exchemist

1 hour ago, Externet said:

Hello.

Baptism is considered a Christian sacrament, but was practiced by John since before Jesus became Christ.    How does it work ?   When did baptism originate; on what religion ?

What belief did baptism supposed to do to a person ?

I believe baptism originated in a Jewish purification ritual involving immersion in water: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_washing_in_Judaism#Full-body_immersion

It seems likely that this is what John the Baptist may have been inspired by. 

13 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

Not so simple.

My reasoning is that its very highly unlikely that SR can be correct, as the consequences are so unbelievably bizarre. 

In almost every University lecture on SR that I watched from the USA's top universities and best Professors, they invariably mention something like, "Now this is going to seem really weird", "Unintuitive" is a popular word, followed by the disclaimer that "you have no right to expect that Nature ought to conform to your idea of what rational is". 

So I'm immediately on the defensive, expecting that there might be an error somewhere, and its going to take a lot of solid rational, logical explaining as to how Einstein came up with his conclusions. 

I have the right, and its also advisable to be critical of a claim especially if its opposite to the beliefs of classical physics, none of which make weird claims as does SR.

So, Mordred is going to explain how Einstein got to the point of being able to state that classical Physics has this very massive problem.  

Right now, I don't see the Problem. I see what Einstein is saying, but I don't see how he made the conclusion that a problem exists.

He jumped from the equations (that I first thought was wrong) where the equations had different results about time, all the way to "the stationary and the moving clocks will now be out of synchronization".

So, now I will wait for Mordred's reply.

Well the observational facts are that the predictions of SR are correct, so you have a big problem there. I gave you some examples earlier in the thread. 

And it all derives from the observational fact that the observed peed of light is found not to depend on relative motion between source and receiver, or between observers. It contradicts classical physics, sure, but it seems to be the case. Just as in quantum theory the behaviour of atomic scale entities does not confirm to classical physics either.

One of the big insights of c.20th physics was that nature does not have to conform, at all scales and in all circumstances, to what looks to us like common sense. 

But I'll observe your discussion with @Mordred with interest.

45 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

Thanks for your interest in helping me understand.  But as I have already gotten two different members comments mixed up, I feel that I am only able to attend to one persons explanations at the one time.  So currently I have begun a tutorial offered by Mordred which I intend to see thorough to his satisfaction.

Following that, I'm happy to pick up where we left off. And allow you to present what you feel is the best way to present this matter.   

I'm retired and 70 y.o. being self taught, so I should not try to be multi tasking at this stage in my life.

So as much as I might like to respond right now, prudence tells me to take one step at a time.

 

As I said to Mordred, understanding this theory must begin with understanding the actual hypothesis that gave birth to the theory. And that will be found within  the 1905 document, where Einstein spells it all out in full.

I'm not "doing science" I'm trying to understand how Einstein came to his conclusion, by working through his actual argument, line by line. Right now, we are up to the part where he has just announced that Classical Physics has a terrible problem, which he intends to fix.

He has yet to explain how he intends to fix the problem.

However, I've read this section, many times, and just cant see how he comes to the conclusion that classical physics will have the two observers disagreeing on anything.  So far it seems that their different measurements are fully to be expected according to the application of those Laws of classical Physics.

So right now, Mordred is about to show me why Einstein said that the two observers clocks would become un synchronized.  Something to do with  "relativity of simultaneity".

I have to now wait for his next lesson. I had questions about his previous lesson, which I'm sure he will have a rational explanation.

That's perhaps a useful clarification on your part.

Do I take it, then, that you accept that in practice SR accurately accords with observations?

If so then your issue, presumably, is with Einstein's reasoning when he set out the theory, rather than arguing that SR does not work. Do I have that right?  

3 hours ago, wei guo said:

A recent paper states the real pseudoscience is exactly those unperceivable things named with 'dark'. Throwing something into the unknown part of reality for solving the theoretical problem is not the real rigorous science. This study argues that It is time, from a much more general view, to consider the common defects in the principle behind all the previous measure methods or physical laws summarized by the predecessors rather than keep adding new theories or new phenomena for amending the old cracks. Otherwise, the development of science will become bogged down in mud and also lead all people not to the real nature of reality but to a totally strange magic one.

 

 

Wei Guo, "Uncovering the rigorous application range of any mathematical equivalence between different physical properties to avoid adding extra unverifiable things into reality for explaining inherent discrepancy in phenomena measure" https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.23299703 (June 5, 2023).

What is this paper and in what reputable journal has it been published? 

1 hour ago, Logicandreason said:

I thought I just explained why I can't be considering any claimed experimental evidence. I was pretty sure I explained that in some considerable detail.

If you wish to explain  "relativity of simultaneity",  the you need to restrict the explanation to what information the hypothesis contains.  You can't add beliefs retrospectively. That is just reinforcing a claim by applying the same claim's conclusions. A Circular argument, feeding on itself.

Are you not able to explain  "relativity of simultaneity" without addition of material and information that did not exist at the time the Hypothesis was written?  The hypothesis was approved as valid Physics in 1905, it is obviously able to stand scrutiny relying solely on the strength of its own internal logic.

So are you able to explain according to these reasonable conditions, or not?

 

This looks like an attempt to brush aside the inconvenient fact that SR is found to work in practice. That is not what one does in science. 

16 minutes ago, hoola said:

there is online discussion of scalar emf waves that do not have a frequency, but offer a voltage. Not only does this supposed wave have a voltage that can be applied remotely, but travels faster than light to a specific point, moving in the time dimension, not normal 3d space time. This seems highly unlikely, even to the extent of the naming of it as a scalar "wave" when the proponents say it has no frequency. thanks

If it has no frequency I don't see how it can be a wave. 

The term "scalar wave" seems to be favoured by cranks, according to Rationalwiki: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scalar_wave

On 6/10/2023 at 4:12 AM, Genady said:

What do the length of the arms and the duration of the clap have to do with the question?

Presumably if information can't be transmitted faster than light then initiating the motion at the shoulders would result in the hands moving later, or something, wouldn't it? 

4 hours ago, kenny1999 said:

Plastic is obviously not organic, I don't know if they are inorganic. Sunlight breaks them in a couple of months.

Chemically speaking, plastics are organic, being made of molecules with a carbon/hydrogen backbone.

1 hour ago, Saber said:

When  you  want some thing  you feel  that  you want it   dont you ..For example  if  you  were a  creature who was in  early stage of evolving a mouth you  would feel   that  if you had some hard and sharp things  in your mouth grabbing & holding on the food or prey would be easier

If i  was a creature  who dwelled on the  trees i would feel if i had longer  arms it  would be better  when hanging on trees   perhaps.............

And  how about devolution  of  eyes ?   like in  moles  and in  cave fish ? they loose  their eyes   by  accident ?  I  think the  motivation  for  evolution is    Need    and  when  the need is gone like the need to see in  moles &  in  cave fish  they  devolve and loose their eyes ..........or like   marine mammals  who  replaced arms & legs with flippers

 

Although  i  dont  disagree with  this   either..........i think  these two  traits  work  together

but  i   strongly   believe that even  one  electron   has awareness and  is capable  of thinking..............let alone.............animals.......... not  the  type  of thinking  that we do.............but  @ its own level of  existence........... i  believe that all the elements of this world  know what they  are doing  in the  subconscious  level.........if you   dont laugh @ me .............An Electron  thats   orbiting it  nuclea ........in a little  dust particle  in the  intergalactic.........space.......knows what  its  purpose is...................a light  sensoring   cell in a plankton that  lived 200 million  years ago.............knew   what  its purpose was..................

What can it mean to say an electron has awareness, or has a purpose? How do you think this would manifest itself? 

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Actually, light sensing arose way before skin was developed. The earliest organisms with light sensing capabilities and phototaxis were bacteria.

Good point. 

6 hours ago, Saber said:

I know........but  i mean   @ the start point of the evolution of the  eye how did the creature knew that it  had to sense a thing and tried  to evolve light sensors in its body ?

It did not need to. The whole point of the theory is to explain how adaptations can arise, purely through more successful reproduction of creatures with a trait that happens to be an advantage. This is basic. You can read about it anywhere. The evolution of the eye can be traced to creatures with light-sensitive patches on their skin. Those that had them could move towards or away from the light and this would have enabled them to find more food or escape more predators, so they reproduced more and handed on the advantage to their offspring. Etc.

This is how it works, not by an organism “knowing” anything.

1 hour ago, Genady said:

Thank you. Perhaps I better narrow down the question and limit it to "precise sciences" (or whatever they are called) like physics and chemistry. Otherwise, we find things like "Tobler's first law of geography",

 (Tobler's first law of geography - Wikipedia).

Disappointing. I had hoped it would be something to do with chocolate. 

2 hours ago, Genady said:

For several hundreds of years important statements in natural sciences were called "laws". But some time ago new "laws" stopped to appear, and the important statements now seem to be rather called "principles" and "equations." Is it so? If so, what was the last "law"?

The Beer-Lambert law seems to have been formulated in 1913. Apart from that I can't think of any c.20th "laws", offhand. I'm speculating, but I suspect the notion of "laws" went out of fashion along with the "classical" absolute and deterministic worldview of science, which Einstein, Heisenberg et al threw out of the window in the first two decades of the c.20th. 

Most "laws" seem to be named after the person that formulated them - and to be broken in practice. 

3 hours ago, Moontanman said:

A large round depression where the craft landed. 

This just happened, more video is claimed to exist from smartphones that were present. That green light is... IMHO... extraordinary! 

I thought this happened over a week ago and the police had closed the case.

Later note: I'm wrong it was over a month ago. And nothing was found:https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-06-09/las-vegas-police-investigate-reports-of-alien-sightings

Can you provide a reference to the claim of a large round depression?

4 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I thought some might be interested in this. A UFO has landed and took off from a backyard in Vegas! A cop caught it on his body cam and the people who saw it said the aliens were 8 feet tall! 

 

 

And the police found what, exactly, when they investigated?    

7 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

So lets get this straight, now you believe that an irrational concept, containing obvious irreparable errors, and then backed up with totally incorrect Maths and incorrect Equations somehow still manages to make accurate predictions?  Seems like a divine miracle to me, not science and certainly not Maths.

Because I can show you the errors that are made in the text, I can show you the error in the Maths, but you still are clinging onto to the final thing, that you have "valid observations"?   Sounds like an Apple add, "It just works"

Wow, such absolute FAITH.

You never stopped to think that maybe Science is now mostly FRAUD with a purpose for that continued Fraud? That simply IMPOSSIBLE?  Really? despite all the other well known examples of fraud in Science? You think you found ALL the frauds?

All that observed evidence is beyond criticisms?  Really?

OK, What is your very best example of Observed Length Contraction?  Just the very best example.?

And What is your very strongest example of the Observation of a known Mass increasing.  Not energy increasing, I want to observe the Mass increasing.  You may say you can convert Mass into Energy, but don't bother, just show me the Mass unconverted. After all the Genius stipulated that Mass increased, he did not say that Energy increased. (Said it several times)

And finally what is your very strongest solid observable evidence for Time dilating? 

Cite specific examples please for each. 

P.s. You said--  " I asked you a while back on this thread if you had an alternative model that also accounts for these observations."???? 

Well how can I give you a more accurate model to account for FRAUDULENT and mistaken observational evidence?  

Give me those best example of time dilation, mass increase and length contraction, and we will see how strong they really are.

Time dilation? The observed increase in half life of unstable particles, at velocities relative to the observer that are a significant fraction of the speed of light. Atmospheric muons are one well-known instance. 

Regarding mass, the best example is probably the observed mass defect in nuclear fission, which is  accounted for by E=mc². "Mass increase" is, so I understand, not a concept used that much nowadays, since mass is generally taken nowadays to mean rest mass, which does not increase. One tends instead to use the full formula, E² = (mc²)² + (pc)²,  in which there is a momentum term (p).

Length contraction is harder, admittedly. I struggle to think of a good example, save in the sense that, when time dilation is observed, one must have a corresponding length contraction from the viewpoint of the other reference frame. Perhaps one of the physicists here can come up with a more direct example. 

None of this is a matter of "faith". The observations are the observations. If you consider SR is wrong, it is up to you to show what better, i.e. correct in your view, explanation can successfully account for the observations.

2 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

Shows exactly that you have very little knowledge of Einstein's Paper.  There is not any reference in the Paper to  geodesics which relates to Riemannian geometry's curved surfaces and tangential lines on those surfaces showing the shortest path is not a straight line.  This is used on General Relativity, never in Special relativity which is employing Cartesian geometry systems.

I would like to, but first I need to apply that latex to cement that Math together into a coherent whole. And you are unwilling to listen to the sound of latex as it is not in accord to your familiar sounds you have learned off by heart.

To explain, I have to get you to first UNDERSTAND the PROBLEM. 

And you REFUSE to give me any fair hearing.

I asked a simple question, the answer to which will help unravel the actual problem, and you are intentionally ignoring that Question.

Why is that?

Because relativity works, so your supposed logical objections, however clever you imagine them to be, are beside the point.

All this sound and fury about the logic behind it, faulty or not, is so much wasted breath if the theory accurately predicts what we should be able to observe. And it does. 

Many theories in science have arisen from conjectures or faulty reasoning. For instance Sadi Carnot's insights into thermodynamics, which we use to this day, were based on the supposed flow of a heat-transmitting substance called "caloric", which was later shown to be non-existent. But the laws of thermodynamics work. So we use them.

Obsessing about supposed logical defects of a theory is irrelevant compared to the true test of a theory, which is  via observation.  I asked you a while back on this thread if you had an alternative model that also accounts for these observations. There has been no response. 

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

I'd be interested in what physics says about the following situation. You want to fill a small gas bottle from a big one. Can you fill the smaller one from a half empty big one? 

I'm intending to buy the kit to do it, but I'm not sure if it's worth it, if filling gets less and less complete as the big one empties. 

 

The picture doesn't really cover what I mean. The big bottle would be about twenty times the capacity of the small one, so I'm wondering if you can still fill the small one right up, if the big one is half empty. 

I'm talking about liquid CO2.

The critical point for CO2 seems to be at ~30C and at a pressure of ~74bar. So you will not have any liquid above that temperature. At 20C, say, the minimum pressure to keep it liquid is about 65bar. Phase diagram here:  https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/CO2-carbon-dioxide-properties-d_2017.html#phases

So I suppose if you are supplied with a "liquid CO2" cylinder, it must have a pressure when full of 70bar or so. But it won't take much of a drop in pressure before what you have is a gas, at which point the degree to which the smaller cylinder is "filled" will just be a function of the total volume of both cylinders, when you equalise the pressure between the two. 

At least, that's how I read the phase diagram. 

2 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

Nature doesn't have to be rational to us, but certainly Einsterin's science Paper must be.

To claim that Einstein's paper might be nonsensical drivel, but the Math checks out, so everything is fine, is in itself an irrational statement to make. Anyway, the math itself is derived directly from the text arguments, and doesn't "add up" as you believe, so you are not left with anything remaining that is believable.

I showed the errors in the text arguments, I explained that the conclusions were utterly fantastical, and now I'm saying that not even the Math is believable. You can only follow along with Einstein's math and get to the same result, IF you also agree to follow alone what his obviously irrational textural arguments.

And do all that in preference to a very straight Physics system that  has no paradoxes, no unintuitive equations, where a rod doesn't shrink, and no one can grow older than their twin just because of a joy ride.

So far, rationality is 100% on the side that says SR theory is nonsense. 

You can NOT derive correct Math from nonsense. Your Math is wrong. The text is wrong, the conclusions are wrong.

 

How is it, then, that observation (e.g. the operation of particle accelerators, the mass defect in nuclear physics, atmospheric muon lifetimes, and things like that) are in agreement with SR? After all, in science it is observation that is the test of a hypothesis.

Do you have an alternative model that correctly accounts for the observations?

P.S. You're not an electrical engineer by any chance, are you? Something about you is a bit familiar. 

53 minutes ago, Jez said:

If I picture going out in an all sky blue boat dressed in a sky blue body suit with a sky blue mask and I take a piece of white paper, I picture a clear sky with an occasional cloud.

If I imagine waiting for the Sun to be obscured behind a cloud, I look down at the piece of paper in the bottom of the boat and, oh, it's white.

Is there any paradox that it looks white?

 

 

The brightness of the cloud obscuring the sun will be generally greater than that of the sky or blue-coloured objects, so most of the light falling on the paper will still be white, even if there is a cloud preventing direct sunlight from reaching it. Consider: you can gaze at a blue sky far from the sun without discomfort, whereas looking at a cloud in front of the sun often involves screwing up your eyes. 

I suppose that, if the cloud were very dark (which it would never actually be in an otherwise blue sky, but never mind) then most of the light reaching the paper would be blue and it would consequently appear blueish. 

15 hours ago, TheVat said:

Waste electrical and electronic equipment (better known by its unfortunate acronym, Weee) is the fastest-growing waste stream in the world. Electronic waste amounted to 53.6m tonnes in 2019, a figure growing at about 2% a year. Consider: in 2021, tech companies sold an estimated 1.43bn smartphones, 341m computers, 210m TVs and 548m pairs of headphones. And that’s ignoring the millions of consoles, sex toys, electric scooters and other battery-powered devices we buy every year. Most are not disposed of but live on in perpetuity, tucked away, forgotten, like the old iPhones and headphones in my kitchen drawer, kept “just in case”. As the head of MusicMagpie, a UK secondhand retail and refurbishing service, tells me: “Our biggest competitor is apathy.”

Globally, only 17.4% of electronic waste is recycled. Between 7% and 20% is exported, 8% thrown into landfills and incinerators in the global north, and the rest is unaccounted for. Yet Weee is, by weight, among the most precious waste there is. One piece of electronic equipment can contain 60 elements, from copper and aluminium to rarer metals such as cobalt and tantalum, used in everything from motherboards to gyroscopic sensors. A typical iPhone, for example, contains 0.018g of gold, 0.34g of silver, 0.015g of palladium and a tiny fraction of platinum. Multiply by the sheer quantity of devices and the impact is vast: a single recycler in China, GEM, produces more cobalt than the country’s mines each year. The materials in our e-waste – including up to 7% of the world’s gold reserves – are worth £50.9bn a year...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/03/i-spot-brand-new-tvs-here-to-be-shredded-the-truth-about-our-electronic-waste

Will we, I wonder, someday be mining landfills?  Seems to me that whatever does not get recycled and ends up in trash should at least be separated at the landfill into its own dump area, for possible future excavation.  

Our local dump ( in London) has a separate section for electrical items. But I don’t know where they send it.

2 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

The evidence of the Error in fully contained in Einstein's Paper. Go find it, its really there, but you missed it.

Can you summarise this error?

1 hour ago, gobin said:

 

I know that when pH is more acidic ,  you have lots of H+ ions relative to HO- ions.  And when water is more basic  you have lots of HO- ions over H+ ions.

Also just because water is a poor conductor of electricity wouldn't mean that nothing happens in the electrolysis of water.. There'd be some reactions taking place.

I think it is valid to talk of the electrolysis of water with pH 7 - neutral water. Even though it's maybe a slow reaction. In theory I suppose the reaction could be sped up even with neutral water, if the H+ ions and HO- ions were increased while maintaining the 50/50 proportion. So maintaining the neutral pH7. But that probably adds another complexity to the question.  Also I understand that in chemistry there's no bottle of H+ ions or bottle of OH- ions.  People add a salt into it to get more conductivity(which isn't what i'm asking about). And from what I understand , it is valid to speak of the electrolysis of pure water.  It's mentioned here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water "Electrolysis of water is using electricity to split water into oxygen (O2) and hydrogen (H2) gas by electrolysis.".  Though it's perhaps not often encountered by people.

 

 

 

Yes, that article mentions that an overpotential is needed, which increases the degree of ionisation from its equilibrium value, thus speeding up the electrolysis. 

3 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

I don't think this will offer anything of significance for fixing global warming.

Does it require CO2 to be at high concentrations and or purity to work, ie separated from air or exhaust gases first? Where would the carbon go after? I note that the quantities are extremely large - 1 ppm is about 7 billion metric tons of atmospheric CO2 or 2.1  billion tons of Carbon. Global CO2 emissions are around the 40 billion per year mark.

Significantly, would the (clean) energy required to run it give better climate outcomes by extracting carbon from air than replacing fossil fuel use directly?

I am not a fan of Carbon Capture and Storage in - it doesn't address the principle problem (emissions from fossil fuel burning) and looks to me to be mostly promoted in order to NOT fix the dirty energy problem, by interests that won't care if it doesn't work.

On the contrary, I think we should be looking at both approaches. They should not be seen as mutually exclusive alternatives. It seems to me we need all the help we can get, from any method that proves viable. Since the transition from fossil fuel will take at least a couple of decades to complete, we ought to pay some attention to what happens to the CO2 that the legacy uses will be producing over that time. But this particular idea is not intended for that and would almost certainly not be suitable.

12 minutes ago, MigL said:

I can see this method working on Earth ( aside from energy requirements ) as we only need to convert a couple of hundred parts per million of CO₂ to O₂ and CO.
But in the case of Mars, getting 20% O₂ in the atmosphere would also get you 20% CO.
Definitely not breathable.

Yeah, it’s not for making a breathable atmosphere though, it’s as oxidiser for rocket fuel for the return journey. But in any case you can capture the oxygen separately at the anode and release the CO to the Martian atmosphere at the cathode.