studiot

What do the laws of Thermodynamics have to say about this ? Say you have a cubic metre of water at 5oC and you pump it down 1km. 1) How long will it have to stay there bring it up to 30oC? 2) Once it is up to temperature you pump it back up again. How much energy will this take ? 3) Once it is back to the surface and (ignoting losses) at 30oC, how much heat can you extract from it ?

Excellent, we need more women with an enquiring mind. But please try to respect the views of others as well as stating your own. And be prepared to modify your ideas as a result of discussions with others. The collection of the matters you have ranged over in this thread sound like a youngster trying to make sense of and reconcile different stories told to you by different teachers over a very wide range (religion, science, arts and so on). I don't know and I don't need to know if that's true and further I don't know if you are using a translator, though your English is pretty good. English is an excellent language because it allows two concepts for nouns and adjectives. English allows the 'abstract' and the 'concrete'. Colour is an abstract noun and I agree with you that 'colour is in the eye of the beholder.' So colour does exist as an abstract noun, as do individual colours. But you have some misconceptions about this as well. So two things arise from these statements. Firstly, colour is seen and used by other creatures than humans. More particularly, and amongs other creatures, bees, butterflies and estrelid finches see more colours than humans. This ability is called tetrachromacy. Many members have offered you information about how we know these things and of course you can look them up for yourself. If you look up the sensitivity of eyes to the three colour system I described, you will discover that the eye does not have the same sensitivity across the board. The eye sensitivity tails off in the red and blue regions and has a peak in the yellow/green in the middle. A botanist once described to me the connection between the enhanced yellow sensitivity and the fact that the first flowers of spring are nearly all yellow. There are fewer pollinators about at that time so it is important for the plants to best attract them. Secondly there is no way I can tell exactly what you see when you see a particular colour or if it is the same or different from what I see. Worse still, the question of what do you or I see when I view the same light source in either different circumstance or at a different time. Do I see the same colour ? There is an old joke about the American television system NTSC - 'never twice the same color.' So what have we learned about the subject of colour ? Well we have learned that colour is a very complicated subject and that what we is is subjective. Because of this subjectivity we require objective information and criteria, if we want to delve more deeply into the subject. Luckily modern science has developed many objective techniques and I have described a few. We have machines that can receive the incoming light and analyse it in an objective way so that we can compare one colour with another. We can then use these measurement for instance to set the colour guns in a cathode ray tube so that it is producing an identical colour (ie standardisation) to that of another cathode ray tube. And from you point of view you can extend to understanding of the subject of colour to include objectivity v subjectivity. Objectivity v subjectivity is incredibly important in science.

One further consideration for those who think that 'colour' is determined by the frequency of some wave and nothing else. Since this has been placed in quantum physics, The frequencies of light produced by quantum processes is very tightly defined by the process. So the spectral lines are the same if you are on Earth or Sirius or Alpha Centauri. However because these places are moving at speed relative to each other each observer will observe the line produces by the others at a different frequency. This is known as the Galactic redshift. The patterns of these lines are used for astronomical calibrations, but the absolute frequencies cannot be so used, only their shifts are significant.

Of course I gave you human references. References suitable to martians wouldn't be of much use would they ? Is a reference to time an attempt to deflect attention from yourself ? The answer is #9e978e Around the world, printers, artists, designers, textile companies and many more use the Pantone system of colour referencing. Some companies even have their own special Pantone colour and are very jealous of anyone else using it. The point is that if you are going to print, paint or otherwise put a design onto something such as a piece of paper, plastic, tea-shirts, packaging, company headed paper, you want the colour the be identical. That is the point of the Pantone system. https://www.pantone.com/color-systems/pantone-color-systems-explained So are you going to answer my questions or not ?

First you say and Then you say and If we ignore the typo in your statement of the frequency of green light, how is this not directly contradicting yourself ? How is your (typo corrected) statement not a measurement ? You say you read what I offered so you should have found out that I can set my computer screen to show a colour wash of 16 colours, 256 colours, 64 thousand colours and so on. To do this I must have a measurement to instruct the computer circuitry to generate all these different colours. In fact you should have found out that the standard measurement provides 3 numbers which are not frequencies. This then enable me to generate the same colour on my screen as someone in Australia, if she gives me her 3 numbers. So please do not tell me you cannot measure colour. There are many other way to do this for other purposes. Final question for you to think about If I go out in the dark and illuminate my grass lawn with a strontium lamp, what colour will the grass appear to me ?

Thanks for your view.

Usually new work of any description extends existing knowledge, but remains compatible with where existing knowledge is known to work. The have been a very few cases where the new work has actually contradicted existing thinking, caloric would be an example, but such examples are very few indeed. And there has never been a case where the existing rules of mathematics has been breached in the way that you are trying to do here.

Did you read the material I offered or am I wasting my time ? If you come to the PHYSICS section of a scientific discussion forum like this one and start rabbitting on like this you can't imagine how quickly you will loose credibility. I call the first quote trying to introduce religion by the back door and the second quote preaching religion.

Like this and the rest of your summing up +1 Now here's a thought Philosophical determinism is a bit of a cop out isn't it ? After it it is a bit like the God-did-it brigade. Determinist. "Actions are determined !" Questioner " Can you show me how to determine any action ?" Determinist "No idea but I believe it can be done if all the information and all the rules are known" Questioner "So who knows all of this stuff ?" Determinist " God ?" Something else I have never been able to get a determinist to clarify. Is determinism A Priori or Posteriori or both or neither ?

Cream cake ? Yes please. +1

I thought we had agreed that all motion is relative to something other than the object itself. You did not object when I asked you for a definition of motion and rephrased your reply in a more useful form. You also replied that you disagreed with Newton's First Law. Do you know what Newton's First Law states ? The book on the table is not moving on or from the table, yet there are forces acting on it. If i add another small force by pushing gently with my finger the book still does not move from the table, why is this ?

This is progress. +1 😀 The plus 1 is because this is the first time you have laid things out in proper fashion. You see that immediately, even whilst I was writing this, folks have been able to see what you are doing and offer sensible and useful comment. However listing your symbols and stating what they stand for is really good practice and what I mean by progress. So many waste so much time and effort just writing algebra down. (did you know that although our word, algebra was, was named after early arabic 'al-jabr', which meant completion ?) I am sorry but yes your algebra is flawed. So let us look at your algebra. (I will only work the first equation) You claim this expression for your RR Force. [math]F = 1 - \sqrt {\frac{1}{{1 + \frac{{m{v^2}}}{{{c^2}}}}}} [/math] To show that this does not lead to the expression for the force per unit mass as you then stae, proceed as follows. [math]F - 1 = \sqrt {\frac{1}{{1 + \frac{{m{v^2}}}{{{c^2}}}}}} [/math] [math]{\left( {1 - F} \right)^2} = \frac{1}{{1 + \frac{{m{v^2}}}{{{c^2}}}}}[/math] [math]\frac{1}{{{{\left( {1 - F} \right)}^2}}} = 1 + \frac{{m{v^2}}}{{{c^2}}}[/math] [math]\frac{1}{{{{\left( {1 - F} \right)}^2}}} - 1 = \frac{{m{v^2}}}{{{c^2}}}[/math] [math]\frac{{1 - {{(1 - F)}^2}}}{{{{(1 - F)}^2}}} = \frac{{m{v^2}}}{{{c^2}}}[/math] [math]\frac{{1 - {F^2} + 2F - 1}}{{{F^2} - 2F + 1}} = \frac{{m{v^2}}}{{{c^2}}}[/math] [math]\frac{{{c^2}F\left( {F + 2} \right)}}{{m{v^2}{{(F - 1)}^2}}} = 1[/math] We have now reached the stage where we can isolate F/m, your force per unit mass. [math]\frac{F}{m} = \frac{{{v^2}{{(F - 1)}^2}}}{{{c^2}\left( {F + 2} \right)}}[/math] And we some that not only is the expression much more complicated than yours, but it still contains F. This is because the original expression is what is known as implicit. That is it is not possible to separate the variables F and m to obtain an explicit expression between them. An explicit equation would contain only an expression in F on one side and an expression in m on the other, which is what you are trying to do.

So you had a good idea that turned out to be wrong. So move on. The good news is that nobody was killed by your idea. Unfortunately that does happen with 'good ideas' from time to time, especially if someone clings to them in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.

And I am still waiting for you to complete your side of the bargain. 😀

What is your variable that is measured in seconds ? Seconds alone is not a variable.

Where do F and F' magically come from in mechanics ? This has nothing to do with Group theory or Noether This simply require properly substituting for every force acting in two frames and comparing the results You need two particles to consider this properly. Consider two particles acting through a force F (x1, x2) where x1 and x2 are the x coordinates of particles 1 and 2 respectively and m1 and m2 are their masses. We have due to the force of interaction by Newton's third Law. [math]F\left( {{x_1},{x_2}} \right) = {m_1}\frac{{{d^2}{x_1}}}{{d{t^2}}}[/math] and [math] - F\left( {{x_1},{x_2}} \right) = {m_2}\frac{{{d^2}{x_2}}}{{d{t^2}}}[/math] now imagine a second frame (denoted by dashes or primes) translated so that its origin is at x0 in the original frame We have [math]{x_1} = {x_1}' + {x_0}[/math] and [math]{x_2} = {x_2}' + {x_0}[/math] Substituting the new parameters into out master equation we have [math]F\left( {x{'_1} + {x_0},x{'_2} + {x_0}} \right) = {m_1}\frac{{{d^2}x{'_1}}}{{d{t^2}}}[/math] and [math]F\left( {x{'_1} + {x_0},x{'_2} + {x_0}} \right) = {m_2}\frac{{{d^2}x{'_2}}}{{d{t^2}}}[/math] Now please explain why you think there is form invariance between the x and x' frames, when the form of the equations in the x' frame is so clearly different from that of the x frame ? Further the equation depends upon the origin of the x' frame, which the original does not.

So please confirm that s stand for the variable 'time' By which do you mean coordinate time, proper time, elapsed time, INR, viscoscity, or what ? They are all different but are all measured in seconds.

This makes it very clear that you have not understood what I said, since you have just stated very nearly the exact opposite. So let's take it one step at a time. The physics is there regardless of the presence or absence of a coordinate system. In what way does this contradict your statement ? So we appear to be agreed on this. However your statement differs from mine in that it seems to imply t5hat a coordinate system is necessary for all calculations in Physics. Whereas my statement allows for the possibility that the is no coordinate system in use for some calculations. Note this does not say that you cannot use coordinates, if you want, only that you do not need to. Off the top of my head, examples are Iin optics are the magnifying power of an optical instrument In mechanics, the velocity ratio, the mechanical advantage, and the efficiency. and of course the wave example I originally cited, which you don't seem interested in. It is very easy to show that Newton's Second Law [math]F = m\frac{{{d^2}x}}{{d{t^2}}}[/math] does not satisfy the Principle of Relativity. I look forward to your proof that it does.

@Bjarne-7 And, for the 6th time, the answer to my question is ....?

I see no connection whatsoever with my statement that coordinate systems are sometimes unecessary in Physics. That is a bold claim, because my university textbok (and many others) say otherwise. So can you prove it. I can definitely prove otherwise.

I asked you what you mean by s. S is the 19th letter of the english alphabet. Although there are one letter words in the english dictionary, s is not one of them. s stands for a word, which we can discuss. So for the 5th time of asking, what do you mean by s ? Or do I need to ask a moderator to enforce the rules here?

I see you totally ignored my second comment in the post you replied to. Why was that ? The equations of Physics are required by the Physics Principle of Relativity to be form invariant. Do you understand form invariance ? Do you realise that Newton's 'Laws' are not form invariant as commonly formulated ? This was the big issue, that was well understood before SR, and that special relativity addressed.

We almost never see light of a single frequency. Such light is called monochromatic light. Almost all our light sources generate a range of frequencies. Most depend upon the temperature of the body, the whiter the light it generates. When white light falls on anything some of that light is absorbed and some is reflected, but not all frequencies are either absorbed or reflected equally. In fact some frequencies are removed all together. So the incoming light is almost always a misture of a large numbr of frequencies. We do not have receptors in our eyes for all these frequencies, in fact, we have three different receptors, each sensive to a small range of frequencies. Some animals have only two receptor types and some only one. The strength of the signal (to the brain) from each of these types of sensor depends upon the strength of the light in the mixture that fall within its particular range. The brain then interprets this combination of signals as what we call a 'colour'. This combination can be replicated artificially using light sources filtered to produce light corresponding to our receptor ranges. The three are called the base coulours and the entire range of colours that can be distinguished or seen by out eyes. The base colours are red, green and blue. The entire range of colours is called the colour gamut or colour space These links might help https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_space

Frequency does not coorrelate directly with perceived colour because we have 3 separate and different colour receptors in our eyes and what we perceive is a mixture of the signals from each of these different receptors. Slow down and wait for others to amplify my answers. It may help alot.

Aha Colour (spelled) the English way refers to the our perception of light waves received by the human or animal eyes. This has no connection to the property 'color charge' in particle physics which is a quantum property. Please note that is has no connection to the property electric charge either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_charge