studiot

When I say the graphs are all the same, I mean that they are all of the same equation that governs the process that produces the graph. Chemically, radioactive decay is a first order reaction. I am using first order because there are other orders for different chemical reactions. The first graph shows how the quantity or concentration of the reactant diminishes or falls as the reaction proceeds. The second graph shows how the product build up (the reaction never quite finishes do you know the term aymptote ?) Becasue the the equation is very simple it can be solved - which means we can determine a specific formula defining the quantity ot reactant or product at any given time. The important point here is that using that formula we can adjust the axes to give a highly preferable straight line. The equation concerned is a differential equation and is the least useful, though most general point of view. [math]Rate = \frac{{dQ}}{{dt}} = - kQ[/math] Now relativity says that you can either adjust the axes or adjust the curve depending upon the point of view you wish to take. This is the connection to relativity. Now can you tell me the difference between those three graphs and this one, which also has two rectangular axes and a plot. And then I will explain why this difference is crucial to understanding all the fancy maths that is being bandied about, like General Relativity, QM, tensors and many other things.

This is a good and natural question. the short answer is yes. But sadly in this brave new world of ours, we have to be a bit circumspect about advertising that information.

Here is another point of view. Here is a graph I posted recently in another thread Here is another version of the same graph And here is yet another version don't worry about the numbers, just look at the shapes. All three have their own special uses ie they tell you different things about a first order chemical reaction. In other words the map is not the terrority.

Two things I noticed today. Firstly google search is no longer offereing translations (at least today) Don't know if we are now supposed to use only the google lens app. But I don't have access to that Secondly some searches are no longer headed by an AI summary. Big g needs to wake up before it goes the way of Big Blue and M$ before it.

Yes a blueprint for other physical quantities. But ones when you attemp to discuss relativity drawing those trumpets amounts to saying that the equipotential lines distort the actual coordiantes you used to draw them. This is different from the previous video from the same author showing contour lines on a map ( this appeared briefly on the second one as well) So remember the plot you are creating is say length, length, mass or length length, force or whatever - space that is purely imaginary

There are lots of 2D and 3D coordinate systems each denoting a different space referenced by those coordinate systems. In real life we only possess the one such system - the physical space we are in. So we have to make do with that and imagine the spaces that the others refer to. The equipotentials are not part of real space so we substitute a real world goordinate to draw the graph. Does this help ?

One of the things about Maths is that it has many branches of ' Maths knowledge'. The trouble with this is you need to know a little bit from several branches (thankfully not all) to do any maths at all. The consequence of this is that Maths is taught in small capsules containing only the relevant bits at the time. I call this the spiral approach because the next circuit of the spiral you revist all the old bit quickly and fill in some gaps, expanding you knowledge like a spiral, maybe taking in a sub-branch on the way. So your learning goes round and round the spiral whilst hopefully your knkwledge and understanging increases. In fact most sciences are like this.

See if you can make anything from this video. (6 minutes) I think he does the key points rather well. Note that he introduces two important vector fields, both of which are direction fields A note to @Dhillon1724X This also shows the key universal driver that has relevance to your chortons and to the Higgs field., if you look hard enough.

The thing I don't like about the trampoline 'visualisations' is that they can be misleading. It is not the grid lines that are distorted. These are set when the coordinate system is set and cannot be distorted. In fact distortion is not the right word at all. The diagrams are as shown simple because at least one of the axes is straight, which is not the case with natural axes.

Yes I commented on just that in another thread. 3. This is closer to topological solitons or torsion fieldsI’d actually argue that what I’m describing aligns more with things like: Skyrmions Hopfions Topological defects in spin systems

No. So go back to your drawing board and think again.

Differential diagnosis is simple examining all alternative explanations for symptoms and picking the best fit, rather than 'you have a tummy ache so here are some rennies'. And one of those alternatives might well be further investigation.

Thank you for your reply. Short comment this time. Have you heard of what doctors call 'differential diagnosis' ? Your AI seems to be doing a bit of self reinforcing the conspiracy explanations.

Don't be sorry. We have all got to learn from someone or somewhere. That was a very quick response. Does your human team undestand B-S and its link to derivatives and thence to cloud cuckoo land ? It was the stock market equivalent of what we used to call getting everything on the never never. Talking of saying we used to say Good management is efficient use of other people's equipment and resources. Google could never got where it is without the massive resources funded by the US taxpayer. I wonder how much it has put back ?

@Prajna Firstly, you don't need to go through the @ routine if you actually quote someone, they will automatically receive notification of the response. OK so how widely are you casting your net ? For instance have you heard of the Black-Scholes equation. The self reinforcing feedback from inappropriate use of this equation caused the financial collapse of 2008. Talking to my wife this morning, I found out that she has alos noticed the change in Google search. I also wonder how the age of the reference is weighted. New stuff always seem to come to the top. And if AI is discussing with AI then how is this counted in the probability stakes ? Is it for instance now counted as human interaction in weightings ? Or are we heading for yet another self reinforcing crisis cause by misuse of mathematical tools ?

Yes it does. So what ?

Then, by definition, it is not a field. When we have established the basics we can go on to the requirements for quantum theory. Once again you cannot just declare something to be quantised. Emergence has become popular further AI doublespeak All curvature involves at least one angle. Relativity Tensor curvature involves 2 Surveyors call this a deflection angle not a distortion. It is no more a distortion than saying the surface of the Earth is a distorted plane. For a person who claims no higher level training in maths or physics you have suddenly introduced a lot of high level stuff, some of it at post doctoral level. I fully understand what you are saying but the simple fact remains you 'Field' must obey Newton's third law. You have nowhere near established that such a thing is feasible, let alone exists. Perhaps you day job in the furniture trade, has led to overfamiliarity with stretched membranesm and even suggested the 'underlying' Field. Where is it underlying ? What is it made of ? What Laws does it obey or are you invoking ?

Thank you for this response, I note you are running on ahead with others, assuming this is now accepted. For myself I want to proceed much more slowly and cautiously. So a tension field. This is impossible without external anchors, yet you say If it exists everywhere then these anchors cannot exist. They are of course predicted by what is fondly known in topology as 'the hairy ball theorem' You can't just say (like in schoolboy maths) Let the vacuum have tension. What is being stretched ? You need to introduce and define these things and their properties before you can use them. This is typical AI doublespeak. Have you ever heard of any curvature that is not angular ?

One thing I used to do quite frequently was to access google first ( not as a search, just to show that the browser is working) as it was very quick and reliable. 2 days ago I looked at the address bas Huh ?!!# Why .com ? I use .co.uk After several tries I discovered that big G has pissed on everybody in the world by no longer regionalising its webpage. Everybody has to go to HQ. Result Super slow inadequate searches and bad gateway errors Apparantly G says it is to enhance user experience.

... I take it you are avoiding answering me again ?

Interesting. I've been having some trouble over the last few days experiencing some pretty poor quality searches. Not AI , just ordinary stuff like I was trying to find a car service manual. the I noticed the AI report was gibberish, but I just went straight past.

Let's go through these one at a time. So what oscillates ? The whole medium throughout all space? Some part of it, if so what part of it ? If so how is space divided up into these parts ? You need to describe the mechanism of oscillation and what you have described so far is different from say the EM field mechanism. You should note that oscillation, as opposed to wave motion, is necessarily a cyclic process which thus involves Pi numerically, without units, as others have alreadydescribed and exchemist just reinforced.

I don't see the point of proceeding to consequential mathematics, when I don't agree with what you call the core idea. Do you actually understand resonance ? Which means do yo uunderstand the necessary pre-reqiisites for resonance to occur ? If so in what way have you introduced it ? It is a nice word often bandied about to avoid maths and then usually introduced without stating how the pre-requisites are met.

Good points all. Well done for being able to spot these. +1

So to test this model on any given application we have to find suitable physical quantities we can measure (they are called observables) and ... well yes go measure them. Taking my last example, I remember such an experiment. It involved bursting a balloon and measuring the sound intensity against a stopclock. The audio engineering term for the half life in the graph above is called the reverberation time and it is an important architectural characteristic for concert halls and the like. What do you think a scientist should do if he didn't get this decay curve ? Whilst I fully agree with joigus on the rest of his posts here, I beg to differ about this. The impedance of a vacuum is a very important parameter to radio antenna designers. But it remains to be shown if it has anything whatsoever to do with your hypothesis.