studiot

I have to wonder about the 'christianity' of someone who claims to be a christian yet pours such invective on someone else who they believe has such a low IQ score. Is that really the christian way ? If so then count me out of it.

I haven't post much in this thread as I view it as a non-argument. However can you tell me how and why those two sentences of yours from your last post do not directly contradict each other ? 1) says "The mainstream view is that non locality has been demonstrated" 2) says " the vast majority do not think non-locality is real"

It is also worth noting that 'sea level' is not flat. The Pacific is about 400 mm higher than the Atlantic and the Indian is about halfway between. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/globalsl.html

@NTuft Are you aware that The Continuum Hypothesis can neither be proved nor disproved ? https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/189471/why-is-the-continuum-hypothesis-not-true

+1 @TheLogicalArc This has been place in the hard physics section. If it is not physics but soft philosophy please tell us and ask a moderator to move it to the appropriate section. By the way, what is a logical arc please ?

And there's poor little me thinking that it was just an exercise in pomposity.

This thread was inspired by a report on local radio about the Wedmore power cooperative which supplies solar derived power to the village but has raised the panels to allow sheep to graze under, keeping the grass down. Apparantly the sheep like athe bit of shade in the summer.

Yes this is the right place to ask and a very good question. As you are probably aware there is a tie up or connection between electricity and magnetism. Each of them on their own can produce a static field of their own kind. Note I say static. That is a static electric charge has a static filed around it and a static magnet has a static magnetic field around it. The connection comes when we introduce motion. On their own a moving charge or magnet means a moving field, still just a single electrical or magnetic field on its own. But in the right circumstances a moving electric or magnetic field is a changing field which can induce a sympathetically changing magnetic or electric field in free space or suitable materials. In turn the varying magnetic or electric field induces a varying electric or magnetic field. The result is called an electromagnetic field. Ther is no such thing a a static electromagnetic field. The best way to illustrate and explain further is to use the mechanism of operation of an aerial or antenna. I will need to draw a diagram but will post this first to be going on with.

Perhaps I mean optimal height, but please menation other considerations.

+1 Do you knoe which IEEE standard is it that says most IT change will be a downgrading ?

Please clarify this, preferably with a prope reference/quotation. Which wave function are you referring to? The the dependent variable in KG or QM ? In neither case is the probability directly dependent on the wave function. It is the square of the wave function that determines probability. Wave functions have inappropriate physical dimensions to be directly associated with probabilities. In the case of KG the wave' is a soliton.

I agree +1 and suggest to RSolomon that you start following the rules here, before a moderator closes this thread and perhaps worse. However I will give a couple of responses to your new text. If you were prepared to listen a bit more, instead of trying to teach your grandmother to suck eggs, you might be in danger of learning some very useful and interesting stuff. Very few crystal studies are performed using electron microscopes. Obviously the larger ones can be seen and measured with the naked eye. Smaller ones are amenable to optical methods. The main micro level studies are performed by diffraction methods, pioneered by the Braggs. You would then learn that there are not many variations in geometric stacking but in fact suprisingly few. As I said last time this is due to the configurations being minimum energy ones. I'm sorry, this is just mystical woo woo not Science. And in particular nothing to do with clouds. Again if you listened a bit you would learn that Chaos has nothing whatsoever to do with entropy. It is a mathematical umbrella for a number of recently discovered natural pattern making, which includes the shape of clouds, which are fractal nature. Once again energy plays a leading role, this time in determining the climate of the whole planet through certain types of cloud formation. The names Malkus, Riehl and Schaefer staning out here. One thing is certain cloud shapes bear no resemblence at all to the traditional Greek shapes you claimed control all natural structure and order. One single counterexample is enough to demolish such an overambitious claim.

+1 See also the Wiki articles on four-vectors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-gradient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-vector http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/vec4.html

Deflection of cosmic particles must result in momentum exchange. The net result of that must depend upon the geometry of the deflection. Tidal forces affect both the liquid and the solid parts of the Earth. The solid parts may not be free to move as far as the liquid parts (they do move a bit) but they are free to strain and that takes energytransfers.

In what way is this thread different from the one you started and abandoned a couple of weeks ago ?

Great advice, +1 Please remember that in Physics we work from the premise that we 'observe' such and such a phenomenon and then try to develop theory to explain, model, or place that observation in. Usually Physics borrows from Mathematics to do this. But Mathematics works the other way round. It starts with a theoretical model or mathematical structure and doesn't care whether there are any physical applications or not. Hilbert space is one such mathematical construct. Don'r forget there are many different Hilbert spaces. Like all mathematical 'spaces' it comprises a collection of several sets. Being linear, it has one or more sets of mathematical vectors, a set of coefficients, a set of rules. But Nature is under no obligation to follow these, it is up to us to choose the most suitable HS for our purposes ie the one that most closely matches our needs. A very simple HS would be:- Vector sets) a set of forces, a set of displacements. Coefficient set) The set of real numbers. Rule set) Rules include the inner product 'work' = force times displacement. Being linear means we can add up the inner products of work and that the coefficients scale the work ie twice the force or twice the displacement leads to twice the work. Note although very simple, this space includes at least one transfinite set.

You always add something worthwhile to a thread. +1 Yes they can have quite a few extra properties

Nothing fancy about Hilbert spaces. They are just ordinary cartesian x,y,z... 'spaces' that have an infinite count of dimensions. So the space is not ordinary physical space - it is phase space, which is a fancy way of saying that it has as many dimensions as necessary to draw a 'graph' in.

I am not taking issue with most of what you are saying; in fact I have been trying to point out phenomena I know of that support the connections you are making. Any half way decent book on mineralogy, crystallography, solid state chemistry and some solid state physics books will show this. But I am taking issue with all embracing claims like this Clouds are pretty natural in my opinion and there are plenty of these above Earth. How do they fit in to your scheme of things ?

Thank you for your thoughts. Sadly, though I now have an inkling of what you mean by Natural Order I am still no wiser as to what you want to do with this. In my experience every time Man has tried to force Nature into one of his pigeon holes, Nature comes up with exceptions. Self -similarity is one such natural geometric phenomenon, first discovered in the 1960s. Many of the shapes you have listed have physical reasons for their natural adoption. Minimum Energy reasons that the ancients knew nothing of. There is much study today of minimal curves and surfaces. These are not parts of circular curves, as you have used, but much more sophisticated functions. There seems to be one good thing in this though. As far as I can see you are not one of the brigade determined to prove that we have the wrong value for Pi.

There were many breakthrough moments and much infilling in between. QM has always also been intimately bound up with particle physics. Quantum theory started in 1900 when Max Planck announced a mathematical solution to the mathematical problem of the 'ultraviolet catastrophe'. Einsten came next using this quantum idea to mathematically describe the photoelectric effect, in 1904. 1913 brought the Bohr atom which tried to describe electron orbits in terms of classical electro-mechanics, whilst introducing a quantisation of the energy levels. This is called the old quantum theory. Quietly Max Planck was busy during this time and introduced 'zero point energy' in 1911. This led to the old quantum theory being modified to include this phenomenon. At this point quantum theory quantum theory provided specific energy levels using 3 'quantum numbers' to describe transitions between them. This was enough for the develoipment of orbit(al) mechanics a la Schrodinger and Heisenberg. In turn this provided chemists and spectroscopists with mathematically based formulae describing their observations. However there was blurring of the spectral lines, originally observed by Zeeman in 1896, and this phenomenon was re-examined. This led to the introduction of a fourth quantum number the spin quantum number which is non classical in its physical manifestation. Pauli introduced his exclusion principle (1925) and spin matrices (1927. By this time researchers were beginning to uncover a whole new catalogue of particles. The rest of the 20th century saw the relationship between QM and particle physics develop symbiotically as one feed on and influenced the other. So we had Quantum Field Theory (QFT) in 1927 and Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) in 1973. and so on. I suggest you look at this book in your local library or even buy a S/H copy. https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Q_is_for_Quantum_Particle_Physics_from_A.html?id=rS_8BUE7eN8C&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y

I never thought of that ! +1

Does it do covid as well ?

@MigL Since we have Pale Rider in our midst, perhaps he would like to ride in and comment ? Or we could try this method of revamping old oil rigs. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-62967408 See Monster to finally open in Weston-super-Mare