studiot

Since this thread is in Earth Science, I suggest you get your old Geography books out and look at them, as you have several serious misconceptions in that post. Wind blows essentially horizontally, not vertically. Different winds blow horizontally at different altitudes and rarely direct connect. Luckily for you the main transfer of (solar) heat from the tropics to the poles is by ocean currents, not winds. This redistribution is vital to making vast areas of the planet's dry land habitable. When talking of currents, the water rises and descend in 'gyres', currents like winds, are more or less horizontal. You should also distinguish between tidal streams which use gravitationally derived energy and currents.

I see you've been not reading my posts again.

That would be me. Pity you didn't answer my comment whilst your thread was still open. You are quite at liberty to quote what others have been saying, moreso , you are even encouraged so to do. We call that discussion at ScienceFroums.

We have particle accelerators that accelerate particles away from the source at speeds where relativity should show up. Perhaps those that know more about particle accelerators than I do could say if any measurements have been done on radiation from these accelerated particles ?

Good question +1

Yes please more detail. I am suprised by animated graph in relation to you statement that the positive peak is clipped. I would expect harmonics with negative values at the fundamental positive clip to be shown as they must predominate to reduce the positive peak, which is what clipping is.

You are the one making the unsubstantiated claim, Please provide mathematical backing for it.

1) Accelerate the implementation of "The Great Green Wall" This has already been shown to be successful. https://www.greatgreenwall.org/about-great-green-wall 2) Look for other areas of the planet where similar schemes might be implemented eg The Gobi, Australia.

I'm glad someone else is also finding invariants. +1 I keep saying that the muon experiment is better than the train example because it is 1) Simpler 2) Is an actual experiment that not only can be carried out but has been many times since the first one.

I don't blame you , I am trying to help you. Furthermore the rest of this post is a sensible statement so +1 for encouragement. Yes the train is 1 metre in Bob's frame. Progress !!! But relativity tells us not only that bob's metres are not the same as train metres but it also tells us how to convert one to the other. I have kept from going into the second part of that statement until you understood the first part. It works like this All the atoms of the train appear smaller to Bob, as does the space between them. Yet to the train driver all the atoms have their normal size. In fact everything in the train's frame appears scaled down at 1/100 scale. Do you want to progress this explanation to more detail?

Applied MathematicsHome to threads on more applied (but non-physical/mechanical) threads; e.g. applied group theory or statisics.

It's also interesting. +1

So what ? Wiki says you can't know (or presumably measure) one without also 'considering' the other.

Just as you have when I have told told there is a difference between the number of things which every observer views as the same and the properties of those things which may be viewed differently. So the number of atoms, the number of world lines, the number of trains and so on are all seen as the same. But every observer measures properties of those atoms, trains, world lines differently so comes up with a different answers. I have also told you that the key to understanding relativity is to find things which are the same for all observers. Finding such things also enables us to develop the details of the theory to calculate all the desirable quantities we want to know.

If I wanted to be picky I would point out that I did not say S would generalise the statement I said he would be happy to see it generalised, which has a totally different meaning. However I will be content with pointing out that S spoke in the light of knowledge available in 1935. Do we not know more today ? That doesn't address my comment which pointed out that Wiki is stating compulsion. If you know one, you don't need to know the other. The fact that in this case you automatically do know it (ie the information is available) is surely because of entanglement, but you are not required to find it out explicily.

Nice one +1 Again everyone is suggesting you view things in the light of the Principle of Relativity, not something else which can be show not to comply with observation. Every analysis should be built on verifiable observation, not on some preconceived idea of how things 'should be'. The ancient Greeks famously made a basic mistake about this.

Thank you for this interesting point of history, although I don't see what the has to do with the slit experiments I referred to. Schrodinger was a professor of (Applied) Mathematics. Mathematicains are ,of course, the world's greatest generalisers. As such I am sure that S would be happy to see his description generalised, rather as the original definitions of vectors and many other quantities have been generalised. Quoting from your link (which seems to me to be generally pretty well written) I am puzzled by this Why is it necessary to consider the spin of both entangled electrons in an orbital ? If you know one you know the other, but you don't have to know the other in order to know the one.

Sealioning, gas lighting and so forth. It's all very sad that the only things I seem to be learning lately are different new words for unpleasant activity. @34student I have already suggested that you understand the basic principles before proceeding to greater detail. There are two here. 1.) The Principle of Relativity. This was actually known long before Einstein and different works have presented it differently, as did Einstein in his turn. His version is that the laws of Mechanics and of Electrodynamics should appear mathematically in the same form to all observers. This is very general and too difficult to start with but a consequence is useful and is the version I commend to you. There are no such things as absolute space or absolute time. To this Einstein added a second principle and again I will quote it in a suitable form here for your benefit. 2.) The invariability of the speed of light in a vacuum. Every observer measures the same speed of light relative to himself and also relative to every other observer, irrespecitive of the motion of the source of that light. As stated above these two Principles generated a restricted form of relativity, called Special Relativity. A third principle was later introduced to add the laws of gravity to the list and led to General Relativity, which I will not go into further at the moment.

How can I understand if you don't address my points ? What do you know about my motorway proposal and why do you keep refuting it ?

Thank you. But I don't think the OP means the same sort of distance as you do, since he is measuring in metres.

But I didn't quote you. And my reply included a quote from another member with specific words I replied to and repeated in my reply. But now you come to mention it. Do you have an agenda ? I am trying to evaluate where something based on the original idea might be usefully deployed. You, on the other hand, appear to be exclusively bent on finding odd parts of my posts to quibble with (without reading them properly I might add). Are you seriously claiming that there is no room in Canada for the outflow? Even in the much more densely populated UK I can find such places exactly where I proposed them. Have you never seen a british motorway ? I can assure you there is plenty of scope there to mount the type of vertical access rotors proposed for ships. These are totally independent of wind direction. And before you start wrongly accusing me of thinking of things I am not, here is a picture of flettner rotors driving a large ship. Perhaps there is not enough room for the outflow air in the middel of the Atlantic ocean ???

You have just asked this and been told my answer. The question as it stands is meaningless.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear Have you taken nothing from this thread ?

Yes that is correct. That is because the word 'particle' is short for the true phrase 'point particle' which has a special meaning in Physics. But once again there are many things to know about relativity before you bother with world lines.

Once again you are trying to impose absolute measurements on something. Take a metre rule. In its own frame it is exactly one metre long - if it is an end standard if you know what I mean - ask if you don't. In most most (but not all ) frames it has a different length. There is no such thing as an absolute metre. Now if you measure other objects in the same frame as the metre rule, for instance trains, atoms and so on you will find them all scaled by the same factor. The only things you will come up with the same numbers for are electric charges and numbers of those atoms, trains etc. I started to tell you about this near the beginning of this thread and understanding this is the key to understanding Special Relativity. Most other stuff ( including the maths) can be derived fairly easily from this. World lines are artificial constructs like graphs of stocks and shares - useful in their own way, but not the be-all and end-all of relativity.