joigus

I was to within a smidgeon of a thought of mentioning Ben Franklin. That's where the convention came from.

Another ridiculously beautiful one is brine pools (underwater lakes). They really look like lakes or rivers of underwater water. --------------------------- From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brine_pool ---------------------------------- From: http://valorielord.com/index.cfm/blog/underwater-lakes-and-rivers/

Amazing. Quoted from Wikipedia article:

Exactly so. Actually, the number of events --ticks of a clock-- is the only reference you have any hope for all observers to agree upon. Those would be "classical events" or measurements. Quantum mechanical evolution is a different matter. We cannot directly measure the wave function, but even wave functions quantum amplitudes give consistent results if you assume they transform as a certain representation of the Lorentz transformations. Time is real enough, and it is a dimension. In quantum mechanics you can tie it to just one event by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. The more energy a random fluctuation has, the shorter it will live, according to time-energy HUP: \[\Delta E \Delta t \geq \frac{\hbar}{2} \] There is no reference system in which you measure half an event, or no event at all. The events are the invariant reference. And if you measure time interval and spacial extension, and thereby calculate proper time, all observers agree on the time it takes.

(My emphasis.) This is precisely what the principle of relativity tells you is not possible. Nothing internal is affected by the system moving at a constant velocity, so no internal mechanism can "detect" that the particle is moving based on any phenomenon, including the decay of the particle. Time dilation and length contraction are the consequence of a symmetry principle, not of an internal mechanism of matter. In the last centuries, we've grown apart from trying to explain physical phenomena in terms of mechanical models, pieces that push, and pull, and swivel against each other; and we've learnt to look at physical theories more abstractly: Mathematical spaces, mathematical objects defined in those spaces, and principles of symmetry. And we've done so for very good reasons. The velocity that you see is not an attribute of the object that's moving, it's a parameter that encapsulates your relation to it as an observer. The particle "doesn't know" it has a velocity, so when it decays, it doesn't do it as a consequence of that velocity. This point by @studiot is very much what I meant by my "it's all in the mathematics, not in any mechanism."

Yusef, I'm interested in holy texts mostly from the point of view of historical criticism. I think they give you clues to the concerns and strife of our ancestors, whether they be Muslim, Christian or Jew, or any other religion. I also enjoy the poetry in them, occasionally. They are literary works of art at some points, political manifestos at another. Not even for a second do I consider that they could be an accurate account of anything. Let alone use them as a proper guide for use in our daily lives. My kind of questions would be like: What kind of man must Mohammed have been? Why did the monotheists in the 6th century's Middle East --first years of the Hegira or الهجرة‎-- feel compelled to raise in arms against polytheism and "stranded" versions of their faith in one God? Why did the Kaaba --ٱلْكَعْبَة‎-- end up in Mecca? Why did the Qibla --قِبْلَة‎-- change? What consequences had the vying for power between Caliphs during the first few centuries of Islam in the later developments into different branches? Very similar questions I ask myself about Christianity and Judaism. I also have faith in archaeology: What you dig from the ground is what it is, far more robust an evidence than anything written in a book. And the reason is I can write in a book now whatever I want, and people now, or people centuries from now, can choose to believe me or not. But if I do this or that, I eat or drink this or that, if I worship to this or that god, the remains of my activity cannot easily misrepresent me and my environment. They are what they are. And they will be there when they're dug out, speaking about me volumes more than anything about myself I write down. And they will be proof of what I did or didn't do. Some data, of course, are lost forever. That, in a nutshell, is why I don't take literally anything my ancestors said.

Oh, boy. I wish there were a filter for the really important questions. So much time wasted on the I'm-totally-confused user!

Doh! You're right. Manganese can't take what's not there.

You don't need LQG to prove BHs have entropy. The first historical proof was actually a mix between thermodynamic and quantum arguments. Also, you seem confused between the entropy of a BH and the entropy of "particles on their way into a BH." Those are different. You seem to identify "entropy" with "mistakes." Because a portal to another universe would require some control on the parameters of the spaceship going into it. How would we be able to control its direction? Is something like that your question? OTOH, BHs as portals to other universes --or regions of the universe-- is still an open question in physics, so we're not sure they are actually possible. Gravity is not a part of the current laws of particle physics. It's something pretty much "adjoined" to the standard model of particle physics. ------ PS: I had edited this last night and some comments have already been posted very much in the direction I was going.

Looks to me like a redox reaction that you have to balance by identifying how many electrons are transferred from what ion to what ion, and then accounting for H2O ions depending on whether you are in an acid or basic solution. This is called the ion-electron balancing method. The acid --in this case-- or the base in others, is there to tell you that you must balance by using protons. Bases balance by using OH- ions. Is this homework?

Thanks, Phi, especially for "intact". That completely threw me off. Signals from atoms can be obtained without need of ionizing them. That's what an MRI does, for example, in which oscillating magnetic fields get the atom to radiate at low --non-ionizing-- frequencies. There are many other kind of signals you can get from atoms without ionizing them --making them lose their electrons--. Most of those signals from atoms are radiation of different frequencies. In the other case that you mention: More or less, yes. But in this case it's a metal. A metal can be conceived of as many atoms forming a common "molecule" --a metallic crystal-- in which the internal electrons --called valence electrons-- are close to their nuclei, while the conduction electrons form a common quantum highway --a conduction orbital--. Metals have a strong tendency to lose their outer electrons. But they can't get too far off. As you say, the light is due to the conduction electrons finding resistance and heating up the filament, rather than the glass. The glass is heated because it's so close to all this action.

Round?

Frequency of certain quantum states has nothing to do with the frequency of certain quantum events. It's just another way of saying "energy." I agree with Studiot that you gave a reasonably good account of some features of special relativity. But then you jumped somewhere I don't quite see.

Sorry, I don't understand your question. A waste of time? That's not a physical concept. This doesn't sound like a speculation. It seems to me you're asking a question. We'll help you rephrase, as clearly something's bothering you. In particular, I don't understand what you mean by "surging" or by "stay intake".

You're right. You did say so. I'm missing the second purely electrical one...

As @studiot said, there are two sign criteria. One for charges and another for magnetic fields with respect to currents --the right-hand rule--. It is a technical difficulty to be sure, but nothing measurable depends on it.

Oh, you can't possibly be this stupid. I'm not going to answer the other deliberately idiotic response you gave me in the other thread either. Bye.

They shouldn't, as they aren't. And there you go again with base 10. Base 10 tells you nothing about a number. There's absolutely nothing "seven" in number "seventeen", for example. They are as much unrelated numbers as can be. Seems like you just don't want to know.

They are portions of one. x-posted with Koti.

Everything is elementary-particle based. The Iguazu falls are atomic-based too, but they can be approximately understood without appealing to quantum mechanics. The phenomena that we pointed out to you can't.

The thing about inter-stellar communication is that you must wait there for an answer for such an awfully long time that there is no prospect of anything in the way of a meaningful conversation. It wouldn't be "hey, we're here" as much as, "hey, we were here at some point".

Cells are generally replaced --except most neurons-- because they are the functional units. Chromosomes aren't. Chromosomes are packages of genetic material in gametes, which are haploid cells --some kind of random selection of half the organism's genes. Gametes in males are very much expendable. In females, they are more costly, but still. Gametes are cells for export, so to speak --I mean sex--, so they don't need to be replaced. When cells release stress signals --chemicals that inform about something not being quite right in them-- they are disposed of, so you can imagine that the genetic material inside is at least as expendable. I hope that helped. This is kind of my lowdown of the story. An expert will give you a more accurate picture. Edit: Welcome to the forums, Salik.

The way I see it, purpose does exist in the universe, but it is an emergent property. Intelligent beings have purpose because they have goals. The universe has no goal, as far as we can tell. It's no wonder that we, intelligent beings, have a tendency to see purpose everywhere.

I'm familiar with a shorter version of it, "brute force", as synonym of a not-very-refined method of solving a problem. As in, "instead of trying to find a clever change of variables, we may try to solve the equation by brute force." All I remember from neural networks is that it was about implementing an algorithm for "machine learning". The machine is involved in a repeated process of trial and error and the statistical weight are optimised. Something like that. @Ghideon --and other users too-- is the expert. Solving a jigsaw puzzle is kind of a paradigmatic problem for machine learning, as well as many other processes in which recognition of shapes and colours plays a part (texts in different fonts, etc.) I consider the thread very interesting, and I'm here to learn really.