Sorcerer

Would using the spin of the earth as an energy source slow it down. How would that effect the planet?

I think what you are looking for is the Coriolis Effect

This is the apparent deflection of a moving object due to the rotation of the Earth.

 

Also I'd like to see you try to throw a ball in curve that was not a parabola!

I remember now, it effects the weather and trade winds, the rotational reversal between hemispheres.

 

I guess that's part of the energy source for weather, the rest being from the suns heat and convection currents.

 

Is any rotational energy lost due to lending its energy to the weather. Will the earth eventually stop spinning.

 

How fast is it slowing down and does this alter the coriolis effect over time.

 

Would this be a real but insignificant factor in a model of a ball thrown over a short time?

Would the weather have been different because of an increased coriolis effect say 100 million years ago?

If we wanted to make a spacecraft land on a distant planet in an exact spot. Would we have to factor in the loss of spin over time or be in the wrong spot?

This is interesting :

 

"Gyroscopic precession

 

When an external torque is applied to a spinning gyroscope along an axis that is at right angles to the spin axis, the rim velocity that is associated with the spin becomes radially directed in relation to the external torque axis. This causes a Coriolis force to act on the rim in such a way as to tilt the gyroscope at right angles to the direction that the external torque would have tilted it. This tendency has the effect of keeping spinning bodies stably aligned in space."

Is it true that if you throw a ball west, with the same power as a ball east, that it will travel further?

 

If so what % distance difference would there be?

 

Does a ball thrown in a straight line north or south actually curve. What's the mathematical function of that line?

 

Would it be variable by altitude and lattitude due to increasing circumference of the rotational circle?

 

How would throwing a ball in an arc or parabola compare to thrown as straight as possible?

 

How does this apply to aviation?

 

How does it affect ballistics. Are nukes programmed to compensate? What about artillery, is the ranging different?

 

If you throw a ball straight up and catch it does it make an arc, is the ball spinning when on the poles?

 

What energy could be obtained if we designed technology to use the variation in energy or gradient between larger circles and smaller ones?

No sorry I just wanted to share something of educational value. Where is the correct place to post this.

 

Wouldn't the majority here benefit from this resource?

 

Personally I finished the first lecture and learnt 1 thing. I've studied this before and still 1 thing in the very basics I didn't know.

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/

Thanks Studiot, I might check that book out, constantly learning.

 

Well yes I guess it's close to Euclid, simply because I am adding/subtracting essential points as I step up/down dimensions.

 

0 dimensions contains 1 point. 1 point must be added to transition to 1d, so the smallest possible line does have 2 points on either end, but it is also infinitely divisible. Because a point has no part, no part can be placed an infinite amount along this line. Any addition of a point to the line creates a smaller but also infinite set. There are infinite possible infinite lines (as defined by all containing unique coordinates) and infinite overlapping lines.

 

The entire set of infinite sub sets is bounded by a point on either end. So I guess my definition of a line is similar to both Euclid and modern math.

 

My view is that reality is the perfection and mathematics must adapt to describe it as best it can. Euclid geometry can be envisioned and attempted to be formed in reality, but scale magnifies the reality that it isn't any match.

 

I feel some of our deepest problems with modelling reality are due to this backwards view. Reality allows us the mind with which to create the math to describe it. The dependence is on wether we can perfect that description, do we have the mental faculty?

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach%E2%80%93Tarski_paradox

 

Someone once said "if the brain were so simple that we could understand it, we'd be so simple we couldn't." Similarly the perfection doesn't lie with our creation of axioms, but with the reality which we can create them in. Our logic is conditional on any limits imposed, and any limits don't necessarily need to be perceivable.

 

I tend to think there is an epistemological graph with knowledge increasing over time, towards an absolute limit of truth. It has assymptotes on each end. We all ways know something, but will never know everything. The funny thing is when people assume we're closer to the assymptote approaching truth. We don't know where we are, that's one of the things we never can.

 

I must add there is no reason that a line cannot be unbounded. To say there is a positive and negative point at increasing and decreasing infinity makes some sense if you consider them hypothetically, but when considered as reality, there can always be another point, this type of infinity really makes no sense to use as a limit because it isn't approached, all other points are paradoxically equidistant from both. Which also means each polar infinity is also equidistant from all other points including their counterpart.

 

Only does the paradox begin to resolve when we consider points as being on a line with aleph number coordinates.

 

Quickly since you are still online.

 

I think you have misunderstood my comment about limits (though ajb did not)

 

I mean the formal mathematical limit the we use

 

[math]\mathop {\lim }\limits_{\delta x \to 0} f(x)[/math]

 

Maybe, it's been a while, I am confusing myself a bit.

 

That says that the equation is conditional on there being a measurable point even at infinity where the change in x approaches 0.

 

There never is this point, just more infinities and always change. Points are perfect concepts flawed by any deviation from that perfection.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number

 

After a quick Google I'm reading this. I think this is what I was getting at lol.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice

 

I think there is rather more to it than this.

 

We are again talking about the difference between the value zero and nothing (= no thing).

 

So let us consider density = mass /volume.

 

What sense does it make to state "the density at a point is"?

 

A point has zero volume so you are dividing by zero.

 

Yet the applied maths world happily uses density every day.

 

We get around this conundrum by taking a limit.

 

Of course the same issue applies to other properties besides density, pressure for instance.

Pressue is Force/Area and we need the use the same limiting process when we consider pressure at a point.

 

So should I consider a point as a line with zero length, a square of zero area or a cube of zero volume?

 

These have 1, 2 or 3 dimensions respectively.

 

 

To make matter worse we can also consider the reverse situation.

 

How many dimensions has a cube?

 

Am I bid 3?

 

What about (1 dimensional) Peano curves then?

 

At this point (pun intended) you need to ask the Hausdorf/Mandelbrot question

 

What is a dimension?

Interesting points, I'll look up the mandelbrot question myself later, but if you could elaborate it would be helpful.

 

Personally I think limits are a product of our perspective, we have written the rule in a seemingly 3D world, and need a way to simplify reality so it can be calculated. In reality there must be either an actual limit (ie something similar to the planck scale) or infinite divisibility.

 

The interesting paradox which arises here is that if reality is discrete, then the points which form it have dimension and limits surpass this. And if reality is infinitely divisible then at no scale can we find an area that consists of only 1 point, which limits rely on to measure anything. The math uses 0 and infinity as limits, but the reality is they don't exist. Things either get smaller to a point of finite size, or there isn't any limit, and even the concept of reaching it at infinity fails, because at every scale there are nested infinities, the math would need to be altered to account for infinite concentric sets. It's fine for the abstract, the mathematical surface is defined, but isn't truly the surface we observe.

 

Also my thanks to ajb you have been very helpful.

We are discussing mathematics, so a point is really no more than an element of a set.

 

As you know, there are more exotic things that are also called dimension, like Minkowski dimension and Hausdorff dimension (both are defined on metric spaces). You also have the Lebesgue covering dimension for topological spaces. And other constructions as well.

 

What I have been discussing is the dimension of a topological manifold, which is tied to the notion of dimension for a vector space. This is probabily, what most people would think of as 'dimension' when discussing points and lines.

Well actually he has a point, pun intended, that perhaps mathematical ideas are abstract and their existence isn't tangible as reality is. When we say they exist, it would seem to imply therefore they aren't nothing, but maths existing devoid of the physical world or possible worlds it describes isn't really anything at all.

 

Which gives rise to the interesting multiverse speculation , where every physical possibility described by every form of mathematics does exist. And nothingness never was because it was always just a field of possibilities which had to exist.

 

IE mathematics existence is physical existence. Mathematics is abstract. Abstract things are axiomatic. Physical existence is inevitable because of the possibilities created by the abstract, and an absence of time by which to place a relative moment of existence, the possibilities all just seemingly are.

A point can be thought of as a zero dimensional space (or manifold even).

 

The dimension of a vector space (or a manifold) is really given in terms of how many numbers are needed to describe an arbitrary point in that space. So, an 'isolated' point takes no numbers to describe it: you just have a single point and that is it. A point in the real line takes 1 number, a point on the plane take 2 numbers etc...

I may be uncessarily complicating this, I assume by "describe" you mean label its position. So for 1D, which requires atleast 1 more point, we can choose an origin arbitrarily at any point along the now line segment, the original point which is a boundary, needn't be labeled as such. Infact there is infinite choice due to the infinite number line of points between. I'm trying to resolve how additions or subtractions of dimensions to and from a coordinate system retain or lose their required similarities.

 

It just seems to me (not since last edit) that there's something special about a change from 0D where only 1 point exists to 1d where only infinite points can. Is there a link between 0 becoming 1 and 1 becoming infinite?

 

Edit: Thinking on that it seems perhaps these two values aren't part of the same labelling system, one labels the number of coordinates needed to define a point, the other the number of points. My brain likes to try to find patterns where there are none sometimes. The confusion was because I didn't recognize "dimension" as a unit. And "coordinate" as a way to define position on that dimensional unit.

 

It is possible to have an infinite series of numbered points between any 2 points. If we then describe dimensions with a finite number of points (ie dividing the infinite set evenly into a finite amount of sets), those points themselves must then have dimensions, beginning the problem again. And the infinity isn't resolved just shifted by our definitions.(Sorry this is physics, not math, but in quantum uncertainty points should appear to be smeared, or probabilistic. Perhaps uncertainty is rather just an artefact of macroscopic thought creating the math, the wave particle duality, might actually just be a observation we came to because of our mathematical failure to recognise only a continuum, because nothing occupies only 1 point and as soon as 2 points are occupied, so too are an infinite amount of infinite concentric sets of other points).

 

__________

 

It seems the numbers associated with dimensions should be whole and positive and consecutive. I guess this is required because, as ajb said, they are a count of the number of coordinates.

 

Does it have any mathematical meaning to have fractional dimensions? If we alter the definition of dimension to also include it's size, we could describe the number of coordinates and also show the amount. If all subsequent dimensions are 1:1 proportional in size to the initial dimension, the series would be noted 1,2,3 etc. So if the 1st dimension was bounded between 2 points but infinite in positions between a 2nd dimension labeled 2 would therefore have this same property.

 

Could we however have a 1.5 dimension, with the half dimension contained, relative to the first, only half the number of possible coordinates? Or would we still label that as 2. Why is it only the number of directions that is labeled, surely there is importance in amount of possible coordinates or size with respect to dimensions. Given that all dimensions, labeled as a number line are infinitely divisible, what significance is there between greater and lesser infinities anyway?

 

Is there any meaning in having dimensions like -1D or iD? I've seen i represented as a vector system. In that case is i the 3rd dimension, where the size of the dimension is dependent on the property of i? If i is a possible dimension, which shares properties of negative numbers, what prevents there being actual negative dimensions?

 

Assuming it makes sense, to be negative, to alter the labelling and include relative size as well as number of coordinates, if a space contained 1D and it's inverse -1D, wouldn't it cancel to appear as 0D, how do 2 infinities cancel out to leave the single point contained in 0D? Where does the remaining 1 point come from?

Thanks, wiki can be annoying. I imagine a class had a science project and some asshole altered the facts, ensuring no easy source. Actually on that hunch I'm checking the edit history.

If this is true, then wouldn't that mean that there's now hard evidence for wormholes of a sort as well? Because it seems that if we live in a universe that doesn't have any connection in quantum state or physical link to another then that means that that other universe technically doesn't exist relative to us at all because it has no affect on our universe and therefore means nothing to us? That would also mean that if there is no evidence for theory (Because evidence must be observable) then this could be horribly wrong (As for the theory) but still be right AT THE SAME TIME because there ARE other universes. Another Schrodinger's cat!

 

Now the question is who wants to pet Schrodinger's Cat?

The "universe's" could only be causally connected at the first moment of time and then diverge. One would be visible to us as we observe the causal cascade from that moment. IE there would be a mark left in the altered distribution of matter and energy, but no further influence from that point onwards.

 

Without wormholes there could still be causal influence over a higher dimensional space, certain parts, eg forces like gravity, would need to exist over this higher dimension, but other parts, eg fermionic matter, only exist over the standard 3 + time.

96Zr has a half-life of 2.4×1019 years, making it the longest-lived radioisotope of zirconium.

96Zr is the least common, comprising only 2.80% of zirconium.

 

Read it again please, like I said counterintuitive.

Oh I see you're looking at 90Zr, I'm looking at 96Zr.

Perhaps is it just a typo?

This may belong in physics.

 

I was just reading the wiki on zirconium and it says this:

 

"Naturally occurring zirconium is composed of five isotopes. 90Zr, 91Zr, 92Zr and 94Zr are stable. 94Zr can undergo double beta decay (not observed experimentally) with a half-life of more than 1.10×1017 years. 96Zr has a half-life of 2.4×1019 years, making it the longest-lived radioisotope of zirconium. Of these natural isotopes, 90Zr is the most common, making up 51.45% of all zirconium. 96Zr is the least common, comprising only 2.80% of zirconium.[12]"

 

At first glance it seems counter intuitive that the most stable isotope is the least abundant. If earth formed with typical, for the rest of the universe, ratio of the isotopes, wouldn't the most stable be the most abundant remaining after 4 billion years of earth's existence, plus time from formation in a supernova or from decay from heavier elements. IE given time shouldn't the unstable isotopes be less abundant.

 

Why is this?

 

Is zirconium formed only from decay pathways and 96Zr the least probable product?

 

Does only small amounts form in supernovae and the rest is transitional from decay of heavier elements?

 

Has there simply not been enough time for the isotope ratios to level out to where 96Zr is the most abundant, will this happen eventually?

Can a point can exist in 0 dimensions and if so, does it mean it's wrong to say 0 dimensions is nothing.

 

It seems logical to say nothing has no dimensions. But if a point can exist in 0D then is no dimensions the same thing.

 

If we look at the geometric progressions from 3D to 0D, solid, sheet, line, point. Could we then say nothing has -1 dimensions. Why isn't the empty set included?

 

Is the nomenclature of dimensions chosen for a mathematical reason. How would it alter maths if a point was said to exist in 1 dimension ie all dimensions were renamed as n+1?

 

Doesn't it make more sense to say a point exists in 1 dimension, the first being existence, the second length, the third width etc?

You seem to be saying that because we can use light to measure distance, that distance must be defined by light. This seems just as illogical as the claim that because we can use change to measure time, time is defined by change. It is refreshing to see someone apply the same logic to space as to time, even if it is equally wrong.

 

It is, for example, possible to use the Einstein Field Equations to model a universe with no energy; there fore no light and no change. Time and space still exist in such a universe and, without looking it up, I think there is even expansion as in our universe.

If you can't measure something it doesn't exist.

 

I can't measure the flying spaghetti monster.

 

Logical positivists aren't illogical

I normally ask more questions here than answer, but if this were the case we would observe differences in red shifts between stars which are closer to the gravity source than us an stars which are further away from it than us. Gravity roughly follows an inverse square law stars closer would show greater red shift.

 

So basically we don't observe the universe as would be expected if your hypothesis was correct. Red shifts are pretty consistent in all directions.

 

Does that make a difference to a theoretical system or the laws themselves?

Where do any of the laws of thermodynamics declare zero friction impossible?

Even if we have never observed it can we not treat zero friction by the time honoured method of asymptotic approach?

 

As a matter of interest, what is your prognosis for the future history of my piston-in-cylinder system, once activated?

I was hoping more for an explanation which would apply to the assumed quantum fluid in the article I linked in the first post. An explanation relating directly to how there was time in that state without entropy increase. I assume that time requires change, and that Bose Einstein condensates consisting of only gravitons are completely uniform crystals. What process in which time exists could occur?

 

The piston example is fine, but fails in analogy by having multiple parts and having something external to it which put a force on the piston.

 

I would say that because of the pressure difference between the two chambers that the piston would move back to the middle,it would perhaps bounce like a pendulum taking time to settle. It would take longer because of no friction but eventually would settle exactly at equilibrium.

 

Since the question was so pleasantly asked for I will tell you.

 

Consider a sealed cylinder of ideal gas containing a frictionless adiabatic piston, dividing it into two chambers, A and B.

 

If the piston is mechanically displaced and then released. the entropy change is zero as (say) chamber A is compressed and chamber B expanded.

Sorry if my query sounded rude, I was in a rush.

 

Isn't a frictionless piston an impossibility?

 

Also this doesn't really relate to a universe since it is the entire system, in this case isn't there some external force acting on the piston doing work, and that work would result in an increase in entropy.

 

Also if we subdivide the cylinder into two chambers and not consider both at once doesn't the entropy of each change, and it's only when considering the sum of the two that there isn't change.

 

I guess what I want to know is how can a Bose Einstein condensate change over time while not increasing in entropy?

 

How much addition of entropy to a system which is a Bose Einstein condensate tolerate before it is no longer a stable form. Could destabilizing result in the big bang.

It is important to realise that the second law does not say entropy always increases.

 

It says entropy never decreases, which is not the same.

 

It is possible to offer theoretical systems where entropy does not change, but other thermodynamic variables do.

Such as?

Is it possible for the hypothetical Bose Einstein condensate to have remained at the same order, ie same value of entropy, for an infinite amount of time? Does that violate the 2nd law?

 

This begs the question however, why at some point did entropy increase?

 

Could it be reasoned that because it could, it had to at some point, and once it had, it was no longer stable enough to not continue increasing?

 

What value is given for entropy in a system that only contains a Bose Einstein condensate?

 

What meaning does assigning a time value to a system which is static, ie an entropy stable Bose Einstein condensate, even have? Surely where there is no change, time is a meaningless concept.

I was reading this article http://m.phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

 

I was wondering if this is correct what does this mean for the second law of thermodynamics?

 

If the law is followed and the universe is an infinite age then entropy must be at a maximum. Observation shows this isn't the case, how would this problem be reconciled?

It's shows that for sugar to exist to be respired that oxygen has already been produced.

 

The unit is a unit of glucose. Which is the biochemical fuel for metabolism.

 

All biomass (except chemotrophs), including plant biomass, must burn glucose.

To put it very simply.

 

Photosynthesis can be reduced to the equation 6CO₂ + 6H₂0 + energy --------------------> C₆H₁₂0₆ + 6O₂

And respiration can be reduced to C₆H₁₂0₆ + 6O₂ --------------------> 6CO₂ + 6H₂0 + energy

 

In order for animal biomass to absorb oxygen from the atmosphere it must therefore have sugar, during the production of sugar an equal ammount of oxygen had previously already been excreted. Therefore there is no net loss of oxygen in the system.

 

 

And we're saying there will be NO 'unforeseen complications' from the trivial increase in oxygen.

 

I've already agreed with this.

 

However I accept that the oxygen increase will most likely be insignificant and over such an extended period that the biosphere will have time to adapt and humanity will have time to find a contingency for any unforseen complication.

Not necessarily, because Hell is existence outside existence.

First of all omni means all you cannot make up any new place which isn't a part of all.

 

If God was able to send Satan there he is able to go there.

 

If Satan can tempt us from there, God is able to hear there.

 

Not sure why I am bothering with you though.

He escapes the atmosphere if not contained, so also not a problem.

I'm not worried about He at all in fact we need He and are running low on it.

But that's a false balance. The two processes are independent. A plant grows regardless of whether there's an animal around to breathe the oxygen it gives off.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by geo engineering. Man was not involved in the fluctuating values of various atmospheric gases for the vast bulk of earth's history.

OK we need to go back a bit, you alluded that excess oxygen produced by fusion could be mopped up by an increase in human population.

 

I pointed out that an increase in human population must be in conjunction with an increase in food production.

 

An increase in food production = increase in oxygen production.

 

Therefore an increase in population cannot balance the excess oxygen.

 

There's nothing that actually requires the balance to be there. We could plant more crops than would balance that, or fewer. We deforest lands without balance. We existed for a long time before we had agriculture, as did a much larger biomass of oxygen breathers.

I was just pointing out that there's a direct link between consumer and producer. To simplify lets take sugar. That sugar required CO2 to produce and the producer excreted O2. The consumer requires O2 to burn the sugar and excretes CO2. That process there is balanced stoiciometrically. Since a consumer is the second part of the cycle there is no possible way for it to consume more oxygen than was produced.

 

Any other Geo engineering hasn't occurred, except the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. Which is CO2. Unfortunately we aren't planting more to balance that out. We barely have the room to feed ourselves and maintain the ecosystems that's the planets life support.

 

For a point of reference, how does this this Megamole per second of oxygen release compare? The average person produces of order a kilogram of CO2 every day. 44000 kg in a Megamole, so removing that oxygen from the air each second requires 44000 x 86400 = 3.8 billion people just breathing. IOW, we've increased our removal of this much oxygen from the atmosphere over the last several decades as our population went from ~3 billion to ~7 billion people. We're not suffocating.

I must point out that the O2 and CO2 cycle with regards to human food consumption and respiration is self balanced. Oxygen consumed by us is needed to metabolise sugar, that sugar was produced by a plant which excreted oxygen. So although our population increased, so too did the intensity of our agriculture. The mutual balance of both negate any net effect long term.

 

Taking hydrogen and turning it to helium however has no natural cycle to balance, we remove a naturally reductive agent H from the system and are left with the intert He and the now imbalanced half oxygen.

 

However I accept that the oxygen increase will most likely be insignificant and over such an extended period that the biosphere will have time to adapt and humanity will have time to find a contingency for any unforseen complication.