« on: Yesterday at 22:21:26 »
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.
Perhaps the surface has something to do with it.Dishwashers (including me when I do them by hand) rely on retained heat to do the final drying. Glass & ceramics retain heat, plastics donít.
Maybe Plastic ain't as smooth as Others.
Thanks very much.I know you deserve a response to your reply but I feel embarrassed to spell out what I was thinking as it might seem that I was trying to back up my opinions.(or that I understood what I was saying;) )No need to feel embarrassed, itís just a case of my wanting to clarify what you were looking for.
But just to attemt to clarify the point you were asking directly,I had in mind that there might be a discreteness at levels unattainable of detection either practical or theoretical such that we would have to simply assume it to be the more likely case out of intellectual preference (if such a concept is valid).
I guess I just anticipate that it will be entirely impossible to find evidence one way or the other but you seem to be suggesting that evan_au 's link contains an avenue of attack that may bear fruit at some stage.(I had better attempt to have a look at it even it is probably too hard for me to understand)
Not sure what this has to do with the continuity of spacetime, but:It was in response to a question from geordief ďIf we postulate continuity of spacetime at the finest detail it seems to me that that may pose more problems than to postulate discretenessĒ and I assumed he was drawing a parallel between quantum world and spacetime, I was just pointing out that not all the quantum world is discrete.
Even then, the energy is frame dependent and probably expressed in the proper frame of the atom, which is becoming complex enough to have a classic property like KE.I agree that the the KE is frame dependent, but that frame is not relative to the atom for a free electron that is not bound to the atom or part of a metal lattice, say, itís usual to take the frame of the particle accelerator, or even a crt.
I have a rough time giving KE to a free electron when (per Heisenberg uncertainty) such a thing doesn't really have a velocity until measured, and that measurement does not preserve the velocity, so you only know what it was, not what it is. For the same reason, it doesn't have a location, and it having neither of these properties kind of puts a dent in the model of continuous spacetime.
To clarify the specific case above, if she took ,say 5 minutes extra to do the shopping on a day before I was born ,I am saying that that extra 5 minutes would have changed the course of the universe and my life (and all others ) would be included in that changed universe.You also have to consider the sphere of influence of such ripple effects. Imagine a probability tree branching out at each effect of that cough. Some will be dead ends having no effect, but very few will have any likelihood of affecting, say, events on the moon let alone the universe.
So her shopping and my , say fit of coughing would be connected events but only in the direction of her to me .
So to my mind all events in the universe are connected but sometimes only in one direction.
Is it fair to say that there is no need to actually find evidence to show quantization of time or spacetime?I donít understand what you are saying. Can you clarify why no evidence is required?
If we postulate continuity of spacetime at the finest detail it seems to me that that may pose more problems than to postulate discreteness.Such as?
If matter creates it's own space would the smallest size of matter (matter =fields?) place a limit on the smallest region of space or spacetime?There is no evidence that matter creates space. Matter occupies space.
A block model has time, and yet time isn't something that 'goes', and events are not things that 'happen'. So the definition above begs not only a preferred reference frame, but also a preferred moment in time.Yes, that had slipped my mind, not that my mind has given it much deep think. I tend to envisage a 4D tube map with a 'you are here' pointer 😄
Ye's, but/t, in my universe/model if there's no time or it stops, then nothing happens.That isnít a unique feature of a model which includes time. Itís hard to think of a model where that isnít true, although halc probably knows one.
In particular I wonder if a unification would reveal some insight into dark energy or dark matter?It might, I wouldnít want to speculate as itís not my field , but Iím sure there are some exciting discoveries on the way.
I agree with halc, quora has the worst reputation of any science forum for quality answers.Have U heard of Quora?It's also why I don't go to quora for answers if any other option is available.
There no one cares if U give a/the common sense answer.
That's probably why it's so popular.
That said, I was at a seminar yesterday which was discussing the need to include general relativistic terms into quantum calculations when trying to model very heavy elementsHow well does that work without the need to have a quantised field theory of gravity fully integrated with the theory of relativity?
The best one-line quip definition of time I've heard is:And distance is what stops things being in the same place at once.Quotetime is what keeps everything from happening at once.
I am not talking about its internal physical co/motion butRadioactive decay is a process.
something internal to the sub/atomic particles, themselves.
Like radioactive decay, is.
They say that the QS/AM is not caused by the particle actually spinning, around its axis,You wouldnít call distance an intrinsic property. Itís just a measurement of the space between things. Similarly with time as @chiralSPO said.
for a number of reasons. They say it's an intrinsic property.
Well why I can't say the same, about time?
And not just the US, mite. The American disease is spreading, all over, the world.Letís keep posts friendly as in site rules please.
Cretins breed like rabbits, lice, vermin, philosophers not at all, and cretins breed cretins.
Guys, I'm signing out, of this. This junk thread has gone on for long enough. Someone should lock it, up.You are under no obligation to participate in any particular thread. What may be junk to you might not be to others.
Yes U're right, it's called the frontal offset crash.Iím surprised at you Kiddiwink, thatís what it used to be called
How the force/acceleration is distributed matters. You can accelerate in 100g free fall while not feeling anything.Yes, this the big difference I try explain to people.
In a free falling balloon, every part of it experiences the same gravitational force, hence it doesn't get deformed.
Actually, if we each recruit just one person, we can "double" the membership!Some of us regularly suggest someone joins forum. I give talks on various physics topics including to schools and I always put in a plug. Sometimes there isnít time to go through all the questions so I recommend joining forum. Chris does it a lot, if he gets questions he will often direct people here.
Ps - umm...Mods... I've formed an eerie habit of posting Utube vids quite frequently.The question is whether it is relevant and appropriate to the discussion. If it is, then use it, but donít litter them around adhoc.
Plz lemme know if I'm goin too far.
& Plz do remove it if you think it's inappropriate.
If U couldn't avoid a head-on, collision, with another car:definitely front on. The neck muscles are stronger at resisting forward motion of the head, side of neck muscles far less so and so side whiplash results in a broken neck - thats why a noose knot is put at the side.
Would U rather have a full head-on or a single side one, only, collision?
Is that still around? I thought it was banned.Thatís because we keep it under control. A few yrs back we had a sustained attack where we would log on to find, say, general science had 4 pages of repeated ads before you got to a real post.
I can't remember the last time I saw it.
No, I'm cool. U know better/best, uncle/gran'pa, Col.Glad to know you kiddiwinks recognise superior wisdom
I bow/yield to Ur great/er wisdom, in these matter, sir.
That one was very nice JT, intuitive. But what I don't find equivalent are the initial conditions. In the first case both kinetic energy and momentum differs from the other.The ke and momentum are saying the same thing.
But/t are U sure U are not just giving them ideas, by pouncing on any Miss Bee Haviour, too quickly?Back in the day it was never a problem and much of it was left where it was. Then came the realisation that internet advertising was good, coupled with the development of bots and we started getting 200 spams a day - more than legitimate posts. Even now the main site can get over 500 a day and recently one of our mods took down 64. If we didn't keep a lid on it you would have difficulty seeing the real posts. We stop the snowballs to prevent the avalanche.