Leaderboard

I am unsure why you would think that - you have never upset me in the slightest with anything you have said, so no apology is necessary at all. But just to set the record straight anyway: it is highly unlikely that I know more about GR than you do I am merely an interested amateur, and everything I post here - without exception - is entirely self-taught. Unlike Mordred, I have no academic credentials in any area of science; truth be told, I never even went to university at all. My understanding of GR and physics in general is cobbled together from a variety of textbooks over the years. I am on the autism spectrum, and one of the defining characteristics of people on the spectrum is that we tend to get totally absorbed by narrow areas of interest (this is called monotropism) - for me that just happened to be physics, specifically GR, at least in the beginning; so I did a lot of reading and self-study in that area. In recent years my interests have diversified somewhat, and I also got involved with certain areas of philosophy and spirituality. Also, understanding GR is natural and intuitive to me, in a way that does not seem to be the case for most neurotypical people; perhaps people on the spectrum find it easier to step outside established paradigms (in this case Newtonian physics) and look at things from a different angle. We tend to have difficulties with other aspects of life, though. I can only speak for myself here. I have no interest whatsoever in anything to do with politics; I stay as far away from it as I can. Anytime in the past when I needed to get involved in politics (workplace, family, etc) it ended badly for me in some way or another. The main reason would be that, as being on the autism spectrum, I am unable to read social cues and guess at peoples’ social intentions. Social interactions between neurotypical people are a complete mystery to me, I cannot understand them. I function reasonably well in daily life, but that is only because I have learned to mask a lot; it’s not the same thing. To me, politics is a bunch of people with strong opinions, who do not recognise them as being opinions, and mistake them for some kind of reality. So they get terribly agitated when others don’t share them; there is a lot of suffering it it, really, and no one seems to even see that. I have plenty of views and opinions as well, but I tend to be able to recognise them as such (or so I hope), and see how they are changing with time, so I don’t try to push them on other people. They are just constructs of my mind, so ultimately they say more about my mind than they do about the world at large. As for religion and ethics, they are areas of interest to me - but I personally don’t see them as something to be debated or discussed on social media, which is why I don’t participate in those threads. Religion - or rather: spirituality - in particular is something you do, not just some passive view on the world. I see lots of people who call themselves “Christian” or “Muslim” or “Buddhist”, but these are just labels - those same people may speak and act in ways that reveal complete ignorance of the nature of human suffering. And conversely, some of those people I have met who were most at peace with themselves and the world did not label themselves in any way; they just lived a truth that existed within them on a visceral, intuitive level. So religion and spirituality are never external things, they come from the inside; they are lived, not debated. That’s all I can really share with regards to this. Ethics, to me, is the art of finding the path of least suffering, for myself and everyone else who is involved, in any given situation. There is no such thing as “right” or “wrong”, there is only cause and effect. One can write down general principles for this that may hold true in most cultural backgrounds, but ultimately it is again something intuitive and visceral, something that happens inside. Intention has a lot to do with it - if we act from a place that understands the suffering inherent in all sentient life, and consciously choose to act in ways that minimises it to the best of our limited abilities, then the seeds of our actions will generally be wholesome ones. Again, I think it has a lot to do with one’s reasons for being here. I am on this forum for two reasons only - to expand my own knowledge and understanding, and to help others do the same; and very often, these two things are mutually co-dependent, and happen simultaneously. It is no longer about getting anyone else to adopt my own views on things. Ultimately you cannot force someone to understand something; you can only offer them the tools that might enable them to put the causes and conditions in place for such understanding to arise eventually. But different people come from different backgrounds, and they are at different stages of their own journeys when they arrive here on this forum; it does happen that someone just isn’t ready to listen, and then it won’t matter what you say to them, regardless of how rational and scientific it is. They will be unable to see the merit in it. It’s not even their “fault” really, it’s just that the conditions are not right yet for understanding to arise. Getting upset or offended will never help in these situations - most often it is best to simply disengage and walk away. After all, it is their journey, so I don’t need to loose my own balance over it.

On the example of Hydrogen-1 atom: free proton, and free electron have higher mass-energy than bound together proton and electron. Similarly free nucleus (multiple protons and eventually neutrons bound together) and many free electrons have higher mass-energy than when they are bound together. If they join together, energy is released. Usually in the form of multiple lower energy photons. This process can be reversed. When energy is delivered to atom, molecule, electron is ejected. Usually energy is delivered by particles in the form of kinetic energy. Photons with enough energy, electrons with enough kinetic energy, or other particles or molecules with enough kinetic energy. It is what scientists call ionization energy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionization_energy Different particles, different elements, different isotopes, have different ionization energies. e.g. if you have Helium-4 element with 2 electrons it is electric neutral atom. After 1st ionization it changes to positively charged He+ nucleus and free e-. After 2nd ionization it changes to He2+ and two free electrons e-. He2+ is also called alpha particle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_particle 2nd and further ionizations require significantly more and more energy. Outermost (valence) electrons are the easiest to be ejected. Innermost (the closest to nucleus) are the hardest to be ejected. The example gave by joigus, Lithium has small energy of 1st ionization. As you can read in this table it requires 5.39172 eV energy. For instance ionization energy of Hydrogen is 13.6 eV. Two and half more energy needed to eject electron. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionization_energies_of_the_elements_(data_page) If Lithium has contact with element (let's call it "X") which has not fully filled orbitals, Lithium valence electron is intercepted, and Li+ positive ion and X- negative ions are created. They are still bound by electrostatic forces, ionic bonding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionic_bonding Similarly, stable isotopes made of multiple nucleons (i.e. protons and neutrons), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleon , bound together are at lower energy state than when they are free. Energy needed to disintegrate their nuclei is called nuclear binding energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_binding_energy Unstable isotopes have enough mass-energy by themselves, therefore they decay to lower energy state isotopes and various 3rd party particles, in various radioactive decay paths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decay_chain I hope so this will help a bit for a while. Read carefully the all articles in links that I gave.

I have never seen any reason for an apology from any of your posts. In point of detail I recognize your skill as a check to ensure I am accurate in my responses to other forum members and fully welcome any corrections or instances where clarification is needed. You need not worry if you find yourself at odds with any of my posts. This is a discussion forum and all viable opinions are welcome. Ps to all the kudos from yourself and others I am thankful. I am also positive you have knowledge of certain physics disciplines that exceed my own or Markus. The field of physics is a huge topic in applications.

It may add to the local smog load in the short term but it's biodegradeable.

I know Markus from another forum we belonged to before this one. And I've gotten to know Mordred fairly well. Both are extremely professional in the way they pass on knowledge without judgement. I have learned a lot from both, and hope to learn much more. Neither seems to participate much in forums like Politics, Religion, Ethics, etc., where opinions matter a lot, and tempers can flare; although it would be nice to hear their opinions on some matters. I don't think you need to worry about either of them getting 'pi*sed-off'. Watch out for that Zapatos guy though, He's American, and has guns .

isn't that because the one side of each blade gets hotter creating a slight pressure on that side spinning the deal when its in a near vacuum?

If you are interested the extract was taken from Professor Frankel's book "The Geometry of Physics" : Cambridge University Press This is a large encyclopedic tome that covers a huge amount of ground from the topology of Kirchoff's laws to the most modern versions of GR. Back along, Proff Frankel also wrote a much smaller book "Gravitational Curvature an Introduction to Einstein's Theory" : Freeman Publishing. Here he develops a lot of this, with and without tensors. He also notes and describes the several different fashions in the mathematical presentation of GR. These may be of interest.

So someone gave you an answer that you 'like', because it doesn't make you feel inadequate. Not necessarily the right answer ) And you feel the need to shit on people who are having difficulty understanding your ill-posed question ? That's a drama queen. You are welcome to shut the door on your way out, if you don't appreciate it here.

Perhaps you should model your answers for length on Sensei's. An atom is electrically neutral. An ion is an atom with an electric charge. This charge can be positive (positive ion) or negative (negative ion). The three terms I referred to are all measures of electron attracting power. Because we have three different things (positive ions, neutral atoms and negative ions) we need three different measures. So The ionisation energy is the energy required to remove an electron from a neutral atom. (this is always positive since it always requires energy to remove an electron) The electron affinity is the energy required to add an electron to a neutral atom. (this may be positive or negative since some atoms require energy and some yield energy when your reove an electron). The electronegativity is a sort of average of the two figures.

If the atmospheric pressure is the so called "standard" of 760 mmHg it is impossible to get 30 inches of vacuum.

Because of quantum mechanics, electrons tend to be in "valleys" of their potential energy well called molecular orbitals. For an isolated atom those would be atomic orbitals. In an isolated atom, the electron is not always better in the valence shell. Depends on the temperature too. On the other hand, rarely are atoms completely isolated, except maybe in a Penning trap. Somebody will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the electron in the valence shell of a Lithium atom would be very "happy" being there. I concur with Studiot that there's something missing in your premises. Maybe you don't want to say an "isolated" atom. We'll work through it, I'm sure. Clearly something's bothering you.

I didn't invest much hope...

What is in the jar? Is the jar sealed? What is the jar made of? How do you move the matter? What does this have to do with measuring pressure? How are you measuring the pressure? Why does the pressure in the jar matter? That is the sot of context required. I would keep asking questions separate from presenting a "theory" if I were you. I know from practical experience with properly maintained lab equipment that it can still be really hard to create a good seal to pump the air of of something. If you are doing this with homemade equipment (a "jar" - what sort of jar? a jam jar with a screw top?) then I am not surprised if you can't get just below air pressure. How much difference is it? It is 1 in Hg (about 0.5 psi). How much difference does it make to what? It is roughly equivalent to being 1,000 feet above sea level. It will reduce the boiling point of water by about 1º. Does that help?

I think it would be better if an actual chemist answered that. You've got a fire risk as well while it's loosely contained before it dissipates.

It is not just that the train observer "sees" the lightning strikes at different times, for him, the strikes occurred at different times. So for the embankment observer, the strikes actually hit the front and back train simultaneously, while for anyone riding in the train, they they do not strike the ends of the train simultaneously. What Einstein is saying is the the very notion of "simultaneous" is frame dependent and is not absolute.

It's good to know. It's just that on places like this you're never sure if you're rubbing a person the wrong way.

What the mathematics of physical theories suggest is: If time were infinite and the universe were a closed dynamical system, then it would follow that anything that has happened is bound to (approximately) happen again given enough time. The name for that statement is Poincaré recurrence theorem. It is by no means clear that the universe as a whole can be treated as an closed system. Besides there are enough cosmological features further complicating this question for anybody to be able to say anything to any degree of accuracy. The statement "anything that can happen will happen" is, rather, physicists' vernacular for QM's feature that "anything that is dynamically possible is somehow present in the evolution of one single instantiation of a dynamically evolving state." (That's my attempt at re-phrasing.) The motto is due to Murray Gell-Mann. But it's nothing to do with finiteness of time. Rather, with multi-branching of the wave function in the Feynman path integral. There's another funny version: Anything bad that can happen, will happen. That's Murphy's law.

Forgive me if I'm wrong about this, but in my experience, people who've studied physics and maths formally and intensively don't ask this question. They all seem to understand at a fundamental level how science describes the natural world. The folks who ask this question are the ones who haven't studied as rigorously, and I'm skeptical of their motives. If everything we know is wrong (black is white, up is down, and short is long^), then they were right to have avoided studying it in school. It seems like calling mainstream knowledge into question becomes a justification for skipping school. I could be wrong, but this is my impression after a number of years of discussion. * Thanks, Weird Al!

The Fourier transform of an even real function is real. More generally, it is real for the function \(f\) if \(f(-x) = f(x)\) holds for almost every \(x \in \mathbb{R}.\) The Fourier transform of a real function is otherwise not itself a real-valued function.

If the pump can create a suction, it has very tight tolerances. IOW it is not a flow fed pump. So if the pump isn't pumping, there will be very little flow, due to the tight tolerances. Try to read in context; not isolated groups of words.

I have been trying to make allowances for that possibility, both in this thread and the OP's previous thread. But suddenly the OP bursts forth into fully fledged song, scotching that premise. (Sorry for the colloquialisms, as you know I am always happy to explain)

Ah, a nicely put. Thank you. It just goes to show the difficulties with context and meaning when using common-or-garden words or phrases that are not always sufficiently precise for their intended purpose.

This discussion reminds me of a funny conversation I had with a girl at a coffee shop once. Out of the blue she asked me "Do you think 9/11 was a conspiracy?" It was so unrelated to our conversation thus far that I just laughed off the question, but she insisted and asked again. I thought for a second, and realizing the ambiguity in the common usage definition of the word conspiracy I said "Yeah". She started laughing and said "You think 9/11 was a conspiracy?" I said again: Me: Yeah. Her: Why do you think 9/11 was a conspiracy? Me: Well that's the official story. Her: That's the official story? How is that the official story? Me: Well who do you think was responsible for 9/11? Her: Terrorists from the Middle East. Me: Yeah, exactly. Her: Then why do you think 9/11 was a conspiracy? Me: Terrorists from the Middle East conspired together to fly planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Her: That's why you think it's a conspiracy? That doesn't mean it's a conspiracy. Me: Terrorists conspired together to fly planes into the World Trade Center, therefore it's a conspiracy. Her: No, just because they conspired together doesn't mean it's a conspiracy. Me: Well yeah, it does. Because that's what words mean? Her: Stuttering and babbling... Me: Here let me help you out. I think the phrase you're looking for is inside job not conspiracy. Then we a little conversation about government PSYOPS designed to discredit the word conspiracy so that people won't understand what the word really means, and how she should use words accurately and carefully in order to avoid confusion.

Yes to the first but more about the feature that I want to add and if i need 30 inches for an important reason or not. As for gravity im not saying thats what im doing but there is a feature of all planets that I noticed that I may have been able to harness or whatever. It does the same thing repeatedly on every test. Its not a fan or representing a fan in any way. It is specifically designed to do what it is doing. 30 inches is the only one I haven't been able to get too for a while now! and its not hand made its 3d printed.

I know all this. But no one is answering my question accordingly.

No you are wrong. Only you are not understanding the question. I have asked this question on 3 more websites. They understood the question and nicely explained the answer instead of just finding faults in the questions if they can't figure out its answer.

The Forum members are invited to visit two blogs I have created that expand on my earlier postings under the Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics categories: “Special Relativity from the Inside Out” LINK DELETED “Introduction to Schrodinger Ensemble Theory” LINK DELETED

First of all, I am not a drama queen. I didn't repost the question on all websites simultaneously. I just posted this question on 3 websites in a span of a week bcz of not getting answers and then I posted on this website. Luckily, I suddenly got understandable answers from all those websites just today. Anyway I just now know that no one can give answers on this website. your reply proves that I was right about saying that there are more stupid insults instead of good answers.

I feel no joy by coming here. My question is not ill posted. Your mind is c*m filled. It is the right answer In the bracket beside it, I wrote (enters).

! Moderator Note You behave like an idiot. You see persecution in rigor. You cherry-pick what makes sense to you. You don't do science. So pretty soon, I imagine you'll break enough rules and we won't have to respond to your ungrateful crap. Have a great day!

you wanted context and see what happens. just because people dont understand or believe in something doesn't make it not happening. The vacuum is to attempt to get rid of air and see the effects if they still hold. I wanted to understand how important it is to get to 30. Where in space is comparable to 30 inches maybe? I got the other stuff which I am going to use but as an understanding from an observational point of view now with context I hope how important is it. I kind of doubt some of you have any idea where im going with this and you dont need to. if I state what im doing then idiots like phil start in way out of context and say crap only to argue I get that magnetism works in a vacuum but this is not magnetism and it only works on magnetic matter not all matter! How about what is the lowest vacuum? Is it simply a space that is not occupied by any matter for the lowest or is it a state of density of matter or gasses that occupy the space?

I even apologized for not being able to ask the question correctly PHil he is going to shut it down because he cant read Why should I be grateful to you or some others here when all you do is talk crap like you know everything im doing? you cant move anything in a vacuum without contacting it with the force directly and you think you know what im doing. This is speculations correct stop reading if you dont like it

Yeah, I am new to this website. This website is administrated by some clowns who think they are 'out of the world' or something by saying some stupid jokes that they think of as insults . I have asked some questions but there were more stupid insults and jokes than answers. I support you on this topic.