Jump to content

AbstractDreamer

Senior Members
  • Posts

    337
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by AbstractDreamer

  1. He told Jack (his captive) to seek the two gold eggs.... with the least tries. If Jack succeed he shall become a servant.. else the giant's supper. What method must the boy execute?

     

    Classic false choice dilemma. Jack need not be either servant or supper.

     

    If success (answer of least tries) leads to servanthood, and failure (answer of not least tries) leads to supper, then Jack need only to not provide an answer, and lead a long fulfilled life.

     

    EDIT: actually, the "else" puts a finality on the choice, and "supper" closes the time variable. So I'm wrong.

  2. My holidays are over. I'd have to admit I wasn't prepared for my curiosity to lead me down this rabbit hole. I have more than enough outstanding issues at the moment to get my head around. Plenty of ideas to fuel my dreams. Too much fuel might lead to singular collapse!

  3. The meaning of your question has been obscure throughout.

     

    So what IS your question? Is it about the nature of "reality"?

     

    If so, that is not a physics question. And (outside of some religious ideas) there is no way of knowing. Are you happy with that? If you want to discuss it further, start a thread in the Philosophy (or Religion) forum.

     

    My claim was about consistency. Obscurity is subjective and in the eye of the beholder. I did not initially raise the conceptual nature of field lines. My argument was that they are NOT real.

  4. Depends on where you're standing when you decide to look.

    If you are on Earth at the North Pole, you can't look North.

     

     

    Also depends on your angle of gaze . Relative to you, North and South might not lie on a straight line through you. So the direction of velocities of the quasars might not be parallel to each other.

  5. Is there a direct measurement of the field itself?

    Yes, the movement of iron filings, particle, compass needle, etc.

     

    How does that not answer the question. Maybe you are asking a different question?

     

    If you are asking what the thing we describe by the use of a field "really" is, then that has nothing to do with science. It is metaphysics and, as far as I know, most philosophers would agree that we can never know.

    The meaning of my question has been consistent throughout. The only thing that has changed perhaps is that you now understand.

  6. It did exist one moment ago, however now it doesn't exist one moment ago.

     

    If it did exist one moment ago, and if one moment ago doesn't exist right now, what does forever mean right now?

  7. Since the expansion has been going on forever the universal expansion is now accelerating at an infinite rate. It expands into existence as we witness it, after all does the universe exist... 1 nanosecond ago?

    Space and time are not coexistant.

     

     

    How can expansion have been going on forever, if it never existed even 1 moment ago?

    If its always been right now, what makes things change?

  8.  

    The iron filings (or charged particles) are moved by the presence of "something". That something is described mathematically as a field. The field is a mathematical construct to describe what we see happening.

    Why quote me when your response doesn't answer my question?

  9. Apparently a white dwarf type 1a supernova the standard candle can tell us how far it is, by measuring its luminosity.

     

    Is this independant of the size of the star?

     

    Is space expansion uniform across the entire universe, or are some volumes expanding faster than others?

     

    If we measure the red-shifted wavelength of a photon, and we know the expansion history of the space through which it has travelled, how do we calculate the distance of the source if we don't know the original wavelength of the photon? Or is there a shift in the whole spectrum of radiation, that we can use to infer distance, and if so how do we know what the original spectrum look liked at the time when the radiation was emitted from the source?

     

    If space expansion causes a lengthening of a photon's wavelength, does that means space expansion operates in a volume with at least one axis that is shorter than the wavelength of the photon?

     

    What is the smallest volume of space that can be subject to expansion?

     

    Apparently the density of dark energy needs to remain constant. Which of the following statements is true:

     

    As space expands, dark energy must be created to maintain density.

    As dark energy is created, space must expand to maintain density.

     

    If space and time are related, and dark energy and space are related, how is dark energy and time related?

     

    If space is expanding and the rate is variable, could time be similarly contracting or expanding at different rates?

  10. Given spacetime exists and is relative.

     

    Imagine a volume of space is empty.

     

    Then within that volume there is nothing for time to be relative to or between.

     

    Therefore time cannot exist within that volume.

     

    But that spacetime exists was a given.

     

    Therefore either space is more that simply volume, or any volume of space cannot be empty.

     

    Where is the fallacy?

  11.  

    Similarly, you are not going to contribute anything to physics until you learn a lot more than you appear to know at the moment.

    It became apparent i didn't know enough, I began reading in earnest. So I have been clicking on links and reading a lot of material, trying to absorb such a vast amount of information, and trying to make what little sense I can of it. I don't have much time left, unless i take sabbatical.

     

    Well thank you for all that.

     

    It makes it absolutely clear that not only do you you actually know more than you let on, you are misusing that knowledge for reasons of your own.

     

    Knowing this enables me to waste no more of my time on your machinations.

     

    Don't feed the trolls.

     

    Then i learnt a few things and tried to apply my knowledge, and its presumed i know a lot more, and I'm a troll.

     

    These equations have been successfully describing electromagnetic phenomena for more than a century; they've been used to make and improve motors and generators, power transmission lines, coils for stereo speakers and for noise reduction in signal lines, and many, many other things.

     

    I am not questioning the accuracy of equations. Can you explain your point here?

    You do not appear to be in a position to assert that you have a better tale to tell, given that you don't seem to know much about the physics tale.

     

    At what point have i attempted to make such assertions, given that i don't deny I'm in no such position?

     

    Of course they can be measured and observed. Do you really think that people made them up for no reason at all?

     

    You may have heard of a guy called Faraday? And there are all sort of simple experiments you can do yourself. Go and buy a cheap compass or a magnet and some iron filings. And a battery and some wire. Or ...

     

    If i understand correctly, observations on those iron filings only demonstrates conservation of momentum. I'm still reviewing vector calculus, so i haven't actually got around to looking at any of the EM equations yet. But i can guess its some function of the magnitude of the source charge, distance from source and maybe some other constants and variables i haven't considered like magnetic polarity. But I'm no where near ready to describe anything mathematically.
    In English, I think the field exerts a force on the the filings (as long as the fillings are moving as you shake them, or drop them). This force translates that initial motion energy into the free electrons within an iron filing, ultimately causing the filing itself to "move" more than it would without the field, whilst conserving the energy in the system. I guess the lines you see are because its a dynamic system and there are other forces in play that cause the filings to stick together. As each each filing moves to find equilibrium in the EM field, they themselves create small EM fields that affect other filings nearby.
    However is there anything here that demonstrates field lines exist, or a direct measure of the field itself?

     

    Field lines are described by maths, which means that the "exists in mathematics" box can be checked; there's no legitimate objection to that.

     

    A lot of lines can be described by maths. The field line "feels" like a temporal construct only* required to calculate the gradient of the tangent, for direction. Depending on how you perform and break down the calculation from EM equations to the direction of force, it doesn't need to exist. On the other hand, if there is any use in stopping the calculations before obtaining the derivative, and only to obtain the function of the curve - that is the field line - OR if the function can be used to measure something else, then i would concede. Is there anything legitimate in my beliefs?

     


    Cloud chamber, device which you can build for $30-$50 and see traces leaved by charged quantum particles...

     

    The observation of those traces leaved by charged quantum particles, simply demonstrate ionisation of the medium by free particles. If you subject the chamber to a magnetic field, that might cause the motion of charged particles to interact and move in a pattern that is a presentation of the field. Is this any different to the iron filings but with smaller particles in constant motion?

  12. Very good answers.

     

    Arbitrary parameterisation. Pick some numbers till it fits? Hmm.

     

    Observed space expansion? Lets make up some Dark Energy

    Observed gravitational anomalies? Lets make up some Dark Matter

     

    Do we have a model of DM that explains all the gravitational anomalies, or are some anomalies more different that others?

     

    If the nature of DM and DE is unknown, why do we need to separate the two concepts. Could they be part of a greater underlying Dark Thing that exhibits behaviour of both DE and DM? Isn't the goal of physics to simplify the model? Is there anything to tell us they must be different?

     

    Or could there be more types of fundamental Darkness?

     

    What other observations do no fit into the QM model at present?

     

    How might QM explain DE?

  13. How does quantum mechanics explain or describe observations that space is expanding?

     

    If qm cannot describe such phenomenon, is there any other model that can?

     

    How does dark energy and dark matter fit into the qm approach.

     

    Which of following terms is most likely to exist assuming some unexplained behaviour is observed: Dark Time, Dark Mass, Dark Speed, Dark Spin, Dark Momentum, Dark Field, Dark Direction, Dark Gravity, Dark Observer.

     

    Where would unexplained behaviour most likely be observed?

  14. This is a mood test not a personality test. As your mood is unlikely to change over the time it takes to answer the questions, of course it's going to be reasonably accurate. Try doing the test on a bad day. I bet your "personality" is different.

  15. As acceleration = (distance/time)/time

     

    If acceleration has direction, then either distance has information on direction, or time has direction, or direction is emergent from a function of distance and time.

     

    If velocity has direction in the same manner as acceleration, then time cannot affect direction

    If velocity has direction in a different manner to acceleration, then time is some fuction of direction or direction some function of time.

     

    What properties or attributes does direction have?

  16.  

    I'm glad my short post#28 gave you pause for thought.

     

    I could have googled all the answers and pasted them in. That doesn't mean i understand, or can visualise, or "feel" any of it.

     

    Unfortunately your response was so disappointing I didn't feel like continuing the conversation.

     

    I could have also pointed out that your question was as poorly phrased to me as my answer was disappointing for you, but i was happy to stumble along.
    I'm not really sure why you think my answer based on real things is so disappointing. In my innocence, I tried to describe what i knew (of why the fields were different) from a pragmatic, and realistic perspective. I would like to be corrected on anything i have said that is incorrect (other than calling an ion an atom)?

     

     

    Electric fields (ie the field lines) start and terminate on electric charges or extend out to infinity.

    They never form loops.

     

    Magnetic fields always form loops, they have no beginning or end.

    The field lines always pass from one pole to the other outside the magnet and return through the body of the magnet to form the complete loop

     

    On the other hand, your answer uses fictitious concepts in an unrealistic static environment, without any reference to their imaginary nature. The field lines that you refer to, do they really exist in reality or even in mathematics? If not, then to use something that doesn't exist to describe a difference between two things is non-sequitur. How does something that does not actually exist have a start and termination, and be extendable, and/or loop? To convince me your wonderful tale is better than mine is bold to say the least. Is there anything you have said about these fields that can be measured or observed, and undisputedly considered as existing?

     

    I will not mention EM fields yet because we need to introduce another notion for this.

    It is this notion that pertains to your original question.

     

    So you would fill my head with imaginary descriptions and fictitious models, before giving me a glimpse into some secret truth that would be made so much more difficult to understand after such abusive priming?
    As i understand, as long as time exists (and continues to "move"), you cannot have the presence of one field without the other. If both fields are in perpetual interaction, then any attempt to describe one as different from the other is only a difference in how you choose to imagine it is modelled, rather than any description of observability or measureability. So arguing about whose imagination is correct is futile. What matters is the mathematics. Mathematically, in a dynamic environment, there is only a single EM field.
    So whilst it is clear I do not know what I'm talking about, at the very least I'm not delusional, and more importantly i do not impose a false belief on others.

     

    Do you wish to continue?

     

    I am now classically groomed, for my virgin exposure to the quantum reality.

     

  17. As far as the human sense of touch is concerned, that is simply an electrical signal delivered from a sensory receptor along sensory neurons to the conscious part of the brain that then decides that something is being "felt".

     

    Avoiding the topic of what is consciousness and where it comes from, the perception of touch can be deceived so that you can aware of touching something, but not actually be in close proximity with anything that might cause that perception.

     

    Consider the itch you cant scratch or the phantom limb sensation.

  18. Just before a certain supernova collapses into a black hole is the most appropriate situation i can imagine when atoms are "touching" for a period longer than instantaneous.

     

    Alternatively, when particles accelerated in the LHC at Cern collide, I can imagine things are very close to each other at the instant of collision.

  19.  

    Who is being pedantic? Strange made a perfectly valid physics point - atoms have no net charge; your point would stand only if the assertion was that atoms do not have a defined charge.

     

     

    You cant question me on my apparent hypocrisy in being pedantic, when i had already pre-stated that game is easy to play.
    Strange's point might be perfectly valid, but does that mean its OK to be pedantic when pointing out a mistake to a newbie (me), but its not OK for a newbie to be pedantic when trying to defend his position?
    Yet you have stated his point is perfectly valid, and admitted my point is only conditionally valid, when really both points are equally conditionally valid depending on your perspective; only you have chosen only one perspective. Its not obvious why your judgement is so complete and so biased, though it does put to question your ability to think objectively as an individual and actually have your own beliefs instead of just siding with the safest bet. You strike me as a person who would sacrifice truth for comfort, sacrifice principle for acceptance. Not what i would expect from a physicist.

    This is fairly unseemly and insulting

     

     

    It's only insulting if you have an ego to protect, or in this case trying to protect someone else's ego. In hindsight, it has condescending tones, and I would take this statement back.

     

    but if one has knowledge of only pop-science then to presume to teach those who have done the hard hours of study is hubris.

     

     

    I made no such presumption. To presume that someone with knowledge of "only" pop-science cannot help those who have done the hard hours study. THAT is hubris.
    Following the questions from Studiot #28, I made a series of statements #29 exposing my lack of knowledge of physics for which i am not ashamed. Someone had asked me questions and i had answered as truthfully as i could and as accurately as could remember.

    Sorry if my attempt to be helpful (to you and other readers) upsets you.

    To me, if there was a genuine desire from the responses to be helpful, i would expect not only that mistakes be pointed out, but also to tell me when I'm correct ( or at least along the right lines).
    I have often been accused of setting my expectations too high. And I'm becoming increasingly aware I'm guilty of that again now.

     

  20.  

     

    I would have more sympathy if you were asking questions and attempting to learn, rather than making up your own, baseless "theories".

    Wow so you admit you have already made a judgement on me whereby you feel less willing to be helpful.

    This is getting bad. I never wanted an argument.

    You have managed to demonise me.

    Apologies for being a demon. I guess physics is not for me.

  21.  

     

    No they can't. If they have a net charge they are ions and, under normal circumstances, unstable.

     

    If you're just going to be pedantic and argue over semantics, that game is easy to play.

    You're wrong. Atoms DO have a net charge. Their net charge is ZERO.

     

     

    So you think you could help a professional football player improve his game even if you know nothing at all about the rules of the game, the strategy and tactics used and how the team plays together? Shouting "just kick the ball" at him is not going to help.

     

    Wrong again. Football is a lot more than just the players. It consists of physios, scouts, coaches, sponsors, lawyers, groundsmen, fans. Shouting "just kick the ball", perhaps would only make a player laugh. But 60,000 people shouting might inspire him. Certainly 60,000 fans paying his wages might motivate him.

     

    So just because you have undoubted knowledge in one field, doesn't mean you can carry that confidence into areas you clearly do not understand.

     

    Moreover, be mindful not to let your confidence in your superior knowledge blind you and lock you into a local maxima in the solution landscape, or to allow your confidence to overspill into complacency and arrogance, because that is easy for others to notice and is not becoming.

     

     

    Similarly, you are not going to contribute anything to physics until you learn a lot more than you appear to know at the moment.

    Again you seem convinced that it is impossible to apply cognitive processes learnt from different fields of study and be able to contribute to another field of study (physics).

    I can only guess at why you are taking such an exclusionist stance.

     

    I have made a sincere attempt to improve my understanding of something which i know is out of my depth.

    Yet i feel most of the responses are overly keen on simply pointing out where I am wrong, and probing my knowledge until i make a mistake and then pointing it out.

    If putting me off is your intention its working.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.