studiot

This is not a silly idea but nature does not work quite like that however it does actually happen in nature. Since this thread has been split I will answer it in the split off thread. Instead I will simply reply to the thread topic which is about language. Firstly language is more than sounds ie speech. Language is also about the way we think of things. Even two people from the same culture speaking the same language often mean somewhat different meaning by the same language statement, Also spoken and written language tend to been a bit different as well. Secondly it is known (David Attenborough recently had a right up to date program on this) that many species communicate with each other by sounds and other means. So it would be unreasonable to expect that other hominoid species do / did not also do this.

Thank you for replying, but why do I merit the shortest response you made to anyone when I am only trying to help? "The core question..." That is a question not a speculation and in my opinion part of a larger issue that really belongs in Philosophy. Humankind has been wrestling with the issue of correct and incorrect for thousands of years. As a result many different approaches have been tried and some adopted. Your question seems to me to be about knowledge and what we can actually know, as I said a very important issue that affects every part of our daily lives. Be under no illusion that this only affects 'the micro world' , whatever that is. It affects pretty well everything from very specific measurements like "I offer you a length of climbing rope marked 1000lb breaking strength, and ask what load is required to break it?" To something intangible such as "I offer you some new food you have never come across before and ask Do you like it?" Both questions can be answered by measurement in only one way. But of what use is a broken rope ? Over time Humankind has come to understand that it needs a much more sophisticated system to handle real and apparent inaccuracies, and that there are some things we can never know. A good start is to consider the classification of inaccuracies into those which are inherent in tha measurement technique and those which are inherent in the system itself.

Thanks for the reply. You did indeed say that space must end since you asked where it ends. If you really meant something else please be more careful with your words. Yes 5040 is a really excellent number, but your response doesn't make any connection to 540, which you mention and is a different number. Small wonder I am baffled by ll this

1) I think 5040 is a particularly nice number for bas 10 work. 2) Why does there have to be anything outside space and why does it need to end ?

Goodness me this thread seems to have veered right off course. @wei guo I don't know what your first language is but seriously suggest it is a very bad idea to use words that have very well defined meanings but come from another language. Superposition and Uncertainty are very different phenomena indeed. At the simplest if you have two effects , call them F and G, they both relate to what happens when you combine them, but mathematically Superposition refers to addition and uncertainty refers to multiplication (or composition). Neither are confined to the 'micro world' and both appear in both classical and modern physics and engineering. However I am really posting to ask what this thread is all about as I cannot spot a focus to your discussion so far. So please just tell us in simple words what it is you want to talk about. We may then be able to help you find the correct English technical terms. If you wish to discuss the difference between superposition and uncertainty, start a new thread dedicated to that issue.

OK so I respectfully suggest your vocabulary of concepts is too limited. For instance 'end' is a one dimensional instance of a boundary. Go to two dimensions and you have for instance the edge of rectagular piece of paper. If that paper is now an infinite roll you have two edges but no ends Carry this line of thinkin g inot higher dimensions. So I have introduced some important new terms for you, boundary, edge, dimension. But the complexity of the matter does not end there. It is necessary not to confuse boundary with bounded. They are quire different concepts with confusingly similar names. For instance the function f(x) = sin x is bounded, yet x is unbounded. Neither have a boundary. Then again we introduce infinity. Some Astrophysicists like to argue that the Universe is 'finite yet unbounded', with no end or beginning. How can that be ? Well consider na circle. Does it have a beginning or an end ? If you travel round it is that journey finite or infini9te ? But have far do you travel if you make an infinite count of circumnavigations? If you wish your considerations to enter the later 20th/early 21 centuries then you need to consider porous and fractal boundaries (or ends). I don't claim my list of additional terms is exhaustive, just a good start. +1 for good topic by the way.

Let us get a few facts straight. 1) The underlying failings of relativity in classical mechanics were known and written about by Newton, along with the comment that he could not account for them. 2) Newton knew nothing of electrodynamics or electromagnetism. 3) Between Newton and Maxwell a sound theory of waves was developed culminating in the linear wave equation. 4) 50 years before Einstein, Maxwell noted that his 4 equations of electromagnetism lead to the same linear wave equation. He further noted that this equation introduces a mathematical constant having the units (dimensions) of a velocity and possessing the remarkable characteristic of possessing the same value as measurements from the time of Romer on, of the speed of light. 5) It is often forgotten to mention in discussion that this speed refers to empty space (in vacuo). Newton demonstrated (refraction) that the speed of light varies in a material medium. 6) Newtonian Mechanics does not conform to "The Principle of Relativity", without recasting as a measurement of differences. 7) Classical Electromagnetism (Coulombs, and Lorentz Laws) do not conform to the Principle either, although Maxwell's 4 laws individually do. This all affirms my point that to properly approach Relativity we need to take into account the precursor material and decide exactly what we want the theory to provide for us. A blinkered approach such as saying "I don't want to go beyond section 2 of SR" is a form of saying Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up. Isn't that wasting everybody's time ?

My apologies to @wtf ; I have been neglecting this thread but I see you have offered some excellent material +1 I will try to come back with my further thoughts as soon as possible.

I was concentrating on why Einstein had to do simultaneity first, rather than how he deals with it. This is particularly important since it takes him from page 8 to halfway down page 11 to complete that job, unlike say Semat who does the whole thing in a few lines. However all power to Einstein and whoever follows him for he did it the hard way as pioneers usually have to.

As in Hund's Rules ? - (yes I know there is also the Aufbau Principle). But Gauss's Theorem is distinct from Gauss's equation and both are literal translations. Anyway this was not tablets of stone, just musings. English does not tend to create new words to the extent German does by combining existing ones. I think the English system is better as a phrase is more versatile than a simple pre/suff - ix , allowing shades of meaning to be expressed. Thanks for the reply.

Of course, the modern presentation is easier. I think that someone (logic) who has made the effort to read the 1905 paper deserves a bit more if he will so allow himself. Especially since quite a few posts back he declared that he did not want 'interpretations', but preferred to follow through the actual chain of reasoning as originally presented.

I don't know if there is also a language dimension to this. Germans tend to use lots of synonyms when a person has many 'laws' to her or his name Eg Gauss's Law, Theorem, Principle, Method, Equation........ Compare with the English use of a qualifying phrase Newton's Law of cooling, gravity, refraction etc. The French, I think, were to first to go in for Principles eg Le Chatelier,

LOL There are two professional Physicists helping you with your Mathematics and here am I a (retired) professional Applied Mathematician trying to help with some basic Physics that they have even acknowledged modern physicists take for granted so never mention. I would also like to point out that the 1905 SR paper is not like a computer program. You cannot parse it line by line. It has to be taken as a whole. In particular it is customary today to state that one postulate is that "The speed of light is constant for all observers" or words to this effect. Einstein did not write this. He postulates for the source only. Compare this with the actual postulate 2 as it appears on page 1 Not only does he acknowledge that the onus of proof is on himself, but he also acknowledge another important issue that I have not yet raised. There are two postulates involved, so are they compatible with each other ? If so under what conditions ? It is such deeper considerations that make Einstein's chain of reasoning some much longer and more complex than the modern slick versions.

Thanks, I'm sure Australia is a great place and it's very useful to take note of the time difference. We have quite a few members in Australia, some are also retired.

You mentioned China. Are you perhaps staying up late in HK ?

+1 for an honest answer. In the words of Thomas Malory God hep Mordred! I think that neither you nor Mordred has English as a first language. Please Correct me if I am wrong.

This is a grossly unreasonable and a violation of the rules of this forum. All the greater pity for yourself because you appeared to have started listening. I offered you a Physics discussion of what is going on with Relativity, and you threw it back in my face. There are some words you misunderstand and this misunderstanding is blocking your progress in considering Einstein's 1905 paper. 'Relativity' and the phrase 'relative to' are examples. But you have to look further back to properly clear up these misunderstandings as your usage is so very clearly different from what Einstein meant then or Mordred or Swansont mean now. For myself, these days posting involves me in some considerable effort and inconvenience so I am less inclined to try to help an unwilling audience. Here is a sample of what I mean In 1905 the complete nature of light was not known. It appeared to have some mutually conflicting properties. The only known waves prior to this were mechanical ones and these had already been studied for about two centuries. All such waves were known to have the following characteristic:- The speed of any wave is independent of the motion of the source. It depends upon the transmission medium alone. It is essentially Einstein's postulate 2 that light also obeys this rule. There is much more to discuss in a similar vein before proceeding to the consequences, which is what the 1905 paper is all about. I have chosen postulate 2 as it is simpler and much shorter, that the more important postulate 1.

Nice Topic +1 Off the top of my head Bragg's Law was also 1913. The most recent I can quickly think of would be Moore's Law (1965) closely followed by Drake's Law, also called The Drake Equation (1961)

Actually you have completely ignored the material I offered you, whilst loudly shouting about people trying to disprove your case or simply just dismissing it. Please quote anywhere I actually said you were wrong. In point of fact I stated a comment of yours I agreed with. In your last few posts you have also correctly identified the very tricky part of Einstein's reasoning, but be careful you find out exactly what is being referred to by any symbols he uses on pages 2,3,4 & 5. It is very easy to mix them up. Both Observers? Einstein has only mentioned one observer in the singular, by the stage of the paper reached in your quote. He further goes on to to introduce multiple observers at a later stage for different purposes and also make further predictions to be proved (he uses the phrase "we shall find"). There are several such instances of why sorting out the order of steps in his chain is reasoning is important as I have already told you. I intended to start right at the beginning with the two postulates. Their order is vital do you know why this is ? In fact both postulates were not necessarily new so do you know what the revolutionary step Einstein took in writing his paper?

In my humble opinion the time has come to put an end to this charade so I am formally reporting this direct refusal to engage in good faith discussion when I have offered exactly what you made such a strident and offensive extravaganza of demanding.

I agree measurement is not a Law. Measurement can refute or support (but not confirm) a Law and can sometimes lead to a new Law being formulated. I am using your terminology here, although personally I don't like the term Law, it is very short and therefore convenient. Mathematics has Axioms, Physics has Principles. Although serving a similar purpose they are different, leading to different meanings for 'true' in these disciplines. Well I hope you can be more reasonable that the other guy here, who seems to be calling white, black. So really? You are willing to honestly discuss this, and concede valid points one by one if I should make any? Then APPLY those valid points to the hypothesis? Ill start by asking "Is Physics ONLY interested in comparing predictions of Equations to observations, and any explanations of why or how the equation was derived is simply irreverent? Swansnot seems to be saying that Einstein may as well written, "Donald Duck doesn't wear trousers, and e=mc2, go check it out. (the textural explanation is not required because of peoples opinions.) Math alone is what Physics is all about. Funny, I thought Physics is what Physics is about, and Math is about Mathematics. But Swansnot is then more than willing to believe certain peoples opinions over others opinions regarding the meaning and interpretation of experiments. (which we know can not be proof of a theory) Only a couple of lines in response to my comments, plus a load of unconnected nonsense. Strange, most folks ask "What is in the box?" , when offered a closed box of something. You did not ask a single thing about what I was offering. Further, for your information. The name Swanson has been proudly held by several eminent Physicists, over the centuries, on both sides of the Atlantic. About Einstein’s thought process in the1905 Paper. Einstein made two comments which he then elevated to the status of Postulates. First is: "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate," Second is: "and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." I want to stop here and examine the logic of so far. Please consider the words “which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former,”. So in what way is the simple statement that light has a constant determinable velocity, irreconcilable with the Laws of Physics, of the Laws of Kinematics specifically, as the study of Motion is called Kinematics and Einstein's moves on to “the Kinematic Part” of his Paper immediately after the introduction. So what is “apparently irreconcilable” about Light having a constant determinable speed with the Laws of Kinematics? (Newtons Laws of Motion to be precise) Pause for your consideration and reply. But Einstein actually spelled out exactly why he believed there was a conflict. Because the Purpose of the whole paper is to SOLVE this conflict, thus opening the door to new explanations for other related "problems" such as Maxwell's work and Observations such as M&M interferometer. So what is the answer? The answers you seek are contained in the box I offered you so I will start with the first one. The Principle of Relativity is another way of presenting the homogenity and isotropy of empty space. The idea that if something works in a certain way at point A in empty space it will work the same in any other points B, C, D etc. Note that condition of empty. This simple statement can be much expanded and explained. I look forward to your honest response.

Nor does Einstein 'continue to any Math' before he presents his motivation. However teasing out his chain of reasoning is very subtle and needs to be done in the light of the knowledge of the turn of the twentieth century. It also needs to be realised that the chain of reasoning, postulates and derivation we use today in modern theoretical physics is different from that of Einstein. At the very least you need to study and correlate carefully the hints he throws out on pages 1,4,5 and 8 of his paper as collectively they identify his chain of reasoning. I see you also have issues with light clocks. Again it is worth noting the historical context, because the 1905 paper was produced at a time when the nature of light was still in contention. Einstein's approach managed to be independent whether light was is a wave or corpuscular or something else entirely. I look forward to honest discussion but I fear this threads is degenerating into irrelevant personalisation.

Yes your reasoning is essentially correct. But it will be a much smaller effect than I expect you are expecting. Remember that the fluid column moves upwards about the diameter of the ball in the same time as the ball falls the whole depth of the colum. Ie the fluid velocity relative to the walls is much slower than the ball's velocity relative to the fluid.

Sorry I didn't make myself very clear. Firstly let me repeat You cannot get acid ar basic consitions in pure water, you can only get neutral ones. You can get acid or basic conditions only by adding something. If you add something that is ether acid (eg sulphuric or hydrochloric acid) or basic (potassium or sodium hydroxide) you will get and acidic or basic mixture that now contains other ions than OH- or H+ If, as you suggest, you add a neutral salt then you will also change the pH according, more or less, to the solubility and the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation Either way you will have additional ions in what is now a solution. How would you use the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation to calculate the pH of a solution that is 0.120 M in HClO and 0.185 M in KClO? | Socratic To then get to the effect on the cell potentials you then need to apply the Nernst Equation What is the equation that connects pH and its effect on electric potential of an electrochemical cell? | Socratic

I see you have studied on this somewhat. So I will give you a pointer to help you answer your own question, beforelaunching into any detail. Pure water has a very low conductivity on account of the very low concentration of ions, both hydroxyl and hydrogen (or hydroxonium). Pure water is neutral, and there are no other ions present. In order to acidify or alkify the water (ie change the pH) you have to add other ions. These afect the half cell reactions.