studiot

I should have asked about this in my last post. What is your opinion then, on probability in the light of the general scientific requirement of reproducibility? IOW what do you think of a variable that might sometimes 'emerge' ? Secondly would you consider the Himalayan monsoon emergent from the Southern Oscillation (pressurein the West Pacific)?

Thank you for an interesting view, especially the first line. +1

Rule 25, subsection Z, paragraph 1025 of this forum states. The better you are as Science, the more the quote function handicaps you. 🙂

You often offer pithy relevent comments, but I am going to have to disagree with you on this one because it is too general and sweeping, although there is a grain of truth in it. Even for Military History, at least some historians try to be objective, and usually the further back in time they go the more objective they become. A marvellous example of this, in the History of Science would be the book by Millikan originally entitled Atomic Physics, but revised several times as new knowledge became available to end up as Electrons(+ and-) Protons, Photons, Neutrons, Mesotrons and Cosmic Rays. Another good example would be Waters of the World by Sarah Dry which is a developmental History of Climate Science.

Thank you for your interest. Did you read the whole thread, or just my introduction ? I think you need to look further back in time than you perhaps realise. Rome was founded on 21 April 753 BC under the name gens rumana, in that area of the italian peninsula coloured purple in my map, which came under Greek colonisation at that time. The name stems from the Etruscan, who were the principle inhabitants at that time. This was towards the end of the bronze age in this area and times were turbulent for several hundred years, partly due to the spreading of iron weapons by the Halstadt culture south into Mediterranean lands. Just as the British were initially more interested in India than the Americas, so the greeks were more interested in the eastern part of their developemnt and colonisation. This left the italian colonies to develop on their own and finally, just as you say, they invaded and conquered a failing Greek empire about 150 BC Neither the Greeks, nor the Romans used the word 'science'. It did not in fact enter the English language directly but through medieval French between 1400 and 1600 AD. But even then it had a different meaning. As late as 1830, AD Herschel was still writing papers and books on Natural Philosophy (meaning what we call Science). Finally I used the word 'greater' not better or more civilised or something implying a value judgement. Strictly greater means more extensive in some way, as I have already explained in a previous post. Thank you for your linkI will look it up.

Whomsoever it is for, is this homework or coursework ? Before trying to generate a parametrisation you need to confirm some things. 1) Why are there two coefficients of z (e and f) ? 2) Why is the coefficient of yz (u) and what is its relationship to uv? 3) What is v ?

Prometheus asked if the (present) internet could be engineered to become sentient. I responded that I don't know how to, and implied that no one else at the moment does either, but perhaps someone might in the future, within a reasoable guess of a few hundred years. But that would not preclude it happening tomorrow. Like Windows 10 does already ?

Because the Ancient Greeks didn't have leaders like Boris.

Nothing to be sorry for. However I'm sorry I am not clever enough to be able to answer your question. Perhaps come back in a few hundred years and someone will have got lucky enough to have cracked it. Assuming you are asociating sentience with self awareness, it must also depend upon whether you are allowing a scale of sentience or not, rather as I already pointed out about self awareness.

A fair question to which I would observe that time is the problem for the internet. If self awareness, intelligence etc is just simply a few particular patterns out of many possible I agree that there are many candidates sytems upon which such patterns could be impressed. If the pattern is achieved by making and changing connections over a large number of 'nodes' Nature has the big advantage over Man's constructs, such as the internet. Nature can operate over the entire lifetime of a Universe, efficiency is not a concern nor are false starts. Man has to be more efficient within his timescale. This is of course one reason why Man's constructs are more dedicated and do not rely on random making and breaking links until the right combination is found. However such dedicated constructs do not so readily lend themselves to evolutionary processes.

Err ? You made it here just as I quoted and I have only your word that you are 'appealing to authority' (isn't that one of those logical fallacies or something ?). But worse you seem unwilling to discuss that claim, whoever made it, because the source does not actually matter to the meaning or applicability or validity. I totally agree. The is a world of difference between electrical or electronic theory, which is a totally artifically constructed model, and a physicist's attempt to model 'reality'. Maxwell, for instance introduced non existent imaginary currents into circuit analysis for mathematical simplification. So IMHO electric circuit theory should not be discussed in terms of electrons or even Physics. I await your explanation of the claim that wires are scalars or admission that it is a claim that can't be supported.

You don't care, ? Well I would be grateful if you would direct your attention to the questions and comments I made about your claims, not some other matter. You claimed that a wire is a scalar. This is the third time I have asked you directly to substantiate this amazing claim.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57670006

Are we discussing something in this book ? Has any member read this one or have anything to comment on it ? I understand it is one of his popsci books. I am wary because he has allowed this famous but flawed analogy on the front of his graduate level textbook on GR.

In all probability you have misread or misunderstood something he said. For instance it would normally be OK to say the the voltage is a scalar, but saying the wire is a scalar makes no sense at all. Note this thread is about separate space and time, as opposed to 'spacetime' Our very own Mordred is fond of saying that 'space is just (empty) volume. Volume is normally a scalar. Now the interesting thing about area and volume and higher dimensional manifolds is that they can also be scalars or vectors or higher rank tensors, in the right circumstances. But once again how does their classification affect whether they are emergent or not ?

Definitely a +1 quote

Which would be nonsense.

"it's very frustrating... " Is that because stoned is your preferred state, or because you once visited Hetty Pegler's Tump ? 🙂

I don't know much about Sean Carroll, but I doubt very much that is the case, considering his biography. In any event there is no version of 'spacetime' that is a scalar. In this context scalars are Tensors of zero rank but the minimum tensor rank for a spacetime coordinate system is 1. If you want a readable intoduction to the maths of ths try the NASA publication by Kolecki A more comprensive treatment appeared in 2006 but I recommend beginners start with the 2002 paper listed in the quote https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20050175884/downloads/20050175884.pdf Me too. +1

If the Byrds weren't real, how did Dylan make his voice so melodious ?

Here are a couple of explanations, the first in plain English by Oxford Professor of AstoPhysics, P Ferreira The second is an excellent pdf from Baez and Bunn (the 2006 version) which is ( a bit) more mathematical https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238984245_The_Meaning_of_Einstein's_Equation

If you insist on spreading this topic over more than one thread, I am pulling out. Swansont has asked you the same question I already asked in the other thread, but not answered.

I don't think it is a good idea to spread this discussion over two threads so I will ignore this new one. If I can recap my understanding of what you are proposing, You propose a classical charged particle (in particular an electron) jumping up and down in a graded gravitational field becausing it is somehow receiving upward kicks (impulses) every time it falls back to its lower point under gravity. This up and down movement generates an EM field, oscillating in sympathy with the up and down movement of the particle. Is my interpretation of your proposal correct ?

Enntropy is not about 'things left over'. The important word in your phrase energy dispersal is not energy but dispersal. Note the difference between dispersal and dissipation. Dispersal means spreading out, and becoming less concentrated, it does not imply disappearing. Dissipation implies disappearing or weakening. A good analogy to think about is a lump of sugar added to your coffee. When you first add the sugar there is a large quantity in one small part of the cup and little or nothing in the rest. As you stir, the sugar spreads out over the entire volume of coffee, becoming evenly concentrated everywhere. This spreading out or evening out is driven by entropy. But we do not measure entropy in lumps of sugar, we measure it in terms of energy because energy is a property common to many different spreading out processes.

Like swansont I look forward to your maths about an electron moving at the speed of light. Yes Photons move at the speed of light but I would like to see what mechanism you propose to apply an 'impulse' to a photon