Leaderboard

Non-polarized light is made up of waves for which the electric wave is oscillating all directions. A polarized filter prevents all of them except the one oscillating in the right plane from passing through. This is due to the way that the molecules line up in the polarizing filter. Something like this: ( of course in this image, only some of the waves in the non-polarized light are shown). When light is scattered, like they are in the particles of the water, they are only scattered in a direction along the plane perpendicular to the direction of the wave is oscillating. Thus the polarized light in the above image can only be scattered along the left and right plane and not in the up and down one. If the polarizing filter were to be rotated 90 degrees, it would only let the light which oscillated in the horizontal through, and these waves could only be scattered in the up and down plane and not the left and right one. When non-polarized light passes through the water, each wave is scattered according to the orientation of that wave's oscillation. Since the beam is a mixture of light waves of various orientations, some waves will be scattered in the direction of our eyes no matter from which direction we look at the beam passing through the water. If the light is polarized before entering the water, Then waves that oscillate in only one plane enter the water, and they can only be scattered along one plane. If the light is polarized vertically, then it will only be scattered horizontally, and you only see this scattered light if you are to the side of the tank. If it is polarized horizontally, the light is only scattered vertically, and thus you you can only see this light if you are looking at the tank from the top or bottom, ( our have this light reflected to you by a properly placed mirror.)

Source: Cosmos 23 October 2017. It seems like a pretty sensational claim...and title for the article..?

Thanks to all. More info than I ever received from management when doing those analyses. Will now use your suggestions as a starting point for my net search. Ahh...retirement and free time. Savoring it.

Like all such “proofs” it is trivially false unless you already believe.

This is what I mean by corrupting a definition to suit your agenda. Faith has absolutely NOTHING to do with evidence, it's in most all the dictionaries as a form of belief that eschews evidence, doesn't need it at all. Faith is a form of belief that does NOT rely on logical proofs or empirical evidence. With faith, you believe strongly, mostly with your heart and very little with your head. How meaningful is it to discuss this with you when you make up your own definitions for words that already have widely used ones? When will it begin to teach us anything about ourselves, other than our lack of gladness at suffering foolish ideas?

Light doesn't scatter in the direction of the mirror. There is no light to reflect. If it scatters vertically (and is therefore reflected) then it doesn't scatter horizontally. You get one or the other, but not both, when the light is polarized.

The evidences for Christianity is the same as all other religions... zip, none, nada... Objective moral values do not exist, if we were to use your own holy book as a moral guide you would be arrested in any first world country. The ontological argument has been falsified so many times I wonder why you would include it here at all. WLC is a christian apologist, his idea of how slaughtering children is a moral act is only slightly worse than making little girls into sex slaves as demanded by your god.

The origin of the philosophy that talks about morality and moral values can be found in the works of Aristotle and Plato - both famous Christians of course. So you are saying that someone who does not believe in (your?) God, they have no morals? My point is that you cannot mention "God" and then say the word objective in that same sentence. Also, If I may, I have a question as you quoted Ansel and his Proslogion. If you were born in India and raised in a traditional Hindu family and found the Bible, Proslogion and any christian book that comes to mind - do you think you would say, all this way of life (Hinduism) is wrong and I found the "true" religion and become a Christian? ooooooor would you just say - "that's a nice collection of fables and fiction now let's also read Harry Potter while we're at it?"

You’re right to highlight how this cycle is self-reinforcing, but I need to push back slightly on the idea that autonomy and democracy must be somehow destroyed to counter this situation. Instead, I posit that we need MORE democracy and that part of the problem here is that the majority of the populace actually agrees this is out of line, but for various other reasons (fear, anxiety, lack of time, focus on more foundational things like putting food on the table and paying bills, etc.) They choose not to speak up. Most folks are unknowingly complicit with their silence even though their words carry such tremendous weight and would do so much to counterbalance this ignorance and hatred. Again, we need MORE democracy in its truest sense. We need MORE people standing up to be counted. We need louder voices and MORE passion from those who find these racist and nationalist tendencies outdated and repugnant. Too often, however, the passion is only visible from the minority who scapegoats and blames everything on other minorities. We need to talk to people, perhaps in their own language just as you and silvestru have done here, to remind them of our deeper values; to remind them that there are better ways to solve the problems we collectively face; to demonstrate that’s it’s not us and them, but just us; to remind them that scapegoating only delays solutions and deepens problems thus making us all much worse off; to remind them that we’re all in this together and are far stronger when we stand up against these pathetic twats in a unified, consistent, energized way. Democracy is EXACTLY what’s needed to solve this, but so too is increased effort and engagement from the great majority who quietly and silently oppose it. We must find their unmute button. That’s the lever we must push.

Hello, I have made a 2D/3D Dimensional 6*6*6 chessboard:

It would radiate as a quadrupole even under those conditions for example supernovas through gravitational collapse generate GW waves. If you have a copy of General Relativity a first course by Schultz it is described in his book.

Pole= polarity. mono-pole 1 polarity ie single charge dipolar =2 polarity, quadupole 4 polarity states. Dipolar is spin 1 with two polarity states |+1/2> and |-1/2> quadrupole spin 2 for GW waves, as GW waves is changes to spacetime geometry we apply a coordinate basis. As it is convenient to graph changes on amplitude with an x, y graph. Both the x and y axis both undergo changes. So it is convenient to state this as a plane wave travelling in the z direction. We can then preserve the z axis. So now we have at any time interval change 2 simultaneous changes to both the x and y axis on both the positive and negative axis on each. So as both x+ and x- contract, the y+ and y- axis expands as t_1 then at 1/2 a cycle they switch x expands while y contracts. However the GW wave radiates in all directions. Just as an everyday antenna radiates in all directions (for omnidirectional antennas lol) (all of physics uses graphs, with which we can use to apply geometry to describe.) Now to describe the above under GR/SR (more accurately for the formulas I will use (SR) though under GR the Newton limit. I believe everyone currently reading this thread attempted to understand Dubblesix mathematics but failed to follow the Dirac notation he is using. Well Dirac developed a method to better understand and represent vector and vector addition using symbology. (long and short of it) You have three types of vector products the inner, the outer and the cross product. [math] a\bullet b[/math] denoted as the dot product. The inner product is the product of two parallel vectors. This will return a scalar value. Oft denoted A||B. As they are parallel we only require the difference in magnitude. The cross product is used when two vectors are not parallel example angular momentum. L=R×P. The symbol is the same "x". If they are orthogonal they are parallel. A×B. If not then we need to apply Trig to restore to perpendicular. So obviously the cross product requires the direction as well as the magnitude. The cross product of two vectors is a vector. Now a Hilbert space is a 2 dimensional object ie the x,y graph. Now obviously I cannot give an entire course of Vector calculus, GR, QM and GR. lol however I can provide some assist. Dirac notation Bra and ket. [math] | A\rangle [/math] is ket which is the initial state. Ie can be the particle itself eg electron in its polarity state [math] \langle A|[/math] bra the final or conjugate state. [math] \langle |A|\rangle[/math] the transpose between the ket to the bra. [math]|\langle +|\varphi\rangle^2|[/math] probability Now without going through a full course the Kronecker delta has two indices i and j with values 1 to 3. See chapter 1 in particular the Kronecker Delta which in essence shows that your coordinate basis of all 3 coordinates x,y,z are symmetric and normalized to unity. http://physics.csusb.edu/~prenteln/notes/vc_notes.pdf this is the equivalent to the Kronecker under relativity and is used specifically under the Minkowskii tensor [math]\eta_{\mu\nu}[/math] Now part of Dubblesix proofs were specifically using thee Cauchy inequality to prove the triangle inequality to show that pythagorous theorem still applies as per Euclid geometry. Ie Galilean relativity (no time dilation or curvature) Euclidean geometry. now there is a trick to identify any orthogonal matrix any matrix with only the diagonal components being irreducible is orthogonal. [math]\eta=\begin{pmatrix}-c^2&0&0&0\\0&1&0&0\\0&0&1&0\\0&0&0&1\end{pmatrix}[/math] in this Minkowskii tesnor the coordinates are [math]ds^2=-c^2dt^2+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2=\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu}[/math] so under SR this is time symmetric (under constant velocity that is) once you undergo an acceleration you undergo a rotation and it becomes skew symmetric. Now how can we apply a vector to describe curvature as the above is Euclidean flat? well recall that relativity models freefall under constant velocity. So use two vectors to freefall, if the freefall paths remain parallel then your geometry is Euclidean. (Principle of equivalence) If the paths start to diverge or converge then the spacetime geometry is curved. (ie tidal force) Principle of covariance. so now we need to add another vector k. See the same link above for the Levi-Cevita. this system under GR is [math]G_{\mu\nu}[/math] for this you will need the polar or spherical coordinates where the previous is in Cartesian coordinates. Now our three coordinate axis are no longer symmetric but is antisymmetric. See 1.8 page 24. Now unfortunately there in't any easy way to describe the wave equation and the transverse traceless guage.( I would literally have to skip numerous chapters in a standard texbook on GR. However there is a key fundamental difference between how the polarization's differ from the electromagnetic guage. In the latter the two polarizations have a 90 degree phase shift between the magnetic field and the electric field. However in the case of the GW waves the [math]H_+[/math] and [math] H_x[/math] is a 45 degree polarization difference. The main relevant formulas is included below and saves me tons of latex and explanation. http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~kokkotas/Teaching/NS.BH.GW_files/GW_Physics.pdf this has the necessary metrics including the 3d wave equation... see the images for the plus and cross polarizations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave seeing as everyone likes images lol.... Anyways let me know which areas you want on further details on the above as I went fairly quick and extremely heuristic on the above (too much ground to cover in one post) A little side note despite the fact that LIGO has two arms in an L fashion that act as a detection antenna the polarizations above confirm the spin 2 statistics described above. The detector wouldn't work on dipolar waves which includes mechanical vibrations. Also the reason each arm is 7 km is to catch 1/4 of each polarity. Just like the length of an antenna is designed to catch a quarter wave. This determines what frequency range the antenna can detect. If it catches a 1/2 wave it will not pick up the signal. (the polarities will cancel out)... (should help weed out all the crank papers arguing against the detection lol)

If the mass/energy of the Sun were to suddenly 'disappear', space-time in its vicinity would no longer have a need for curvature, and would 'spring back' to the nearly flat curvature of intra-galactic space. The gravitational wave, caused by this springing back, would cause a 3d ripple, spreading outwards at the speed of light, with the equivalent energy of one solar mass. This doesn't sound like quadrupole radiation, but the energy of the curved space-time has to be dissipated, and the only mechanism I know of is a gravitational wave. Maybe someone with a better understanding of GR can correct me if I'm wrong. ( furiously looking through my copy of Gravitation for clarification ) How many solar masses disappeared in the recent collision of two black holes ? And how distant were they ? ( IIRC, 3 solar masses 'disappeared' in the collision about a billion LY away, and the detector registered about a trillionth of an inch ) Now imagine the effects of a solar mass/energy gravitational wave at only 150 mill km.

Hmm i read it as why one instrument got chosen over the other. But if that is the question then the basic answer is that for refractory elements the necessary temps are often not reached even with GFAA. That being said, practically it also depends on overall method development, but also the type of ICP. Another aspect, depending on sample, are e.g. spectral interference, where the performance of the detector would determine the respective quality of the results (but which would not be an issue in ICP-MS, for example).

The only answer is how much we care to help keep it suitable. My dentist tells me to only brush the teeth I want to keep.

I'm no expert on this but I suspect that varying properties of different metals or other elements/compounds you were looking to find in water require different furnace specifications.

I think I know this one. The second isn't a mental disorder because few transexuals invade Russia.

I think a good first step for thinking about photons is to stop thinking of waves and particles. Photons (and electrons etc...) are not classical particles nor waves. They are something difference. Our normal experiences do not observe things like that so we don't really have words or annologies that work. Therefore we have to say things like; photons have wavelike and particlelike properties. As an aside, energy is a property of stuff not something itself.

It's difficult using logic and evidence to argue someone out of a position at which they arrived using neither. Remember, though, that others may be watching and you have the opportunity to take the high road, approach the situation with respect and kindness, and potentially even convince them of the merits of your stance (even if you never know you have).

Scientific method is not set in stone. See the early discussions in QM, and the present day ones about string theory and multiverses. Saying this you reduce philosophy to scientific method only. Well, while a nice 'bon mot' I do not agree. There is also a lot we do not know in the area of physics, but that does not make it philosophy. Physics is concerned with nature, philosophy with clarifying our thinking. They are just different disciplines. But if course the study of how physicist think might be a topic of philosophy, which btw is mostly successfully done by the physicists themselves (but not always! Yes, Krauss...) No, I was just thinking about old-fashioned metaphysics, as a way to find out what is 'behind the scenes' of our physical world based on pure thinking. Well, that is highly speculative. I want to amend this: the only worthy answers on scientific questions are scientific answers. But I repeatedly stated there are other question that maybe just as relevant for our lives that are not scientific questions:

That is too easy. It needed a hell of a philosophical discussion when it turned out that QM did not fulfill the expectations of classical mechanics, that we can observe the world as it is and that it is completely determined. Nice article. This is a nice one too. Another thing to note: also here on the forum, philosophy is not rubricated under science. But as said, to think that only scientific questions (i.e. questions that potentially can be answered by science) are important in life is scientism.

Science and the scientific method are no persons, so they do not know of limitations. Scientists, and science fans however do not always. I wrote about scientism elsewhere, under a slightly different perspective, namely 'science as religion' : except point 1, it are different forms of scientism:

If this were true, then there would be no 'scientismists' under scientists. That is just not true. I would even say: the best physicists can reflect about the status of their science. Doing so, they are not doing science, but philosophy. And I would add, if they end up with scientism, they have done their philosophical job badly. As a counterpoint to your fixed believe in one single scientific method, set in stone for ages, read this Wikipedia article about 'epistemological anarchism'.

I think that the discussion about scientific method, if it is set in stone, is a topic in itself. This is my last reaction on this here. Open another thread if you want. The point in this thread is just that philosophy is a discipline in itself, that it can give important intellectual insights, but that it is not a science. A physicist reflecting on his way of working is philosophising. A physicist reflecting on what the status of his theories is, is philosophising. Any human reflecting on the basic assumptions and values behind his thinking is philosophising. Any human reflecting on the validity of his values is philosophising. Any human reflecting on the precise meaning of concepts he uses in his thinking is philosophising. And if this person has made a academic career in the systematic study of these kinds of reflecting, he is a philosopher. What philosophy definitely is not: another way of trying to find out how the world around us is: that is the domain of the sciences.

Question for you: why would philosophy of science still be a an academic discipline when the scientific method is set in stone? Interesting way of seeing it. Roughly you have a point, but still very rough. I have studied philosophy in Utrecht, the Netherlands, and I was taught about all kind of philosophers, analytic or not. (I would not label analytic philosophy 'Western', in contrast to 'Continental'. Is western Europe not Western?). Analytic philosophy is relatively young, it arose in the beginnings of the 20th century. It has a special interest in the use of language, but some outskirts of it were trying to be too scientific, and so completely missed the boat ) e.g. behaviourism as basis of an explanation of the mind. Why should philosophy look for physical evidence? Physical evidence is for physicists. Most of (ancient!) eastern philosophy tries to help to reach Enlightenment. Most of the Hindu-philosophies do this by building extended metaphysical frameworks about the essence of the world and of ourselves, and therefore, as you say, do not fit well to science. OTOH (original) Buddhism accentuates the importance of sticking to experience: the Buddha mostly refuses to answer if there is a god, if the universe is infinite or infinite, if there is a life after death etc etc. And given his idea of 'no-self' (i.e. there does not exist an independent existing self (or soul)), Buddhism fits very well to modern science. The question is "knowledge of what?". If it is knowledge of anything empirical, then this is not a task for philosophy, but for one of the sciences. And speculation about empirical facts, still belongs to science. It can be bad science (crackpots), and can be good science if it has the prospect of being empirically proven. But it never is philosophy. (Is string theory science, mathematics, or philosophy? Why?) The idea that as soon as some part of philosophy gets 'grown-up' it becomes science is surely not uptodate. There might have been a time that everything except mathematics and astronomy was called (natural) philosophy, but it surely was not a process of philosophy splitting of one science after the other, not leaving anything for itself. When we know everything, science is obsolete too. We do not need scientists anymore, no laboratories or observatories. We would only need engineers, to be creative with all the known laws of nature, and design new technologies based on it.

I see the distinction you are making, however it is oriented very practically. Both science and philosophy have their theoretical parts, springing from the lust of understanding. Both know "L'art pour l'art". Philosophy even a bit too much. But intellectual analysis of religious, political and nationalistic ideologies easily lead to justified criticism. So I assume you are still more or less right... No, you cannot philosophise about everything. For the empirical world we have the sciences. One can philosophise about science of course, because it is a way of human thinking. And in some cases that might have impact on the way science is done. But the facts of the world around us are the domain of the sciences. Do not let you fool by Fritjof Capra... But it is true that some modern psychology integrates some Buddhist ideas. Just as on example: Guy Claxton. Nonsense. The theoretical interpretation of e.g. experiments in physics is the job of physicists. The reflection on the ideas behind their theories, their structures, the regulative ideas in finding such theories and why they are justified is philosophy. But most of that is still done by the physicists themselves. If science wants to be good, it must be able to be empirically justified. Science is about something, and this 'about' is the touchstone of the correctness of a scientific theory. Philosophy is about the thinking about 'about'. (If you know what I mean... ). I do not see what this has to do with philosophy. It are all examples of overoptimistic application of new technology, without understanding the full impact of its use. Of course. But that was a reaction on a posting of beecee where he suggested that philosophy ever could be ready. Funny. I think like a philosopher too, and I think Russell is wrong here... Just remember what beecee said: (Bold by me). Philosophy and physics are not equal in that philosophy is not science. But both are intellectual endeavours in their own respect. Yeah. Terrible. And give philosophy a bad name. Even modern philosophy. Mostly agree, except the sentence I italicized. Science might still progress, but might not get its correct position in human society. To give a simple example: physicists surely the biggest experts on nuclear energy. But if it is a good idea to use it the way we do is a question that needs much more insights than just insight in physics. And to be honestly, lots of physicists do not see it that way...

I think I repeated this already a few times. Philosophy is the investigation in our way of thinking. Capra is the godfather of new age kitsch of physics, especially of QM, comparing insights of physics with 'eastern wisdom'. So yes, such kind of books. Is physics not also a kind of knowledge? Note I use 'e.g.', i.e. physics as an example of knowledge. You said this: You suggest here science only provides experimental and observable facts, and that the theorising is the task of philosophy. Can you elaborate? Can you give some example of 'knowledge', that then is interpreted by philosophy? Where does that leave theory building? Well, this is the bon mot by Russell: We still have no idea what dark matter is. Should we ask philosophers? I am pretty sure we should not. Let physicists and cosmologists try to find out. It is an empirical question, so it is a scientific question. OK, I took the effort to find out in what context Russell said this. It comes from 'Unpopular essays', Chapter 'Philosophy for laymen', page 24 (here a link where you can download it as pdf) It stands in the context of the idea that all of science was called 'philosophy' in antiquity and the middle ages, and that at the moment parts of it became empirically based theories they became science. Of course this feeds the idea that in the end nothing is left for philosophy. But pity enough this has nothing to do what philosophers are doing today. So you cannot apply Russell's use (in a historical context) to the present situation. And Russel is definitely positive about philosophy (page 33)

You call established theories 'bits of information'? Fits to what I stated before. Science are the facts and their interpretation in theoretical frameworks. This kind of interpretation is still science, not philosophy.

But I mean faith is trust on evidences and Christianity is not far from this definition. First if God doesn't exist, objective moral values do not exist. It is only pure subjective.In a deep sense there is no real right and wrong. Right and wrong are the same.But heres the catch.Why we tend to see things really wrong and really right if there is no objectivity of it? honestly, believing that there is a God is not blind faith or just I believe it without any convincing reasons. Like the great thinkers of the old-Anselm, Augustine,Aquinas, Leibniz etc, it's not just blind faith that I believe in God aside from my personal experience of Him. Obviously like them, I critically think it.Anselm for example invented the ontological argument which is still hotly debated today. Watch the debate between William lane Craig and Kevin Scharp-" Is there evidence for God in youtube and it is explaiined well by WLC.

God is the judge of our actions.He is the universal judge for our right or wrong doings does it become objective only if there is a God.

It depends on the person. If he really seeks the truth and If he has open his mind and open his heart in seeking God he will find Him.