studiot

Thank you for wasting my time.

No you are not correct in that you are confusing linear and angular measure. The only place I have seen such a phrase is in electrical theory where the angle moved through by the needle on an old fashioned meter is called 'The deflection angle'. The phrase 'deflection angle' is also used on mechanics, structural engineering and surveying to represent an angle something turns through. It is generally better to use the word deflection for angular measure and rotation for when the object is spinning ie make multiple rotations or revolutions on an axis. Yes it is correct that the tip or outer end of a deflection moves faster than a point near the centre of deflection (rotation). Indeed if you deflect a laser beam fast enough and powerful enough to reach the Moon, the light will appear to move track across the Moon's surface at a speed greater than c. Your original enquiry also touches upon the difference between (rotational) kinematics and (rotational) dynamics where kinematics simply refers to speed, distance and acceleration whist dynamics includes this but also includes work, energy, momentum power and related topics. It is the same distinction as in linear or translational motion. Speed alone does not mean that the impact will send the ball faster. Speed is involved but there are other factors involved as well and these can get quite complicated as the bat is shaped, may have variable sectional mass along its length and impulsive forces are involved. As to control etc there is a point towards the handle of the bat know as the centre of percussion.~This also has an influence on the matter.

OK considering my avatar you can consider me an AI and I will be brutally honest. Right the way up through the grades to the 12th grade wise teachers say that you are not there to study, you are there to learn how to study. There is much wisdom in this and what you are learning is self deceiving. The graviton is not your idea, and you do not know what either relativity or quantum theory is.. As regards maths, I have spent the last sixty years as an applied mathematician and upon retirement have only then begun to study what 'maths' itself is. So you are requesting adivice. You have received a great deal of advice from many diffirent points of view. How much have you implemented ? I do not see any change to either your stance or the substance of your 'ideas' as a result.

Since I don't expect swansont to do all the work around here I will ask a physics question. Why are you confining fields to 2D surfaces in 3D space ? What are the inter sheet interactions ? For instance a real world example of the difference would be the difference between the structure and properties of graphite and diamond. Both are made exclusively of carbon, graphite comes in 2D sheets diamond is a 3D lattice.

Actually that's not true. The human eye can dtect a single photon. Black holes were seen but not recognised. But yes, MigL has just told you that we can never see quarks directly. You have spent a lot of effort trying to force the universe to conform to your idea, rahter than the other way round. And found out how difficult that can be. You are not the first and won't be the last. The moral is, when you have an idea, try it out on something simple with an already known outcome first. This is also good advice in business where it is called a pilot.

Up the ladder is good because you perhaps don't subscribe to this modern trend to teach unifying principles too eary. In my opinion students will come to these when they are ready and not before. In Mathematics teaching 'basic set theory'; 'basic number theory'; or basic anything turns many off as it is too abstract. After all what can they do with it ? It is a well observed phenomenon that lads who say they are rubbish at maths (by which they mean formal arithmetic) can without hesitation tell exactly what targets they need to finish of a darts game (of 301 etc). They can tell in an instant that if last score was 3 triple tops, you need a bull, a bull and triple seven, and if your last score was triple top, bull, double top you need triple 17 bull, bull or triple seventeen double toip , triple top. Yet ask them to tell you the average weight of an apple if 6 apples weigh 684 grams and they will freeze. Have a look at this summary. https://mmerevise.co.uk/a-level-physics-revision/forces-and-exchange-particles/ Gravitons are the supposed exchange particles for the 'force' of gravity. They have been proposed to copy the exchange particles for the other three 'fundamental' forces. However General Relativity does not regard these other three forces in the same way as it regards gravity. It is only man's excessive tidyness that wants all four forces to follow the same pattern, even though we observe that they don't. Nature is under no obligation to comply.

A choke is a high value inductor (at the frequency of use) . Old fashiioned ones were realised by providing series coil or coils wound on cores as are transformers. Electronic ones can be reslised by gyrator circuits. Either way the equations defining their response correspond to the electrical equivalent of mechanical inertia.

Virtual inertia ? They could of course reintroduce real inertia by using large old fashioned conditiong chokes. After all they still use large old fashioned power transformers.

Thanks for the reply. Good to know.

😄

You don't need to only learn, you need to take account in relation to your own ideas, not least you you can express them to others using the appropriate language.

So how much calculus do you actually know ?? I can make good use of this knowledge in deciding how to reply (as with the curve sketching). Do you know for instance that there are many 'calculuses' in Maths ? - It isn't just one thing.

Please come clean. I would not expect any student of your age to know calculus, least of all to understand what Dirichelet conditions or PDEs are. I have been responding upon this assumption. Actually boundary conditions in the widest sense, are vitally important in the real world as you cannot solve anything without them, so they are everywhere in applied maths. If you want to understand these basic processes you would far better served by asking here than going away and asking an ill informed so called AI. As @joigus said some while back, mostly you do not need to be able to work out the maths, just to recognise it when you see it or use it.

So if we sell coal to you ((oil) and you sell coal (oil) to us does that mean this sold coal (oil) is not counted by anybody ?

Please explain how information alone can dig my garden for me.

Which immediately leads to the notion that Religious texts are deliberately obscure so that yoy need a religous leader to interpret them. Rather as QM is obscure so that we need quantum scientists to interpret it. 😄

Ghideon is known for his engineering common sense. +1 Just looking at what underlies your ideas. A few comments. 1) Energy is not a substance. At its simplest is is a property possesed by something, by virtue of its relation to something else. There is no such thing as a cell or bag of energy. 2) You appear to be going from the discret (or granular) to the continuous. Mathematicians like something they call 'disjoint sets'. That is they like to isolate 'elements or members' of a set each into their own subset, which contains nothing else. One of the aspects of all quantum theory is that each 'cell' or level in the system can contain many objects with the same energy. An important part of quantum theory involves studying the consequences of this fact. 3) Personally I am not very interested in what came before the big bang, what came at the big bang, or what came after the big bang - if there ever was one which is not certain. It is just so easy to imagine/postulate almost anything at all for these times and we see several such proposals most weeks.

That's the problem with documents that were writen in two different languages, 1000 km apart, over several centuries, a few thousand years ago.

High Externet, thanks for the clarification. I think I'll take a leaf out ofthe OP's book and ask And who are you to be asking an off topic question in some other member's thread ? Surely you should be addressing the questions he has so clearly clarified for all of us. Especially as they show some real thought behind them , not a hidden agenda like you have.

A word about Mathematics. I don't know what maths courses are like in your part of the world but in my day they started to introduce what is probably the most useful technique you will encounter. Curve sketching. That is the ability to take a formula and visualise sketch the shape and layout of the curve it plots on a graph. I say this because I am trying to find a suitable Morse curve for you to further explain QM. I may have to draw my own. It is not enough to expect coputer programs to draw them for you. I say this for two reasons. Firstly the experience of doing it. Secondly most formulae have constants, and other expressions that you may not have values for so the program will not actually be able to plot your graph. Note Newton popping up again. That fellow really did get around.

This goes totally against what I said. The Fie;ld that gives rise to quantum phenomena is not quantised. You cannot have quantisation without such a field. The quantum phenomena occur not only because the field is there but also because of the interaction with something else. That something else is not quantised either. It is only the interaction which is quantised.

Well yes, but those are results, not the conditions themselves. So First we start with an object that has properties. (neutrinos for instance are vey difficult to work with because they have next to no properties) Then we place it in a Field (do you know what a Field is in Physics ?) It is important to realise that the Field is not quantised. At least one of the properties of the object must be capable of interacting with the Field. So we can consider the consequenses of that interaction. This is where mathematics starts to come in. Normally energy is considered. Note we do not consider the object itself directly. So the object has energy by virtue of its interaction with the field (via some property) So we invent a dependent variable and write a general equation connecting this variable with the variables of the Field. We have been very successful with the Schrodinger equation. Here the Field is an electric field. The invented dependent variable is called the wave function, because the Schrodinger equation is an equation connecting space and time in a manner that admits motion, including wave motion. So if we place an object, say an electron, in such a field, say the field of the nucleus, we can solve that equation. When we solve such an equation, as you rightly say, there are boundary conditions. In this case we are looking for places where the wave function is zero. In other cases we may be looking for places where the function is a maximum or minimum For example Nuclear Magentic Resonance, Where the Field is now a magnetic field. This is where quantisation occurs, as these refer to places of stability, where a body may hold a certain energy. Going back to your gravitons, the basic problem is finding a suitable equation and property for the gravitational field. Newton's Law does not have such convenient pair. And General Relativity, which ony plays a small part in electric quantisation, plays a very large part inmore advance mechanical dynamics. Sorry this is a bit rambling, but it is difficult to summarise without the maths. However do ask questions.

This is the start of the topic. Indded so. The question marks are quite clear and demonstrate that the OP was asking a question. Or do you disagree with this ?

Surely you understand the difference between a statement and a question ? The title of the thread is not a question, nor is it an invitation to discuss anything. For that invitation we must turn to the first line of the first post where Externet very very clearly spelled out his question. Or actually questions all related. He also explained in an expanded quote what source material he war referring to. In short a model question.

No it isn't preaching. Preaching would be quoting Sunday Sermon lines from the Bible with no connection to the topic, just to initiate a conversation. OK so you say you are talking about knowledge. Please explain / expand on the connection between knowledge and the original question which was "what is the difference between an image and a likeness ?" You could review my comment (that you missed earlier) that you have two hands each like the other, but they can never be an image of each other, except in a mirror.