swansont

Moderators
  • Content Count

    41378
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Everything posted by swansont

  1. swansont

    The Lagrangian equation...

    This just appears to be the Lagrangians of different interactions. As such, it would likely not be "derived" in any more detail. In classical (nonrelativistic) mechanics, the Lagrangian is simply L = KE - PE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_mechanics It's a way of solving problems using energy rather than forces. Which lends itself to QM problems, since you don't really talk about forces and kinematics at the quantum level.
  2. swansont

    Hypervelocity Supermassive Black Hole

    As Mordred say, it's a guess, because we don't know the particulars. But space is really big. You look out at the night sky, and there's a lot of empty out there (more if you ignore everything in the Milky Way) — meaning if there is anything in a particular direction where the sky is black, it's too far away for us to see unaided. We can only see 7 other galaxies with the naked eye. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_galaxies#Naked-eye_galaxies
  3. swansont

    What happens with radioactive decay in molecules?

    Bingo. When I was doing my postdoc, we were detecting the Ar daughter of a beta-plus-decay of K. We had an electric field in place, which accelerated all the charged particles. The Ar was ionized in a lot of the reactions, and we detected three different ionization states (all had a different time-of-flight, owing to the acceleration) plus the beta, as well as the "shake-off" electrons, which were detected in the opposite direction. And beta decays have a far smaller recoil than alpha decays.
  4. swansont

    Hypervelocity Supermassive Black Hole

    No, it will feel that pull all along, from stars it has passed. (if the mass is spherically symmetric, all of the mass inside the sphere acts as if it were in the center) As a point of comparison, the Milky Way is estimated to have about 250 billion stars in it, with an estimated mass of 100 billion solar masses. A billion solar masses sounds like a lot, but it's small in comparison to a decent-sized galaxy. 20 million years to go perhaps 20,000 LY is 10^-3 LY/year, or 1000 years per LY. Galaxies are much smaller than the space between them. A million LY, perhaps further. So it would take a billion years at 1000 years per LY...if it's headed in the right direction. "Pass by other galaxies" does not have much meaning in this context. Wait. The galaxy it's leaving won't slow it, but a galaxy 100 times further away will accelerate it? Gravity is 1/r^2. The galaxy it's leaving will have around 10,000 times the effect as any distant galaxy, as it leaves. Odds are it goes out on its own, and nothing further of significance happens. if it's not headed in the direction of the closest galaxy, you have to check if it's traveling fast enough to catch whatever it's headed toward, given the expansion of the universe. Hubble constant is 160 km/s/million LY, so a naive comparison says that anything beyond about 13-14 million LY is receding faster than this is going.
  5. swansont

    THE TIME-FLOW FALLACY

    Is that a mathematical construct strawman (CS), or a real strawman (RS)? Straw-man-flow is a myth.
  6. swansont

    Is Newton Circular ?

    I see. It should be noted that your 1st principle (and all of kinematics) implicitly assumes that you are in an inertial frame.
  7. swansont

    What happens with radioactive decay in molecules?

    Nuclear decay descriptions typically ignore the electrons. Some are often left behind after the reaction — the alpha and the daughter can be left in an ionized state, as the energy released in the decay is usually much larger than the ionization energy, but that has no bearing on the decay. Similarly, any molecule will likely be torn apart by such a decay. You need to look at the KE of the Rn when the Ra emits the alpha. The ratio of their KEs is the inverse of their mass ratio, so the Rn gets about 1.8% of the KE. Around 85 keV. How does that compare to molecular binding energies?
  8. swansont

    THE TIME-FLOW FALLACY

    The SI second is not based on comparing movement Atomic clocks don't work this way, and they are how we currently measure time. Radioactive decay doesn't work this way, and we use that to measure certain classes of time intervals. The only person talking about TC and TR here is you. Don't expect others to adopt your nomenclature. Nobody is arguing for time-flow, or that time facilitates all movement.
  9. swansont

    Is my proof correct?

    ! Moderator Note If you want to discuss something, post it here. (please see rule 2.7 in the guidelines)
  10. swansont

    Is Newton Circular ?

    It's a fallacy if you use them to derive each other. e.g. N1–>N2–>N3 and then N3–> N1. But it's not clear that this was the case. If you merely state them as being true it's not a problem. I do. Since N1 says nothing about acceleration, other than it having to be zero, you do not know the form of N2. What if force actually had a term in it that depended on the second derivative of velocity? Then your principle would not hold. IOW, your principle assumes the second law. You are not deriving it from the first law.
  11. swansont

    Hypervelocity Supermassive Black Hole

    At 0.7% the speed of light. That's fast by human standards, but it's not making it "across the universe" 20 million years is a long time. And I wonder how much it slows as it escapes.
  12. swansont

    Is Newton Circular ?

    N1 says nothing about accelerations, though. It simply defines an inertial frame as one in which there is uniform motion (which includes being at rest), with the implication being that under these conditions, the rest of Newton's laws will apply. Absent N2, you don't know what the relationship is with acceleration (other than it must be zero to work), or mass.
  13. swansont

    THE TIME-FLOW FALLACY

    You've been asked to clarify this. repeating is not clarifying. You have not presented a "fake definition" The issue of circular definitions is universal Time-flow is a description, not a definition, nor is it physics. These are concepts you have just introduced, and you have not adequately explained them. That hardly seems likely, since you just introduced these terms. What do you mean by real? That it materially exists? Or that it not an illusion? I don't think anybody is arguing that time is a substance. But if you think it's not real, then try crossing the street. You and a truck traveling at 100 kph do not want to be at the same spatial and temporal coordinates. You will discover, painfully, that time is very real. Not reciprocal — that's the period. Time is the phase. You integrate frequency to get the time.
  14. It depends on the detector Energy is conserved. This is irrelevant to the discussion. Your opinion is also irrelevant. The PEE is a well-defined interaction. It does not cover all photon absorptions. Excitation, for example, is not the PEE.
  15. swansont

    A theory of everything. The truth about creation.

    How do they do this? Move at v > c, and also "slow down and cycle through an atomic creation" Atomic organization? I thought you said the natural state was moving at v > c. Neutrinos from atomic decay move at v < c Neutrinos don't interact via the electromagnetic interaction. Just the weak interaction. Gravity isn't electromagnetic, either. Not via the electromagnetic interaction. Protons ignite? Not by anything you have presented. CMBR is electromagnetic. All you have here (and subsequently) is a handwave. Covered in PEE. There is no model and no evidence, so there is really nothing to debunk.
  16. They aren't the same thing, even if you find an occurrence where both things are happening at the same time. That's all it is — two things happening at the same time.
  17. swansont

    Independent run for POTUS 2020

    That's one difference between certain blocks of voters. Some vote their personal interests, others do as you say.
  18. swansont

    Independent run for POTUS 2020

    Not leadership, and not demonizing (i.e "to characterize or conceive of as evil, cruel, inhuman, etc.") It's a rhetorical comment about privilege. Asking someone about paying dues (especially from her perspective of having been criticized in that manner, and for a mere house seat at that) is not portraying them as evil or cruel.
  19. swansont

    Is Evolution REAL Science?

    ! Moderator Note The OP asked four questions. This addresses none of them. The default position here is that mainstream science is valid. This is not the place to argue the merits of the theory of evolution. This hijack has been put in the appropriate section of the forum (the trash can) Please stay on-topic with further responses.
  20. None of that contradicts what I have said. There are two things going on: you are collapsing the superposition, and you are destroying the photon. You can do either one, without doing the other. I can block one of the slits, so there is no longer a superposition, but not detect (and thus not destroy) the photon. I can detect (destroy) a photon that was not in a superposition.
  21. swansont

    Double Slit Experiment

    If I bounce a photon off of an electron, the electron recoils. That is a physical effect that changes its momentum (but is not an element of the HUP) but it is not necessarily part of the collapse of the superposition. The photon might not be involved in collapsing the superposition. As I said, these are not the same effects. No, it's not. The observer effect can happen to systems that are not in superposition (it's not even required that the experiment be probing QM). Thus, they cannot be the same. The loss of interference in a double slit can be from the observer effect (e.g. which-path information), but they are not synonymous. You can get which-path information without detection. But simply collapsing a wave function is going from an undetermined state to a determined one. That's a separate category. You can't say you changed the state of the system, since the system isn't in a determined state to begin with.
  22. Define "successful" Clarify what makes a society matriarchal or patriarchal.
  23. swansont

    Independent run for POTUS 2020

    Can you point me to the analysis? I would assume that it included the fact (pointed out above) that a decent bloc of the white vote that Trump got was evangelicals, and they are unlikely to defect for an independent candidate who is not committed to their interests. A such, one cannot blithely assume that an independent would siphon off more white voters from Trump.
  24. swansont

    Double Slit Experiment

    The physical influence is a separate effect from the collapse of the superposition. This sounds similar to the measurement effect being confused with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
  25. swansont

    Independent run for POTUS 2020

    Ten Oz just explained why this is too simplistic of an analysis.