Strange

That amount of space has what we humans call "height", "width" "length" "speed", which doesn't correspond to reality. What you think it is the length, width, height and speed, it's just an approximation, an idea of reality. Whatever we calculate and measure, it's only an approximation, matter it's not stable at all, it's constantly changing and moving, because its atoms are always changing and moving, even if we don't see it. Measuring doesn't give life to anything. You can measure everything, you can predict how fast, tall and heavy could be a hypothetical Santa, that still doesn't bring Santa to life and to reality.

I am curious how you know this (and with such certainty) when you appear to be talking about an ideal reality that, well, we cannot know...

 

But I agree, what we call time, height, length and width are just human concepts to calculate and keep track of movements of atoms from point A to point B. What physically exists in reality is only atoms moving through space.

And that space doesn't have height, width or length? And the movement doesn't take any time?

Cyber clocks and other time pieces are adjusted on the definition of a time convention being a proportion of the earths motions : 60 sec/min, 60min/hr ..... /day. Wherein a day is from solar noon to solar noon and slowing; and the earth's slowing elliptical path around the sun.

 

Time measurement (Seconds) are adjusted to the cosmos to serve mankind and not the other way around.

Suely it is the other way round. The length of the second is fixed (some number of blah blah cesium blah) and the length of the day and year are varied to keep instep with nature (leap seconds, leap years, etc).

I think that we only have the concept of time because we have memories.

And yet ... the posts in this thread, for example, are ordered by date and time. That doesn't rely on memory.

The advantage of this approach is ... a camera with a blocked lens is still useless.

Although, that might be seen as a disadvantage in some contexts.

It is possible (and it is done). The best protection is to be careful about websites visited, software downloaded, etc. and possibly use some sort of anti-virus or other security software. The last line of defense is to cover the lens (I have a black sticky label over mine).

A static piece of paper in front of a light source blocks 10% of the light.

 

Then we move the same piece of paper around at speed 0.86 c. Now the paper blocks 5 % of the light.

 

Do you disagree?

Let's just say I don't necessarily agree. It is an interesting problem and I would need to see more detail. For example, if you are talking about orbiting at 0.86c then, as noted above, you cannot simply use length contraction from special relativity.

When viewed from the Sun, the Earth looks kind of narrow, because of the orbital motion.

Really?

Everybody agrees that motion causes the Sun facing side of the Earth to receive less sunlight.

 

Do they?

The English philosopher Roger Bacon (1214 – 1294) was the first person to recognize that sunlight passing through a glass of water could be split into colors.

And, of course, before that many millions of people had seen rainbows. Anyway, it just shows that the website is wrong about that detail (as it is about everything else).

In 1860 Pietro Angelo Secchi became the father of Astrophysics. (Because he was a priest)

I don't know why the fact he was a priest is relevant.

The Solar panel is completely different to this process, it does not have any chemicals in it to convert the energy; The Voltaic Cells only allows the movement of the sun’s rays to pass through to the battery and the battery is not a chemical driven power source, it is only a storage system as is said in that website

This is wrong in so many ways. Of course solar cells contain chemicals. Mainly silicon with small amounts of "dopants" in carefully controlled amounts. The way they work is well explained by current theory (which is how we are are able to design them in the first place). The vague and wildly-inaccurate ideas on that website would not allow someone to create a solar cell - it depends on them having already been created by current theory.

Also, batteries are entirely chemical storage devices. Whether it is lead-acid or NiMH, charging the cell causes chemical changes which can be reversed to generate electric current.

However, my question was in relation to Evolution and the possible use of opposing electrical charges as the driving force for this event. The information I read about is on the Creating Life page and if anyone could tell me if it is possible I would really appreciate it.

Not really my area, but it looks like the same sort of inaccurate and unsupported claims as the rest of the web site.

For example, "photosynthesis is simply the expanding of the number of Carbon Atoms within a structure" is just not true.

Maybe someone else can do a more detailed critique, but as far as I can see it falls in the class of "not even wrong".

I have just looked at the section on light. It looks very familiar. Is this your father's work, by any chance?

There is a difference between interpretations and theories. There are many different interpretations of quantum theory (Copenhagen, Many Worlds, etc) but they are just different ways of describing the same theory. Therefore there is (as far as I know) no experiment that could distinguish them. If it could, they wouldn't be interpretations but different theories.

I skimmed through the website (I didn't see anything specifically about evolution). It is complete nonsense. So much so that it is hard to know where to begin pointing out the errors. Every page I looked at had unsupported claims and factual errors. For example on the page about energy, it says:

 

Solar Panels capture this Sunlight Energy and put it directly into DC batteries, without any type of conversion whatsoever

Which is just not true. We know very well how solar panels work, and they work by converting energy from one form (electromagnetic radiation) to another (electric current). If that energy is then stored in a battery, it is converted to another form (chemical energy).

There are similar factual errors on every page. Plus a lot of stuff that is just made up. There is no evidence to support any of the claims.

Just another pseudoscientific crank.

And another clanger:

 

In 1860 Angelo Seki ...was the first person to run starlight through a prism

No, that would have been Isaac Newton a couple of centuries earlier.

Think back to the proposal of hidden variables.

 

It was consistent with the rest of the theory then. Only experiments proved it false.

 

What we may call "one standard QM" was not standard then, but only one possible interpretation, and wasn't a logical necessity.

I assume you are referring to EPR; an attempt to show that the theory was inconsistent and therefore wrong? The idea of hidden variables was never consistent with theory. This was proved by Bell. And this was later confirmed by experiment.

I don't fully understand what you are saying however, yes, the circumference (as measured by an observer on the disk) is 2πrγ.

I'm not sure what you mean by "become a partial disk". The disk is still a complete disk, but the geometry is no longer Euclidean.

I wouldn't say that there is one standard quantum mechanics. It's still evolving, and under the constraint of experiments, not as a logic consequence of its consistency.

You said this before ("As predicted by one of the competing sub-theories ..."). Can you explain what you mean.

As far as I am aware, there is only one standard theory. It is confirmed with depressing regularity - it would be much more exciting if someone found a big hole. (Which is not to say that there are not still some questions and unknown - neutrino mass, for example - but when it comes to basic things like entanglement or the uncertainty principle, I am not aware of any conflict.)

But, obviously, like any scientific theory, it will be adjusted (or even replaced) as new evidence comes to light. But you seem to imply that it is in more of a state of flux than it appears to me.

 

Experimental results are puzzling: we shall agree.

I don't agree. I haven't yet seen an experimental result that contradicts theory.

If the circumference contracts, shouldn't that mean the radius should also? Because then if the circumference shrinks, the radius has to.

Quite the reverse. As that Wikipedia page says, "For physically reasonable materials, during the spin-up phase a real disk expands radially due to centrifugal forces."

But note that the relationship between the radius and the circumference will no longer be the Euclidean 2π (due to the curvature of spacetime that swansont mentioned).

There are computer programs to prove theorems and to generate new theorems. The trouble is, nearly all the theorems the generated are of no real significance. For example: http://theorymine.co.uk/

 

IS MY THEOREM INTERESTING?

TheoryMine applies a series of filters to remove uninteresting theorems before it generates them. On the other hand, don't expect your theorem to earn you the Fields Medal! (the Nobel Prize of Mathematics).

p.s. Sorry, mathematic, I accidentally down-voted your answer (and there doesn't seem to be any way to undo it)...

This is the "Ehrenfest Paradox" - note that, like all so-called paradoxes in physics, it only appears to be a paradox. A full analysis is pretty complicated and requires taking the properties of real materials into account as well as general relativity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox

The article you linked to says:

 

The Planck team’s paper appears to rule out the claims of Kashlinsky and collaborators,” says David Spergel of Princeton University, who was not involved in the work. If there is no dark flow, there is no need for exotic explanations for it, such as other universes, says Planck team member Elena Pierpaoli at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “You don’t have to think of alternatives.

So it may be that with the more accurate data provided by Planck, the "evidence" has gone away.

If this is so, it has to be the greatest scientific discovery of the century.

I heard her talking about this a while ago. It was very interesting, but I felt she was rather overstating the strength of the evidence (caveat: I am not an expert in any of the relevant fields!)

 

So why isn't there more about this in the news?

Because it still speculative and few other scientists agree with her interpretation of the evidence. Or, in some case, that the evidence even exists.

My impression is that intrication is unclear enough even to QM specialists.

"Entaglement" in English.

I don't think anything about it is unclear. Every experiment done to test some aspect of it has behaved exactly as predicted by theory. It may be counter-intuiitive, but so are many things in science (even Newton's laws of motion would have been counter-intuitive to the anceient Greeks).

 

Hi, John Cuthber. Actually, my post is quite well-written. I am extraordinarily felicitous with the English language.

 

I think your audience should be the judge of that. (It isn't. And you're not.)

The quality of the writing matches the quality of the argument, if that helps.

I'm not so sure those chemicals would even react on their own.

So what. You don't know anything about the reaction so your opinion doesn't really carry much weight.

That would be like saying water can only flow when it lands on the other end of the bottle it came from, which isn't true.

Except that isn't how a battery works.

Why can't it flow between two batteries, then?

Because you need a closed circuit. The battery works by a reaction taking place at both electrodes. This can only happen if they are part of the same electric circuit.

According to normal theory

I don't think you are in any position to say something like that as you appear to have no understanding of theory.

Current will only flow when there is a complete circuit from one terminal of the battery to the other.

I was actually looking for an answer which contained step by step process like photon comes then hits the atom then atom absorbs it, like that.

You might want to look at these lectures by Richard Feynman. He explains the reflection and refraction of light in terms of photon/electron interaction. The full theory is called Quantum Electrodynamics and this is a non-technical description of it.

http://vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8