there are no light waves, just like there are no sound waves. — Hachem

Well this is the point where I'm not understanding your posts. I'm no expert on physics, but I know there are sound waves and there are light waves. Sound waves travel in a medium like air or water, and light waves don't require a medium, as shockingly shown by Michelson and Morley.

So I am not understanding your frame of reference or perspective or givens or axioms or assumptions or worldview when you say "there are no light waves just like there are no sound waves." I can parse the syntax but I can't map it to any meaning.

Please tell me that it is enough and that you won't bring in Cheney again! — Hachem

Well Trump just announced he's not going to block the release of the remaining JFK papers on Thursday. That should keep us whacko conspiracy theorists busy for a while.

Or as Gore Vidal said: I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm a conspiracy analyst.

They dug a grave for the ether? — Hachem

Am I taking you too literally again? Why can't I get a straight answer to a simple question? People used to say, "Water waves travel through water, sound waves travel through air, what do light waves travel through?" A famous experiment was done to show that there is no underlying medium. What is your response to this perfectly sensible question?

You better watch it or I'll start ranting about Dick Cheney again.

But in fact, the idea is the same. Instead of air, a substrate, whatever it is, travels through space, and recreates for us the sensation of light. — Hachem

What do you make of Michelson-Morley? Isn't this one of the most famous physical experiments in history, showing that there is no luminiferous ether?

I am disappointed in you fishfry. Are you spamming this thread also? — Hachem

As you've asked me not to reply to you anymore, I will do what I like here subject only to moderator preferences.

And since you asked, I'll note that I am the only person here who CAREFULLY read your post, CAREFULLY read your supporting link, THOUGHTFULLY replied, and NEVER insulted you. Yet you have totally failed to engage with any of the substantive points I made, and only said that you didn't really mean what you wrote.

So, you think Cheney had motive and opportunity to blow up the twin towers. — Hanover

The motive is in his own words, in a document authored and signed by many people who were in official posts in the government on 9/11.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

Regarding opportunity, there is quite a bit of admittedly circumstantial evidence, including his role in the infamous NORAD standown. This is not the place to read you chapter and verse, all the info is out there.

If from there you argue he must have done it without supporting evidence, a crackpot you are. — Hanover

I've done no such thing.

But you will find that the 9/11 commission itself draws many conclusions with insufficient supporting evidence. The official 9/11 commission's account is the most preposterous conspiracy theory of them all. If you reject theories that lack supporting evidence (as I do) you must reject the official account.

Which brings us back to the main point. I'd like to see a real investigation. Wouldn't you?

This isn't complicated. If you have a reasonable basis to reject an account (including believing the source isn't credible), then you should reject it. You don't then get to make up something else. — Hanover

I agree with you 100%. The official investigation was extremely shoddy. That crime deserves a serious investigation. I don't know what's true. I wasn't on the planes or in Cheney's bunker. I don't believe any particular theory. And I haven't "made up something else" except as a joke. I don't actually think Cheney personally flew all the planes. I don't believe he picked up the phone and said "Ok do it!" But as a philosophical question, how do you know he didn't? There is a lot of incredibly interesting circumstantial evidence. No proof of anything of course.

So what is your basis for believing Cheney didn't do it? I don't mean for that to sound crazy, like I think Cheney did it. [Note: Cheney and of course not W, who was totally out of the loop]. I'm asking as if we're in epistemology class. What is the belief system that says Cheney didn't do it? That the government is benevolent? That the government never lies to us? Kills its own citizens? That Cheney and company are such nice people that they could never do such a thing?

We could list each element of belief, and argue them and look at evidence. That's not crazy. It's part of rational inquiry. The cops in Law and Order see a dead body, they want to know who held the insurance policy. A rational investigation would make a list of everyone who profited and they'd check their alibi.

My point would be that you literally can't be curious and open-minded and conduct a rational inquiry into the events of 9/11 WITHOUT coming across as a total loon. Here's me, intimating that the executive branch of the US government ran the attacks on 9/11.

Do I believe it's true? No.

Do I believe it's possible? Most definitely. Just look at the crew that was involved. The day after 9/11 they were putting their war plans into place. Sure they could have been just "lucky" they got their Pearl Harbor and got to invade their 6 out of 7 countries. (Iran is next). But if you're the cops on Law and Order, you take a look at all the suspects, not just the ones you happen to want to go to war with.

So rational inquiry itself in a case like this looks just like crazy.

Just sayin'.

crackpot — Hanover

By what epistemological principle should I accept the findings of the government's 9/11 commission? What filter or principle of reasoning should I apply?

Say it's 1964 and Lyndon Johnson tells me that a US ship was attacked by North Vietnamese in the Gulf of Tonkin, therefore we must dramatically escalate the war in Vietnam?

What principle should I use to believe or disbelieve it?

Why do you think I'm a crackpot?

You greatly misstate my position. Questioning is not the same as arriving at unsupported and outlandish theories. — Hanover

I think Cheney not only ordered it. I think he personally flew the planes. That's my Lone Hijacker theory. Now you can call me a nut if you like. By the way I quite agree with you that theories should be supported by evidence. But are you aware that the government's own 9/11 story is an unsupported and outlandish theory? The commission's co-chairs said publicly that the commission was set up to fail. But we should believe it anyway? Why? What is the epistemological principle according to which we should believe the account of the 9/11 commission, which is riddled full of bad logic, unsupported claims, shoddy investigative work, and outright impossibilities? That has no credibility even with the people who authored it?

Why should we believe it? If we are rational people who demand evidence and logic, we must in fact reject the report of the 9/11 commission. That makes us conspiracy theorists. Crackpots. Crazies.

So where do you draw the line? What questions may be asked and what theories are too outlandish? 19 Arabs with boxcutters because they hate our freedoms. Now that's outlandish.

Saying, I want a more comprehensive report about 9/11 is different than the crackpot conclusion that GW orchestrated it. — Hanover

You say that here. But anyone who questions anything is generally labelled a crackpot. If you say "I want a better investigation" you get labeled as someone who believes Cheney personally picked up the phone and said "Go!" And tell me something. What is your evidence he didn't? You think he's too nice a person? LOL. Maybe you never heard of the report of PNAC, the Project for a New American Century, in which Cheney and others specifically called for a "new Pearl Harbor" to make Americans willing to go to war in the Middle East and destabilize seven specific countries. If I'm a conspiracy theorist it's because I've read the published plans of the conspirators.

When you ask questions, you get labelled a crackpot. Are you following this Las Vegas shooting story? Even people who aren't usually conspiracy nuts are saying this story stinks to high heaven. But "reputable" news outlets label anyone who questions this a conspiracy nut or a lunatic.

That is a technique to keep people from asking questions or using their own judgment and common sense. I choose to push back. It's more vital than ever to question the government's account of virtually everything that happens. The US has been at war in half a dozen countries since 9/11. The exact countries named in the PNAC document. We're not supposed to ask questions?

Ok I've said my piece. I wish you'd rethink who you regard as beyond the pale for doubting and questioning what the government says. They lied us into the Vietnam war, they lied us into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now nobody even knows all the wars we're involved in. Those four guys who got killed in Niger, did you even know the US was at war in Niger?

The American people have gotten numb to the government's war machine. We dare not ask questions. If we do, our friends and neighbors label us "conspiracy theorists."

Try to think for yourself.

I'd place conspiracy theorists, anti-scientists, and half-brains under the crackpot umbrella — Hanover

I'll take the bait. Question. If I say the following: "The 9/11 commission spent $15M. They spent $40M on Bill Clinton's blowjob. There are many inconsistencies and outright impossibilities presented as fact in the commission report. I would like to see a proper investigation done. I would like to see at least a blowjob's worth of investigation on what was the crime of the millennium."

If I said that, would you regard me as a crackpot?

Do you think that anyone who even questions the government narrative of a public event is automatically to be labelled a crackpot and dismissed? "Remember the Maine?" The Gulf of Tonkin? Saddam's WMDs? When the government lies us into war is one a conspiracy theorist for asking for a thorough and comprehensive investigation?

I really want to hear this.

What would the sensors register if the camera or cameras were placed at the end of the trajectory, instead of on the side? — Hachem

I have no idea. Maybe you can explain this to me. How am I supposed to know what are "presentation details" that "may or may not" be important? I responded to the post you wrote. How am I supposed to know what you consider important? Your post has at least three specific violations of contemporary physics. You might consider writing a post that's more clear.

Like I said, you may well have something interesting to say. But I don't think you've said it.

This is a very narrow reading of my posts. — Hachem

Agreed. Narrow. But not IMO unfair.

You still haven't responded to my specific concerns regarding the violations of known physical law in your thought experiment.

You understand we are not seeing a "beam" but rather a statistical interpretation of a beam. Perhaps you should just explain your idea in terms of photons and not reference this experiment at all, which seem to be about something else entirely.

Also I believe you are referencing other posts you've made, but I haven't read them. In this post you talked about "racers" that can communicate at faster than light speed. I'm perfectly justified in asking you to put that in context.

In case anyone cares, I read the rest of the abstract and wanted to put the OP's linked paper into context.

First, I was correct that they are not tracking individual photons, but rather putting together snapshots from many different experiments. They say:

Direct recording of reflected or scattered light at such a frame rate with sufficient brightness is nearly impossible. We use an indirect 'stroboscopic' method that records millions of repeated measurements by careful scanning in time and viewpoints. Then we rearrange the data to create a 'movie' of a nanosecond long event.

So this is impressive, but there's less here than meets the eye. There's a lot of software munging of a lot of data to put together a "track" of a photon.

Secondly, about the name Femto. It turns out that they do femtosecond resolution in their measurements, but by the time they put together the software-adjusted pseudo track, they are viewing or modeling events across nanoseconds. So it's not really hype to call it Femto, but you have to read into the details to find out what's femto and what's nano.

Finally, here is how they describe the significance of their experiment:

Beyond the potential in artistic and educational visualization, applications include industrial imaging to analyze faults and material properties, scientific imaging for understanding ultrafast processes and medical imaging to reconstruct sub-surface elements, i.e., 'ultrasound with light'. In addition, the photon path analysis will allow new forms of computational photography, e.g., to render and re-light photos using computer graphics techniques.

In other words there are no fundamental new understandings here. Rather this is a really impressive engineering feat that will lead to interesting applications. The authors do not claim this is any kind of theoretical breakthrough nor do they think this has any kind of metaphysical importance at all.

It's the OP who has read about this interesting experiment, and extrapolated some unjustified conclusions about being able to control individual photons and line them up like race horses. Nothing in the experiment supports any such inferences. This is not a fundamental experiment. It's a terrific technological accomplishment but I think the OP is reading too much into it. In my opinion, at any rate.

Well that's my two cents on this. I do recommend that people give this article a click, the pictures alone are worth it.

http://web.media.mit.edu/~raskar/trillionfps/

http://web.media.mit.edu/~raskar/trillionfps/ — Hachem

Very interesting site. Beautiful photos. I'm just starting to read their abstract. It does look very interesting.

I do have one quibble. They write:

The effective exposure time of each frame is two trillionths of a second and the resultant visualization depicts the movement of light at roughly half a trillion frames per second.

Now it's funny, because my little anal-retentive streak that made me go look up the definition of a femtosecond earlier, turns out to be useful after all.

Remember a femtosecond is 10^(-15) second. That's a decimal point with 14 zeros and a 1 to the right. [.1 = 10^(-1) has no zeros, .01 = 10^(-2) has one zero, etc. It's off by one].

What's a trillionth of a second? Well a thousandth is 10^(-3), a millionth is 10^(-6), a billionth is 10^(-9), and a trillionth is 10^(-12). [This is American usage. Brits call billions trillions or vice versa. Apologize for being an uncouth yank. Didn't I get in trouble around here a while back on that very thing?]

So they are about three orders of magnitude off. The title of the paper, "femto", is not backed up by the details. They are working at the scale of 10^(-12) but not 10^(15).

That's not a knock on anything they're doing, which is impressive work. Just noting that the title may be a little bit hyped. I didn't read far enough to see if it's justified.

I have heard about this work somewhere. They use statistical techniques I think, in other words they're not tracking a single photon. Rather they're looking at a lot of photons and looking at statistical models of where things are supposed to be. Kind of a computer strobe if my understanding is correct. That's a bit handwavy, I'll say more after I read the article, especially if I flagrantly mischaracterized their technology.

Anyway yes this is a great experiment. But the stuff you are talking about is way beyond this. Your stuff is speculative physics not based on current physics. Do you agree or disagree with the specific points I made earlier?

What do we say of those who can't see the flaw in lumping all who they disagree with into a single catagory of crackpottery — Hanover

Yes I know. If you even ask questions about certain things, you get accused of agreeing with every crackpot theory on Youtube. I wonder if those kinds of people are secretly terrified of what they'll find if they allow themselves to ask questions. Asking questions is dangerous. Better to call the questioner a crackpot. That way they don't have to engage with the argument.

↪fishfry can we be sure it isn’t? — Banno

I assume it's femto as in femtosecond, one quadrillionth second. In the US that's 10^(-15) seconds and in Great Britain it's 10^(-24) so your mileage may vary.

[Edit. In GB a quadrillion is 10^(-24) seconds. But a femtosecond is 10^(-15) regardless].

Imagine looking at racers who go as fast as the speed of light. — Hachem

This right here is a problem (sticky wicket, in British). Contemporary physics does not allow any such thing. A photon can go at the speed of light, but not a racer. You have to say what your assumptions are.

* Is a "racer" a photon? Ok, we can work with that I think.

* Or are you positing some future or alternative physics?

Imagine looking at racers who go as fast as the speed of light.
The first racer starts running and reaches the position of the second racer who immediately takes off at his maxi — Hachem

Immediately? So information (about the arrival of the first racer) is transmitted instantaneously to the second racer? Well ok, but that's only in some future or alternate physics. I'm not saying it couldn't happen. Only that it violates contemporary established physics. Information can not be transmitted faster than the speed of light. [Modulo this entanglement business, which is fascinating but mostly over my head].

until all racers cross the finish line at the same time. — Hachem

In whose frame of reference? Simultaneity is not absolute. Another feature of modern physics.

I don't doubt you have an interesting idea in there, but it would be helpful if you can put your ideas into context. Some of your suggestions violate known physical law. So you just have to tell us what your assumptions are.

Oh, Femto! At first I thought this was another faux-feminist thread from the assembled sausagocracy. Nevermind.

I doubt anyone else is confused — Baden

You are factually incorrect. Many people are confused about the same point.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/07/30/why_do_bill_and_hillary_clinton_still_get_a_pass_127590.html

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article108304112.html

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/yes-hillary-was-an-enabler-213919

https://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/1998/05/williams199805

http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/11/trumps-sexual-depravity-bad-bill-clintons-okay/

https://acculturated.com/bill-clinton-effect/

There are many other such article on Google. You are simply wrong when you think that nobody else is questioning why liberals give Bill Clinton a pass on credible allegations of rape. On the contrary, many thoughtful people have noted this point. Some partisan, some not.

If partisan politics explained it, Cosby would not have been attacked by the left the way he was. The contrast between Cosby and Clinton is striking. Partisan politics really doesn't explain it at all.

And Baden's answer is that the left gives Bill a pass because the right gives Trump a pass — Agustino

That doesn't make sense, even as a joke. The Clinton allegations are over 20 years old and go back to his time as governor of Arkansas.

Why did the liberals abandon Cosby and Weinstein, but not hold Bill Clinton accountable? That is the question. I find it curious.

I came to the conversation this time to raise the example of Trump in order to answer fishfry's question. — Baden

I fail to understand that. The left is of course eager to attack Trump. The question is why the left gives Bill Clinton a pass.

A famous illustration is this quote from liberal writer Nina Burleigh regarding the Monica Lewinsky affair:

I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their Presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Burleigh

You see my point?

What is your point? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I simply asked a question. Bill Cosby was called to account. Harvey Weinstein was called to account. But Bill Clinton gets a pass from liberals. I asked why that is. I'm genuinely curious about this.