1 hour ago, studiot said:

So you are claiming that all those relativity calculations about spaceships travelling through 'empty space' are incorrect ?

Think again more carefully.

 

Isn't that way off topic ?

planets locate themselves in space right?

Is that the way to think about it?

1 hour ago, iNow said:

The issue is your use of the word "random"

Maybe this can clarify what I mean..

Random numbers, Fluid Motion, Air Molecules, all within a limit of possible outcomes, IE ""volume"" or---> space..

Do You Now Understand The OP??

28 minutes ago, Sensei said:

What?! It is 1 divided by 2. Half. 0.5 ....

Absolute nonsense.

Absolutely not..

Correct way, I told you already, would be playing with digital camera. Drop something from well known height e.g. 2 meters, record it on camera, load video file in some free video editing tool e.g. VirtualDub. Then analyze where used to be (d (distance) parameter) dropped object in time, at which frame, during flying to the ground. Then make spreadsheet of gathered data in e.g. OpenOffice SpreadSheet or Excel. Then figure out equation from data. And you end up with  a=2*d/t^2

I will try then get back to you.

May take a while, thnXxxx

About the root question I was referring to

1/2 power of the root I should have mentioned that.

From.

Wikipedia..

The square root of 2, or the one-half power of 2.

I heard Solidworks may be a good program as it offers digital simulations.

What im interested in is:

Vibrational Analysis, decoding waves "cryptography" and being able to separate waves that are all bunched up or entangled.

Before I invest a lot of money, I wanted to ask first...

ThnX in advance..

51 minutes ago, zapatos said:

No, the universe is not accelerating randomly.

Really??? Why do planets have axil tilts??

Why do galaxies have angles?

"I REALY WANT TO KNOW PLEASE"

It would perhaps answer all my questions..Glad I posted this!

1 hour ago, timo said:

I don't think I understand anything you just wrote. But I'll give it a try:

- "Does -f"(x) imply -1 ?": -f''(x) means -1*f''(x), if that was your question. It does not mean that f(x) = -1 or f''(x)=-1, if that was the question.

- "Does linear differential reffer to a "radius"?": Differential equations are a special type of equations that relate functions and their derivatives. They one of the most important mathematical concepts in physics. 'Linear" is just a mathematical property of this equation.

- "When you say normalization is ignored, is that for ""All QM waves?"" ": Usually, wave functions must meet a requirement that they are "normalized". In my example, I ignored this requirement because it is irrelevant for the point I wanted to highlight.

- "After all the electron isn't that easy to figure out, plus the nature of its movement is not yet confirmed... ": I kind of disagree with this statement. Moreover, I think it has really little to do with the question why the constant Pi shows up in the context of QM.

 

I think my first attempt to answer your question did not go very well. So let me try an alternative story:

In many important cases, wave functions can be expressed as sine and cosine functions. The Pi comes from the 2*Pi periodicity of these functions (if you'd express the arguments in terms of degrees you'd get 360s popping up in the equations, I guess). For example, if a wave function looks like f(x) = sin(x), it has the wave length (the distance after which it repeats itself) of 2*Pi. If the function should have the wave length 1, the function would look like f(x) = sin(2*Pi*x).

-1 "does answer my question" I "really" needed to know that, thnXxxx..

I can now understand why linear equations are so important now, afterall signal processing uses the same ideas.

"The 360 degrees popping up all the time is a "very important concept" and I truly think its the framework of much confusion..""Unless I'm confusing this wave function with dirivitives used in calculus"" becuase "again" if the function has wave length of 1 the function would look like:"

f(x)= sin(2*Pi*x) which looks very similar to the circumference of a circle to its diameter, or radian or radius or 1 cycle completed...

In this framework, do we know the initial start of the electron like a parked  car on the road ready to drive off?? 

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Pick up your mouse, Studiot, and move it around in the air.
The pointer on your screen stays put.
It is obviously not moving relative to 'empty' space.
However, if you place it on a surface which reflects its LED light ( or turns its ball/wheels, depending on age ) it can gauge movement relative to that surface.
No training involved.

How can you tell if length is contracted in 'empty' space ?
Is the concept even valid for an object in an otherwise empty universe ?

But isn't the universe still accellerating randomly since the Big Bang?

4 hours ago, Lan Todak said:

Interesting... ask them about length contraction😃.

 Or the measurement problem..🙂 

3 hours ago, MigL said:

What if you are wearing VR glasses and can't see the mouse, only the pointer ?

( don't know where this discussion is going, it's more interesting than the OP, but I have a feeling we'll be told to get back on track soon )

Then those VR glasses wouldn't serve as much insight if our light photons decide to act as particles then...

Is this correct thinking??

9 hours ago, timo said:

Wave functions are solutions of linear differential equations. Mathematically, solutions to linear differential equations contain sine and cosine (or, equivalently, exponential functions with imaginary exponents). The Pi comes in from them.

 

Example: Imagine the Schroedinger equation for a free particle would be f(x) = -f''(x), where f''(x) is the 2nd derivative of f(x) with respect to x. A possible solution for this is f(x) = sin(x) (normalization ignored for this example). The wavelength of this wave is 2*Pi.

Does -f"(x) imply -1 ?

Does linear differential reffer to a "radius"?

I get this idea becuase sin and cos and pi have relationships to frequencies and "cycles" to the radian or radius which ever it uses.

In a sense using pi makes QM waves look "perfect" predictable, neat and organized, truly its not like that..Or is it???

When you say normalization is ignored, is that for ""All QM waves?""

...I hope so! After all the electron isn't that easy to figure out, plus the nature of its movement is not yet confirmed...

Is this information correct?

6 hours ago, joigus said:

I've just squared a second and it gave me 1 second squared, so apparently you can.

10^1/10^1=1

Oh I get it now thanXx 🙂

6 hours ago, Sensei said:

(It should be 9.8 m/s^2 or 9.8 m * s^-2)

g (or a) is coefficient used in equation of distance traveled by body i.e.

d = 1/2 * a * t^2

"second square" unit of a, cancels out with "second square" unit of t^2. Simple cancellation of units.

m/s^-2 * s^2 = m

To calculate acceleration of the body, you transform this equation from

d = 1/2 * a * t^2

to

a=2*d/t^2

or you can derive time:

t=sqrt(2*d/a)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_for_a_falling_body

 

How scientists get this equation? They were releasing objects from well known height, and measuring time of flight to the ground.

You release something from 1 meter. Measure time. Release something from 2 meters. Measure time. Release something from 4 meters. Measure time. etc.

(it is interesting experiment. In the modern times we can record it on camera, and see it in slow motion speed, and easily measure time using frames-per-second of video)

You will receive sequence of pair of data. Distance of flight and time. From them you can extract "g" (or "a") coefficient.

Then you can predict time of flight of something placed at any arbitrary height.

 

How long you will be flying from 3 km?

t=sqrt(2*3000/9.81)=24.731 seconds (assuming no air resistance, thus no terminal velocity)

Understood, but question...

d = 1/2 * a * t^2

What is 1/2 ?

Is that an empty square root??

The whole thing looks similar The Pythagorean Thoerem, no one can say it does not.

z^2 = [a^2+b^2]^1/2 

In this set up does 1 = 100% ??

Afterall you need a base to start time from or atleast some form of default reference "point."

In your last example of 24.73 seconds, that is close the root of 5^2 , I see this all the time maybe x^2*5^2, means seconds per seconds squared and our 1 is "base 10"

Is this the correct way to think about it?

5 hours ago, swansont said:

Yes

It's better to no use numbers, but if your speed changes from 1 m/s to 2 m/s in 1 second, you have a ∆v of 1 m/s and an acceleration if 1 m/s^2. (if a is constant, a = ∆v/∆t)

But, if you're moving at 1 m/s in a circle with a radius of 1m, you also have an acceleration of 1 m/s^2, since your direction of motion changes. Acceleration and velocity are vectors. Changing your direction of motion requires an acceleration. (this is pointed out in Newton's first law)

No, velocity is velocity

But a constant velocity implies straight-line motion

 

"Understood" both examples make better sense than most explanations, thnXxxx!

5 hours ago, swansont said:

You need coordinate systems to say something is relative to something else. Empty space is not a coordinate system.

 

 

 I should have asked can anything be relative to it's own """volume"""...lololoo

5 hours ago, studiot said:

Although swansont and others are technically correct in one sense,

In another sense, isn't that how a computer mouse works?

Great point..And yes that's exactly how it works, but in a jagged way "not smooth motion"  ie latency issues, but hardly even noticeable..

4 hours ago, swansont said:

No. Your mouse maps onto your computer screen, which represents a coordinate system. You pick an origin when you start moving the mouse.  

But a mouse's motion is "jagged" like particles in a field with their own magnetic properties, pulling and tugging on each other with weak forces...

I get this idea from electron configuration, and a computer screen "must have one."

The Ideal Gas Law, is a vague example of this jagged motion behavior as pointing random vectors "fluid behavior" it gets the point across..

4 hours ago, swansont said:

a = dv/dt

Any change in velocity is an acceleration

Can you show me with numbers in them??

I don't want to ask this but our velocity acts like a distance then?

Why not?

It's the only thing deriving quantities of change, while the changes are all conserved....This is pretty deep.....

Does this means Einstein's Special Relativity was based on this very concept?

Velocity is linear then??? But bends time as Space Time???

Is this the correct way to think about velocity as a ""straight line???""

Why Does QM Wave Functions Use Pi?

Does this mean waves travel in perfect partial circles of pi? Or fractions of pi?

1 minute ago, MigL said:

Quantum particles act like particles in experiments set up to detect particle behavior.
And act like waves in experiments set up to detect wave behavior.

What other reality ?
 

I read that a particle can spontaneously change from particle to wave "when it felt like it."

The other realities or "universes" I speak of are the ones mentioned in QM..

And the Zeroth Theorem makes some mention about this....

Of which all relate to my OP, but I dont usually like to make things sound seductively technical, practical or common....Its just my nature..

3 hours ago, pzkpfw said:

Do what?

It was a polite way of asking "when a particle acts as a wave" does it exist in our phyiscal reality or another reality?

After all when it acts as a particle it acts as part of our physically observed reality.....There is a barrier in between.

I was refering to the mesurments problem...But I believe there are simpler ways to asking questions than the more technical standards, that seem to get no where, or is just fancy talk..

For example, Special and General Relativity was created for the Macro Universe....."chukkles"

1 hour ago, MigL said:

You certainly don't speak any science.

 

If  x is a function of time, it is usually written as x(t).
But do you understand the concept of a mathematical model describing a physical reality ?
And limits of applicability ( usually determined by boundary conditions where the function goes to zero or diverges to infinity ) ?

 

I fail to understand what energy conservation has to do with any of this.
( am I just wasting energy and time replying to this nonsense ? )

 

Science and math are consistent.
As are you, with your misunderstanding.

Usually determined by boundary conditions.

What are these boundaries?? And who sets them?

where the function goes to zero and diverges to infinity...

0.1111111111111111111111-> Infinity???? X^infinity????

Does infinity have a number?

I'd place it myself but at this point I'd like to see a real physical calculus problem "real world example"  from someone whom knows what they are doing becuase obviously im not getting my point across the "standard" way..

Can Anything Be Relative to Empty Space?

Such as in Special Relativity, "example here."

But, in this question space would be "nothingness" the void or barrier beyond this universe, or maybe a black hole, "whom knows." I get this idea from particle entanglement.

And if we could do this, how would this change our technology?

17 minutes ago, swansont said:

Accelerations are not relative. The people in the boat know they are moving. (You tend not to get seasick if you’re stationary)

Newton’s first law and all.

And yet we can tell we’re moving. Not that this is a relevant example.

 

I think you overestimate your mastery of physics.

 

 

It was not at all clear to me you meant mathematical derivative. Derivative of what variable, with respect to what?

Was it so hard to use “force” when you meant “force”?

Something bobbing up and down - let’s assume a sinusoid motion in time. The second derivative is the acceleration. So maximum at the max displacement

 

You say ""acceleration is not relative"" if this is true,  this answers all my questions, and "Now" physics makes sense...

What is accelleration?

Is it when an object starts its "speed or velocity" from 0 to higher and higher speeds 1,2,3...on a "straight upward path?"

I need to make sure I know before I move onto other "bigger topics here."

On 10/17/2020 at 6:09 PM, cladking said:

No.  It's most probably not true.

Newton studied the pyramids largely because he thought the builders knew the size of the earth (probably true) and he needed the data to test his theory of gravity.  While he never found it he did ironically translate the Emerald Tablets of Hermes from Syriac to English.  

He was truly a remarkable man.  He couldda moved heaven and earth if he had google.  😎

Sounds he was more an astrophysicist through mystic knowledge..

55 minutes ago, swansont said:

What is “derivative” here? What is “take the instantaneous vibration of the right area location”?

A boat bobbing up and down is not 

Calculus uses things that move, just replace the thing that moves with something that vibrates..

Is it really that hard? something bob's up and down, where is the force greater??

In the up location or down location??

I found this book that explains thnXxx

21 minutes ago, Charles 3781 said:

From the viewpoint of someone aboard a boat, surely it is stationary. It's the sea outside which is going up and down.  This is elementary Galilean relativity. Which applies to us all.

For example, from the point of view of the Earth, the Sun is going round it. When the the Sun rises in the east, goes across the sky, then sets in the west,  no-one on Earth experiences any sense of motion.  We stay still.  We don't experience any "whirling" movement.

How can you confute this?  Without offending both Special and General  Relativity?

Great Point!!!!!

22 minutes ago, MigL said:

What's wrong with the unit you used ?
The second.
Is this heading in the same irrational and nonsensical direction as your thread on the 3rd dimension ?
None of us have time for that.

You speak for the whole of science??

Plain and simple if x = 1, 2, 3 or "whatever" and it's time "dependant" ie varies, and you use changes in time  how do you multiply by "nothing" if x-> 0 or if x=0 and get a phyiscal quanity??

Besides if energy is conserved then whats the point of any of this??

I'm asking questions but "science and math are inconsistent."

I agree with its nonsense no doubt about it..

This takes on the same ideas as changes from a body accellerating, accept this time the body is held still while vibrating  in a medium that is being disturbed by some external forces..Perhaps a stationary boat bobbing up and down as another boat passes by it..

Or think about a point in space vibrating left and right and you want to take the instantaneous vibration of the right area location..

What's the point? Several things pertaining to un-balances and correcting them...

I get this idea from "Statistics" using Bell's Theorem..

48 minutes ago, MigL said:

Make an attempt to live beyond your fingertips and eyes; not everything has to be seen/touched and be physical.
Usually it means 'per second, per second', but it could have other meanings.
Does velocity squared have a physical representation ?
The root of -1, i, appears in many equations; what exactly does it represent physically ?

Would you be happier if we gave acceleration a new unit. say a ( where a=m/s^2 ), such that there is no squaring of the time unit ?

So what's the ""time unit""???

And can a see a simple real world example?

55 minutes ago, Charles 3781 said:

What does "squaring" actually mean?  Isn't it just a shorthand linguistic expression for "multiplying a number by the same number"?

It's just multiplication of one number by another.  I can't see how it differs from, say, multiplying any two numbers.

My point exactly, adding squares then taking the root confuses me greatly..

9 minutes ago, OldChemE said:

So, acceleration is one example where we see seconds squared,  but we are not really squaring a second-- its mathematical language. When we say, for example, that the acceleration is 10 meters per second squared we are really saying that the velocity is increasing by 10 meters per second each second.  Mathematically this looks likes we are squaring a second but in reality we are not.

What I don't get is how, accelleration, velocity and speed are related with one of them being positive, the other being a vector and the other staring at "zero."

Math language in base 10 uses..

0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

With 0 =1 second ????

And how about the square root usage of 1/2?

Z^2 = [A^2+B^2]^1/2<------------- does that mean second per second squared??

I'm tempted to think everything is constant^2...But not sure..

Assuming something squared assumes a cycle of completion obviously for our second per second squared..Is that how it works?? 

Example of squaring the second would be the accelleration of earth's gravity at its surface 9.8 m/s-1...

The moon "falling around" earth in a cycle from point a to point b, month to month..."example"

Or even earth's seasons mark reference points "example" Summer to Winter..

Now I don't want to mention atomic orbitals becuase we are not sure how the electron orbits the nucleus, but caclulations of such does use pi ratio in QM so I guess that's another topic..

Anyway, when i thnk of a second squared "regardless" of the units involved" I see 1 complete cycle "almost independant of time itself" ie magnetic attraction versus the speed of light, IE Gravitational Energy" good example or maybe even KE whom knows at this point.

Or the refractional index, or how light travels slower in a medium etc etc...

These are just my thoughts..

But really how can you square a second??

Or is it the "unit" that's squared as "time" and energy conservation???