ydoaPs

Is there anything in particular about this video that you'd like to discuss?

The problem is that there isn't a route. You can't get to either the absolute or the probabilistic formulation of the second law by way of either classical or quantum mechanics. I'll check it out.

Actually, you can't get the second law from classical (or quantum) mechanics. There's a really good book that details this result and proves the possibility of both a classical and a quantum Maxwellian Demon. Here it is on Amazon.

Until 2007.

Today, SCOTUS announced that they're leaving the assault weapon ban in place. Do you think having more mass shootings than days this year had any influence in their decision?

Why?

Do you mean spacetime sans any matter or do you mean a true vacuum in a universe containing matter? Either way, the answer is: neither are real.

Typically there's some sort of spring loaded relief valve. If the computer shuts down and it somehow turns the boiler all the way up, then steam pressure will set off the reliefs. If the computer shuts down and it somehow turns the boiler all the way down, then steam pressure drops and mechanical valves will trigger a low pressure shutdown of equipment. As for the other side of the boiler, it depends on what's powering it. I should probably point out that this isn't exactly speculation. Before I went to college, I built, tested, operated, and maintained nuclear reactors and associated primary and secondary equipment. I kinda know what I'm talking about.

Same thing as if power goes out-mechanical safeties.

Why not both?

Questioning Physics has been banned for spam and disregarding warning points issued for spamming.

Looks good.

Nothing can be measured directly.

No, you can't.

I thought you said you were a Christian.

Well, what did you do and what answer did you get?

An effective coefficient of friction isn't a complicating detail. It's a necessary piece of information to be able to answer the question.

You're ruling out the possibility that it just loops the Earth. If there's no friction, there's no reason why it wouldn't (unless it ramps up a hill too much taller than the kinetic energy allows, of course).

You've got to be careful with the f word. An observation alone does not constitute a fact. Epistemology today is full of various Gettier problems. Take the fake barn examples. The observation the driver makes is of a barn, but it's not true that the driver saw a barn. Even a true belief isn't necessarily a fact. The Goldbach conjecture is a good example here. It's either true or false that all even numbers greater than or equal to 4 are the sum of two primes. There's no proof either way. Some people believe that it is true. Some people believe that it is false. Either the people who believe that it is true are correct or the people who believe that it is false are correct. But neither option is a fact despite being a true belief. Facts are socially constructed.

ajb inspired me to create a thread about the nature of measurement, but the same quote inspired this thread. As far as measurement as a criterion for ontological reality, I'm even less sure. We can measure energy, but it's not clear that energy exists. Many people are hesitant to give positive ontological status to things which are frame dependent. But energy isn't just frame dependent in that my energy count is different from your energy count. Energy is co-ordinate dependent such that my energy count is different depending on how I count. Wile E Coyote on a cliff is an example. If I count the cliff level as y=0, then Mr Coyote has no gravitational potential energy. If I count the level of the valley as y=0, then he has a bunch. But both of those energies are from the same frame. That's really weird for something that's real.

In a recently bumped thread, ajb said the following: But that's not the first time measurement has been mentioned. There was, for example, this half tongue-in-cheeck exchange between myself and PeterJ: Why look at the level of the mercury in the thermometer when you can just measure temperature? Oh, yes, because you can't. But it's only half tongue-in-cheeck. There's a real issue here. Measurement is an important part of science, so let's talk about it. We can discuss it in a forum, if you will. What, exactly, is measurement? Is objective measurement possible? It seems like it's got to be a specific type of observation. It seems like Measurement is the most objective kind of observation. In the course of the discussion, we'll inevitably come across more questions. Let's address them as they come. Intuitively, observation is straightforward. You use your senses and things appear to you. But, it's not that simple. Even the most basic of observation is loaded with theory. Ernst Mach tried to strip science of all metaphysics, and his project shows us just how much theory is involved in observation. Sensation is a complex manifold of experience. Without metaphysics, however, we can't say that these are experiences of anything. They're just experiences. In philosophy lingo, we just get the phenomena, not the noumena. But it's more than that. We don't get to assume noumena. Each sensation is different. No two of these complex manifolds of experience are the same. Since they're all different, and we cant assume that any parts of the different manifolds are ontologically identical. We can't say that this red blob is the same red blob as that slightly different red blob. But we do. This, however, is a lie. It's a useful fiction. In Mach's terms, it's economy of thought. Objects of perception and the persistence of said objects are an economical lie. That level of theory-ladenness, however, isn't given much thought since (as Kant, Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, et al point out), this happens prior to sensation reaching consciousness. The brain is not passive in perception. Perception is an active process. So, objects at all (both noumenal and phenomenal), already require theory. All perception is theory-laden. All observation is theory-laden. Measurement is a specific kind of observation. It's supposed to be more objective. It gives numbers to observation, so it feels more precise. The simplest measurement is probably length. You take one object and another and compare them. One object you take to be your scale. My table is about three and a half feet (literally) long. This isn't as simple as it seems. It requires more than just objects. It requires rigid (or semirigid) objects. It doesn't say much to say that my table is about three and a half feet long if both my table and my feet are constantly changing shape and length. So, in order to have measurement of properties that are directly present in observation, we need extra theory. But what about things that aren't directly present to observation. Take my example with PeterJ, for example. When we measure temperature, we stick a thermometer in something. What are we observing in this measurement? We're observing liquid level in a scaled tube. Literally, we're measuring length. So, we're 'starting' with the previous several layers of theory. Temperature, however, isn't the same as length. We need to interpret the length through the lens of theory in order to reach temperature. Do you know how a Stern-Gerlach device works? I don't. I bet it takes a level or two more of theory-laden interpretation, though. So, measurement is our already theory-laden observation plus more layers of theoretical interpretation and calculation. How much calculation before it stops being measurement? Does Laplace's demon measure future states when it calculates them? If I measure out my reactants and then mix them, have I measured the product by doing stoichiometry on the measured values of the reactants?

The "how far" can't be answered with the information given. We need to know the effective coefficient of friction as well. If we're not assuming friction, then the answer is "infinitely far".

Emphasis mine. Why not?

Indiana University: "Its mission is to create, disseminate, preserve, and apply knowledge. It does so through its commitments to cutting-edge research, scholarship, arts, and creative activity; to challenging and inspired undergraduate, graduate, professional, and lifelong education; to culturally diverse and international educational programs and communities; to first-rate library and museum collections; to economic development in the state and region; and to meaningful experiences outside the classroom."-Mission Statement Purdue University: "The mission of Purdue University is to serve the citizens of Indiana, the United States, and the world through discovery that expands the realm of knowledge, learning through dissemination and preservation of knowledge, and engagement through exchange of knowledge."-Mission Statement Harvard: "Harvard University is devoted to excellence in teaching, learning, and research, and to developing leaders in many disciplines who make a difference globally."-About Harvard (Harvard has no official mission statement) Yale: "Like all great research universities, Yale has a tripartite mission: to create, preserve, and disseminate knowledge."-Mission Statement So, what's the point of university? Says who? If you want to learn, get a degree. If you want to earn, get a plumber's license.

That doesn't answer the question.