45821
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
45822
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Does "point mass" make sense?
« on: 06/03/2009 13:21:24 »
Oh yes 
)
The link my man, the link...
)The link my man, the link...
45823
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Can you use a optical fiber for electricity?
« on: 06/03/2009 13:18:53 »
Which ways can we convert coherent light to electrical power.
Would it even work?
And what would the 'energy loss' be if we did so?
Would it even work?
And what would the 'energy loss' be if we did so?
45824
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Does time tick?
« on: 06/03/2009 12:47:57 »
Perhaps one could see time as 'whole', but in it we have phenomena relating to either QM or our macroscopic spacetime? What we see as distance seems to be connected to our 'relative' motion and acceleration macroscopically. It seems to me that we can't say that distance is anything else than a 'property' between two frames of reference. And as we can't say that anything is 'standing still' in spacetime either, as our 'frames of reference', as far as I understand, always will be defined as being relative someone else's frame.
--
I'm not sure I'm expressing myself 'explicitly enough' here (no surprise huh:)
What I try to say is that to me there is no correct 'definition' of 'distace'.
It's just a concept describing a relation between two frames.
You and whatever you are measuring against. That as you will be at some frame, not able to define its possible motion without referring to another 'frame of reference'.
That we have an 'Earth standard' doesn't make it a 'preconception universale'.
---
Well, thinking of it I do have one for the 'shortest path' though
The one costing you the least energy
Like light through spacetime's geodesics.
---------
It's like the whole question of plank length. there is nothing hindering us from saying that a plank length is double the distance we have measured, relative those other definitions Plank used for defining.
That is, as long as we change those too to keep the relative 'balance' in check between them, sort of:)
Or is there anything that we can say won't be possible to change numerically as long as we keep their 'intergroup' relations correct?
So if we agree on that the frames of reference we use are 'arbitrary' in that meaning then there is no 'gold standard' for 'distance'. That we think so comes from what we are used to historically it seems to me.
Now one could say that the 'intergroup' relations will be there anyway, and I would agree on that. But what I want to put forward is that the concept of 'distance' doesn't have any meaning in spacetime other than defining a relation between two frames. So ' meaningful for us' seems a very appropriate concept here, like describing a 'tool' we use for giving us a 'meaningful' comparison.
--
I'm not sure I'm expressing myself 'explicitly enough' here (no surprise huh:)
What I try to say is that to me there is no correct 'definition' of 'distace'.
It's just a concept describing a relation between two frames.
You and whatever you are measuring against. That as you will be at some frame, not able to define its possible motion without referring to another 'frame of reference'.
That we have an 'Earth standard' doesn't make it a 'preconception universale'.
---
Well, thinking of it I do have one for the 'shortest path' though
The one costing you the least energy
Like light through spacetime's geodesics.
---------
It's like the whole question of plank length. there is nothing hindering us from saying that a plank length is double the distance we have measured, relative those other definitions Plank used for defining.
That is, as long as we change those too to keep the relative 'balance' in check between them, sort of:)
Or is there anything that we can say won't be possible to change numerically as long as we keep their 'intergroup' relations correct?
So if we agree on that the frames of reference we use are 'arbitrary' in that meaning then there is no 'gold standard' for 'distance'. That we think so comes from what we are used to historically it seems to me.
Now one could say that the 'intergroup' relations will be there anyway, and I would agree on that. But what I want to put forward is that the concept of 'distance' doesn't have any meaning in spacetime other than defining a relation between two frames. So ' meaningful for us' seems a very appropriate concept here, like describing a 'tool' we use for giving us a 'meaningful' comparison.
45825
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / What is the false vacuum?
« on: 06/03/2009 10:17:15 »
Vern, do you have an idea for how to construct an experiment testing your hypothesis?
45826
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / If the Earth's rotation is slowing, how long before a year leasts 366 days?
« on: 06/03/2009 09:01:02 »
So are we sleeping yet?
--
This is strange?
Ah well, then.
I'll just go feed my tame polar bears.
Or not? Hmm, they do look hungry out there.
A night in I think.
What? A knock on the door?
Yes?
ArrGH....
--
This is strange?
Ah well, then.
I'll just go feed my tame polar bears.
Or not? Hmm, they do look hungry out there.
A night in I think.
What? A knock on the door?
Yes?
ArrGH....
45827
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / If the Earth's rotation is slowing, how long before a year leasts 366 days?
« on: 06/03/2009 08:59:15 »
Ah, and so it started, just when one had that minute of peace.
Well now you had your breath Mr Chem, please try to go to sleep now.
And remember, only one breath at a time due to prevailing weather conditions, time's not awaisting.
Well now you had your breath Mr Chem, please try to go to sleep now.
And remember, only one breath at a time due to prevailing weather conditions, time's not awaisting.
45828
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / If the Earth's rotation is slowing, how long before a year leasts 366 days?
« on: 06/03/2009 08:52:01 »
Now Mr Chem?
What are you doing here, shouldn't you be out with the friendly shar.. Ah, dolphins?
---
Isn't it bedtime?
What are you doing here, shouldn't you be out with the friendly shar.. Ah, dolphins?
---
Isn't it bedtime?
45829
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / If the Earth's rotation is slowing, how long before a year leasts 366 days?
« on: 06/03/2009 08:41:52 »
Vern, there has been a lot strange weather phenomena lately
Maybe there is a cooling effect also, do you have a link to it?
Although if you go to http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/ann/ann08.html you will see their assessment for 2008. There they say that 2008 is the eight warmest year globally since we started to measure temperatures on Earth. And they say the same about December.
And I'm pretty sure the water is warming up. That's one of the 'feedings' for hurricanes. "The 2008 Atlantic hurricane season was the third most costly on record, after 2005 and 2004, and the fourth most active year since 1944. This was the first season with a major hurricane (Category 3 or above) each month from July through November.... Warmer-than-average temperatures occurred throughout the year in most land areas of the world, with the exception of cooler-than-average conditions across Colombia, parts of Alaska, central Canada, and the midwestern continental U.S."
Maybe there is a cooling effect also, do you have a link to it?
Although if you go to http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/ann/ann08.html you will see their assessment for 2008. There they say that 2008 is the eight warmest year globally since we started to measure temperatures on Earth. And they say the same about December.
And I'm pretty sure the water is warming up. That's one of the 'feedings' for hurricanes. "The 2008 Atlantic hurricane season was the third most costly on record, after 2005 and 2004, and the fourth most active year since 1944. This was the first season with a major hurricane (Category 3 or above) each month from July through November.... Warmer-than-average temperatures occurred throughout the year in most land areas of the world, with the exception of cooler-than-average conditions across Colombia, parts of Alaska, central Canada, and the midwestern continental U.S."
45830
That CAN'T be true! / Is this possible? (kitchen science)
« on: 05/03/2009 22:19:09 »
*Bravely putting head above table*
Reading "lungs don't take high pressures very well"
That's probably why it's a lovely lady doing it Mr Wolfekeeper.
As we all can see, their lungs are so much more, than us mere mens.
We just can't reach those aesthetic heights of delightful proportions.
*Most astutely hiding under that same table, just before the pie lands*
Reading "lungs don't take high pressures very well"
That's probably why it's a lovely lady doing it Mr Wolfekeeper.
As we all can see, their lungs are so much more, than us mere mens.
We just can't reach those aesthetic heights of delightful proportions.
*Most astutely hiding under that same table, just before the pie lands*
45831
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / If the Earth's rotation is slowing, how long before a year leasts 366 days?
« on: 05/03/2009 21:51:25 »
Thinking of it:)
As our oceans now is storing more energy due to 'global warming'.
Does this mean that this 'braking process' will speed up?
As our oceans now is storing more energy due to 'global warming'.
Does this mean that this 'braking process' will speed up?
45832
Guest Book / If want to know something interesting, please DON'T read this thread!
« on: 05/03/2009 21:48:54 »
Which pub was it.
I need one, fast:)
I need one, fast:)
45833
Just Chat! / Do you think I will make it TWO MILES on FOOT?
« on: 05/03/2009 21:42:54 »
Good luck Karen.
Don't rush it, enjoy it
Don't rush it, enjoy it
45834
Just Chat! / Re: Do you think I will make it TWO MILES on FOOT?
« on: 05/03/2009 20:46:41 »
You just need to pick up the nearest palanquin.
Choose four strong shoulders to rest it on.
Remember to smile at them as you allow them to lift you up.
It will light up their day.
Have that sturdy whip with you, for better results.
And now, dear lady, for the speed record:)
Choose four strong shoulders to rest it on.
Remember to smile at them as you allow them to lift you up.
It will light up their day.
Have that sturdy whip with you, for better results.
And now, dear lady, for the speed record:)
45835
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Does time tick?
« on: 05/03/2009 20:36:58 »
Yes DB, you are quite correct, I read the same.
Even though it gives me problem to see spacetime as having a 'smallest length'.
But then the definition seems to be more like 'having a meaning for us'.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11157955/Planck-Length-and-Time
Even though it gives me problem to see spacetime as having a 'smallest length'.
But then the definition seems to be more like 'having a meaning for us'.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11157955/Planck-Length-and-Time
45836
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / What is a massless object?
« on: 05/03/2009 20:20:05 »Quote
Light doesn't displace water, and it is quite real.
Sure about that?
45837
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / What is the false vacuum?
« on: 05/03/2009 20:17:30 »
It seems to hinge on if the Higgs field exists?
http://www.historyoftheuniverse.com/falsvacu.html
Oh, I'm so lucky that I don't believe in it then
But for the rest of you...
Beware of bubbles.
http://www.historyoftheuniverse.com/falsvacu.html
Oh, I'm so lucky that I don't believe in it then
But for the rest of you...
Beware of bubbles.
45838
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Does time tick?
« on: 05/03/2009 20:03:19 »
There is no experimental evidence for time being events.
You could say that Feynman diagrams could be seen as some sort of proof for time being 'events' perhaps, as they can go 'both ways' in time?
But we have tested the idea down to 'attoseconds'
(One quintillionth (10^-18) of a second) without being able to see any proof for it being 'events'.
I think it's a 'flow' like we are 'fishes' inside 'times ocean'
You could say that Feynman diagrams could be seen as some sort of proof for time being 'events' perhaps, as they can go 'both ways' in time?
But we have tested the idea down to 'attoseconds'
(One quintillionth (10^-18) of a second) without being able to see any proof for it being 'events'.
I think it's a 'flow'
like we are 'fishes' inside 'times ocean'45839
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Can the uncertainty principle be circumvented?
« on: 05/03/2009 19:27:38 »
I'm getting boring here
The only thing I seem to write those days is Interesting:
But that's what it is, interesting.
If I understand this right Swansont:)
You will have two beans crossing each others path?
Each beam containing around a 100,000 million protons?
And how compressed is each burst?
Or is that the total amount of particles meeting each other?
By "per bunch' I will presume to mean that they are sent in 'bursts'?
The diameter of each beam is around 64 microns which then should be 0,064 mm (0,000064 m.)
The diameter of a proton is about a Femtometer
(1 fm = 10^{-15} m = 0.000000000000001 m)
So is there any calculations done on how much of this that will represent 'space' in those collisions?
percentage, sort of
As there only is 20 collisions 'per beam crossing'?
Could one use this to measure a 'probability' - curve and perhaps get some 'measurement' of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle?
Or am I bicycling again, I know that HUP flatly states that "increasing the accuracy of measurement of one observable quantity increases the uncertainty with which another conjugate quantity may be know"
What I'm wondering though is if there would be a defined 'curve' for when you have a 'ideal' proportion of (?)variables(?) ( like proton density/time f.ex in that/those beams, and no, you're not allowed to kill the bearer:)
As a way to get more 'collisions' and of course, a probability curve for narrowing all parameters :))
The only thing I seem to write those days is Interesting:
But that's what it is, interesting.
If I understand this right Swansont:)
You will have two beans crossing each others path?
Each beam containing around a 100,000 million protons?
And how compressed is each burst?
Or is that the total amount of particles meeting each other?
By "per bunch' I will presume to mean that they are sent in 'bursts'?
The diameter of each beam is around 64 microns which then should be 0,064 mm (0,000064 m.)
The diameter of a proton is about a Femtometer
(1 fm = 10^{-15} m = 0.000000000000001 m)
So is there any calculations done on how much of this that will represent 'space' in those collisions?
percentage, sort of
As there only is 20 collisions 'per beam crossing'?
Could one use this to measure a 'probability' - curve and perhaps get some 'measurement' of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle?
Or am I bicycling again, I know that HUP flatly states that "increasing the accuracy of measurement of one observable quantity increases the uncertainty with which another conjugate quantity may be know"
What I'm wondering though is if there would be a defined 'curve' for when you have a 'ideal' proportion of (?)variables(?) ( like proton density/time f.ex in that/those beams, and no, you're not allowed to kill the bearer:)
As a way to get more 'collisions' and of course, a probability curve for narrowing all parameters :
))45840
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / In the initial seconds of the Big Bang did matter travel faster than the speed of light?
« on: 03/03/2009 21:28:56 »
Thanks LeeE
But I still see that period as something we don't really know of.
We do make 'educated guesses' about it, deducting them from experiments and theory.
Those high energy experiments where in we try to create what we think was the circumstances surrounding the BB may describe a similar situation, most probably so.
But it still doesn't explain inflation. And where would we say that we have 'matter' in this timescale?
But I still see that period as something we don't really know of.
We do make 'educated guesses' about it, deducting them from experiments and theory.
Those high energy experiments where in we try to create what we think was the circumstances surrounding the BB may describe a similar situation, most probably so.
But it still doesn't explain inflation. And where would we say that we have 'matter' in this timescale?