Jump to content

Strange

Moderators
  • Posts

    25528
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    133

Everything posted by Strange

  1. So it seems that by "absolute" you mean "total" or "overall" motion. That overall motion is still with reference to something you have chosen (and you could equally well choose something else). It would be better if you avoided using the word absolute for that as it will cause confusion. For most people, absolute motion means that there is some place which is genuinely still in some real sense. The trouble is, it is impossible to define what that sense is because there is no such absolute reference! No one does worry abut it because it has been known, since Galileo, that there is no such thing. Well, almost no one. The few people who do worry about it are physics cranks. Which is why you may get an unpleasantly negative reaction if you use the word "absolute".
  2. Daviddavid 様へ, I would respectfully refer you to post 95 where I very politely and carefully ask a number of questions intended to gain a better understanding of your ideas. I would be most grateful if you could spend a little time answering those questions as I am sure I have not properly understood what you are trying to say. These two questions might be a first step towards me gaining some insight. As such, I would be immensely grateful for any clarification you feel able to offer. Thank you very much in advance for your time and trouble. I remain, sir, your humble and obedient servant.
  3. You are not asking a question. You are making a series of assertions. Most of them false or unsupported.
  4. Ah, thank you. I guessed it was some sort of failed argument from authority but Google failed me.
  5. You are so unwilling to answer questions or explain your ideas that I can only assume you don't understand them yourself. PPL? Pokémon Puzzle League
  6. At any instant the object is at a single point in time. I'm not sure how your head can be at a different time than your feet. Ignoring the metaphysical question of whether the past and future object "exists", you are correct that the object has to be shown occupying every point along the time line (for the period it exists) because that is the only way you can show its location at that time (or, equivalently, at what time it was at each physical coordinate). The fact you find this grotesque is not really relevant.
  7. It has always been pretty clear. I don't think anyone is arguing, other than pointing out your errors. There are no flames, just an attempt to discuss your claims. But you won't answer questions. And you won't even attempt to address the many ways in which you have been shown to be wrong. Why is that?
  8. I'm not sure why you think the questions are offensive. Let me try and rephrase them in a way that is more acceptable. 1. You appear to treat Planck units differently from other units when you say that metres and volts can be subdivided but Planck units can't. Would it be possible for you to explain why you think that Planck units are different from other units in that respect? 2. And, unless I have misunderstood you, you also appear to say that only Planck length and Planck time cannot be subdivided, while other Planck units (e.g. Planck mass or Planck voltage) can be. Would you be able to explain in a little more detail why some Planck units can be subdivided but others cannot? Is that any better? I am simply trying to understand why you are stating the opinions you do. I'm afraid I don't know what GUP is. Could you explain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gup That is fine; you are of course entitled to your opinion. But I think you should refrain from stating them as facts, until there is some evidence to support them. For example: There is no evidence for that. We could define a new unit, the nanoplanck which is 1 billionth of the Planck time. If we do that, would you say that was the smallest unit of time instead?
  9. Actually there is. Well, there are several. There is magnetic north. There is the axis of rotation. Etc. These are not just decided by convention, they reflect some underlying physical reality. You can't decide that the north pole is in London or on Betelgeuse because it isn't. Similarly, "absolute motion" would mean some definition of motion independent of convention. One that reflected something fundamental about the universe. Choosing some point in space is not absolute because you could equally well choose some other point. You could choose London, Betelgeuse or the CMB (this is known as "co-moving coordinates) as your reference. But they are still arbitrary, none of them is any more "real" then the others. But all of those motions are just relative to some arbitrary choice. It would be equally valid to say the Earth is not moving and all the bits of the universe are moving relative to us. It is not arbitrary. It is a fundamental part of physics since Galileo's day. But those are all arbitrary choices. It doesn't make any difference if you choose those or the tip of my nose.
  10. Yes, but you are treating them differently by saying that metres and volts can be subdivided but Planck units can't. Why is that? And do you claim that only Planck length and Planck time cannot be subdivided? Why isn't that true for Planck mass or Planck voltage? As well as being wrong, you are being inconsistent.
  11. You previously said: So you are saying that airplanes fly because of buoyancy. Then why can't an airplane fly as high as a balloon if it is the same physics?
  12. Why are Planck units different from metres, seconds, volts, newtons or any other unit?
  13. It isn't important at all. In fact it is impossible. You are using "absolute" to mean "some arbitrary choice I made". That is not what absolute means. There isn't such an absolute reference reference space.
  14. That doesn't answer the question that half a Planck time is smaller than 1 Planck time.
  15. So you are going to ignore the half a pig, and a cut of beef as examples of how animals are not quantized? Or, again, you are using the word "quantized" in a non-standard way. What do you mean by "real"? Just physical objects? In which case it doesn't include length and time. Is water real? What is "one water"? Are distance and time "real" by your definition? Because there is no evidence that they are quantized, even at the Planck scale. And what about the Planck mass? Are you saying that mass should be quantized in Planck units as well? Because there are many things with less mass than the Planck mass? So you agree that voltage can be measured but is not quantised? There is a Planck voltage; so why isn't voltage quantized in Planck units as well, if you think that length and time are? That is not what "quantized" means. Because it isn't true.
  16. No. It is meaningless because you said a single analog number. A single number obviously has a single value and therefore is not, in itself analog. So you are changing your argument, now? You started by claiming that everything was quantized (time, space, voltage, energy). Now it is just cows and other "real objects"? Even then, I'm not sure I agree. I often see half a pig or a 100th of a cow in the butchers shop. But you will never see half an electron. So electrons are quantized but animals aren't. That doesn't ruffle any feathers. I doubt anyone would disagree. No one is disagreeing with that, either. That is not what you said. No one has said that. That is not just a straw-man argument, it is grossly dishonest.
  17. That is meaningless. But note that the real numbers are "analog" or continuous, in that they can be used to represent any value at all (not just quantized values). And many (perhaps most) things can be expressed as real values. For example, energy and voltage, to give just two examples that you have ignored previously. If voltage were quantized, as you claim, then there would only be voltages of 1V, 2V, 3V, 4V, etc. This is obviously not true. Therefore your claim that everything is quantized is, one again, wrong. That is not what you have suggested so far. You have said everything is quantized, which is very different. Quantity is not the same as quantized. No one said that. Of course ratios are numbers. Even things like pi and root 2, which are not rations, are numbers. (But cannot be quantized) To be counted is to quantified not quantized.
  18. That would be true whatever you choose as a reference point. You can arbitrarily make any point your reference, which is what "no absolute motion" means.
  19. Maths is continuous, not just discrete. You have been shown multiple examples where nature does not use discrete values.
  20. That is not what "quantized" means. I'm no longer sure. You seem to be using "quantized" in a non-standard way. I simply pointed out that you incorrectly said "electron volts". That doesn't mean it is quantised; those increments can be as small as you want.
  21. Yes, some things are quantised. We all agree with that. Maybe I misunderstood, but you appeared to be claiming that everything is quantised. That is clearly incorrect.
  22. In what way is Planck wrong? No one is going to argue with that.
  23. Electron volts is a measure of energy, not voltage. Voltage is measured in volts. And, of course, it is not quantised at the level of units of 1 volt. You only need two bodies to define (relative) velocity. But how is that relevant to the fact that velocity is not discrete. Yes. There are some cases where energy is quantised, but they are in the minority. I assume you think that is funny because it proves you wrong?
  24. Time. Space. Black body spectrum. Voltage. Velocity. Frequency. Energy. Just to name a few examples from this thread....
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.