Ronald Hyde

The latest word on these things is Feynman's sum-over-possible-histories way of doing the math, and it shows that to the casual observer light would appear to 'move like a wave' too. But another slightly older way of looking at the math is to remember that the conjugate variables, momentum and position, energy and time, have a Fourier Transform pair relation to each other, which also involves wavelike representations.

They have evidence that there is something very big there. Or maybe that gravity doesn't work quite the same there as at other parts of the galaxy. Does not necessarily extrapolate to black hole. The jury is still out on that one, for me at least.

If it's not posted here it sure needs to be. And in a wallet sized card everyone can carry. And be a sticky on the forum. I see people who I'm sure are trained in this making statements that don't quite make sense because they're not put in the context of the rules.

I pick up a very large grain of salt when anyone mentions a 'black hole'. The notion is tied to GR, a theory which has not been integrated into the rest of Physics, which now largely consists of the Standard Model, which may be incomplete but does seem to be correct. It's nice to deal with theoretical objects which are beyond immediate observation, since no one can disprove them. But its ad hoc aspect stand out like a sore thumb, and I'm surprised at how many people accept it without question.

It isn't just that the light ray's speed is faster, it is that it is invariant. It's direction may change, and therefore it's velocity, but not its speed.

Well, one assumption that is wrong is that something that happens to the source or sink of the light during transit does affect the lights progress.

I don't wish to derail the topic, but I feel a need to reply to MigL. I can work inside the box, I can think outside the box, and i know when I'm doing either or both. I think you will in time find that my flights of speculation aren't really all that 'flighty', they have a connection with physical reality in areas which are not well understood, like Solar Activity. Because that's all I'm interested in, understanding stuff.

We see red shifted galaxies from billions of years ago and our telescopes were not even built then. Obviously there is something wrong with your assumptions, facts or reasoning.

Well, to be quite frank, I think they've been told to believe it by their pastors. If they hadn't been told it they wouldn't say it themselves.

The last time I needed a small transmitter/receiver set I got an on sale toy truck, much cheaper than I could build one. For my purpose I had to modify if by installing a small Schmidt Trigger circuit in the receiver, no problem at all, it worked great.

I don't think you will find that. But you may find cases where a gene that degrades a particular insecticide is transferred from an insect to a bacterium and then on to other insects. And 'sideways' transfer of genes may have been more common with simple bacteria because higher organisms have more protective wrapping around their DNA.

You make a very good point there, but I was including the idea that there might be other means of measuring such a position than waves in the classical notion. But I didn't state that, so my bad.

You can't use 'any experiment whatever' to understand what happens. You have to define a particular experiment. The 'wave particle duality' happens because people are confused about the measurement process. Any experiment that you conduct must be defined from beginning to end, including any measuring apparatus. If the measuring apparatus measures wavenumber, you can think of it as a wave. If the measuring apparatus measures the x-position where it is detected, you can think of it as a particle.

I doubt that Heisenberg thought that his statement of uncertainty was the last word on the subject, in fact it was the first word. People were still of the belief that you could measure canonical variables to an arbitrary degree of accuracy, held over from classical mechanics. I think he gave this very simple example to show that this was no longer the case. I don't even know if he was aware of or wanted to use operator formalism to express this, in any case the real test is whether you could conduct an experiment which could get around this limitation.

To me the whole notion that one particle gives the other particles mass is an oxymoron, and has been for some thirty years. You can really only say that 'there exists certain relations among the particle masses', since particle mass relations are dimensionless ratios. You might be able to link the particle masses to some other dimensional quantity, like a natural unit of time and say that that quantity sets the scale of mass relations. People used to try to link the Electron mass to its charge, but charge is a scale invariant quantity and mass is a scale quantity, so it's patently obvious that that is a no-go proposition. The whole notion isn't well thought out.

One way that complex quantities can enter is through the use of the Fourier Transform, the momentum and position space representations have a transform pair relationship. But when you do the final calculation for the probability in either case, you use the complex conjugates so that the probabilities are always real.

I don't believe that math is a short cut at all. My own view is that the World is somehow made of mathematical relationships, that's all there is to it, so that it must be described mathematically, all current theories are expressed mathematically and I see no way of expressing them any other way. That math underlies everything and there is no way to fit a 'physical picture' underneath the math. It's very illogical captain!

Do you mean through heat treatment or just as cast hardness?

I'm thinking that your speculations about the currents in your first posts is more in line with the physical reality, that some as yet unknown mechanism drives the currents and the currents involved in the atmosphere in my thundercloud description, and also don't forget the quadrupole aspect. And the Sun has the same kinds of fields and the same sort of periodicity, except more often and regularly. And that periodicity is tied to the Solar Cycle and the huge body of unexplained physics known as Solar Activity. In the past couple of decades much effort has been put into the Solar field, experimentally starting with the T.R.A.C.E. satellite and recently its successor the SDO, plus other satellites and instruments. But most anyone will tell you that there is no competent theory of how Solar Activity works, none. So this is a field that is very ripe for theoretical development.

Exactly what experiment are you using to make all these measurements such as a 'particular instant'? Outside of the context of an experiment your statements have no meaning.

I'm not thinking so much of explaining evolution as defining it, because once you've defined it, it pretty much 'explains' itself. This may be part of why it was accepted so widely in the scientific community despite having no obvious mechanism.

I sort of gave up on organized religion where it said 'God was a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night' and I realized that they were worshiping a volcano, and I've found that several other notable people, I think von Neumann, caught that too. But I think that a lot of people have a felt need for religion, most of them use it harmlessly or beneficially, some use it to justify evil deeds or because they believe their god will forgive evil. One thing I do very sincerely believe in is the 'market place of ideas' notion, where people can share their own ideas with others without threat or duress of any kind. In other words, freedom of thought and expression. And I think it's important that everyone, regardless of belief, hew to this notion. Of course we see some people of some religions ( not Presbyterians ) who think that their god has assigned them the job of killing off everyone who does not agree. This needs to be stopped at all and any costs. But for the others we must teach them to tolerate others beliefs, and in turn be tolerant toward them. In a way this fellow is playing a dangerous game by forcing people's backs against the wall, giving them limited choices. I've met people who know that their own judgement isn't very good and need some kind of 'guru' to guide them ( sometimes their judgement in choosing a guru isn't very good either ) and keep them out of trouble. And I've met many other people who have used religion to guide them toward good deeds. So I preach a bit of tolerance myself.

I can understand what you want, but substituting the word Darwinism for Evolution in a language may not be so easy, everyone has to more or less agree on it for the substitution to 'stick'. And I used the word ongoing to emphasize that it is still occurring and is happening now. As for the conditions under which it may occur, I've been thinking about that too and I find them pretty complicated to define, not just needing mechanisms of inheritance, but ones that can change in particular ways. As for the word 'belief' it only implies that it's a premiss that you must accept to understand biology.

I actually know about some of the things of which you wrote. Since his question was about less than expected hardening, and work hardening in metals is due to dislocations 'piling up' and further refusing to move, I just thought that the presence of holes might be relevant in some way. Seems not, now that you mention it.

Well, the P and S waves are propagating in an 'infinite' medium, so the F waves must be propagating an a finite medium, is this guess correct? For instance the spring in an artificial 'echo chamber' of the type that guitar players use.