Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: guest39538 on 14/02/2018 13:04:16

Title: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 14/02/2018 13:04:16
 [ Invalid Attachment ]

In the above air tight box there is a pressured gas.


When  I open the box will the gas expand?
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Colin2B on 14/02/2018 13:37:26
Yes.
Crack a can of beer, hissss escaping gas.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 14/02/2018 13:44:01
Yes.
Crack a can of beer, hissss escaping gas.
Thank you Colin, if we had a low pressure of gas inside the box and polarised the gas, would the low pressure become high pressure because the gas would expand?
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2018 14:03:58
and polarised the gas,
What do you think the word "polarised" means today?
It would probably be best if you can cite some sort of dictionary,r rather than making up nonsense.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 14/02/2018 15:29:57
and polarised the gas,
What do you think the word "polarised" means today?
It would probably be best if you can cite some sort of dictionary,r rather than making up nonsense.
PHYSICS
cause (something) to acquire polarity.  maybe i should of spelt it polerized,
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2018 15:41:32
Thanks for ruling out political polarisation.
But that hardly limits things...
Here's what WIKI says
Polarity may refer to:

In science:

Polarity (mutual inductance)
Polarity (physics), a physical alignment of atoms
Cell polarity, differences in the shape, structure, and function of cells
Chemical polarity, a concept in chemistry which describes how equally bonding electrons are shared between atoms
Polar reciprocation, a concept in geometry also known as polarity
Trilinear polarity, a concept in geometry of the triangle
Electrical polarity
Polarity in embryogenesis
Polarity (projective geometry)
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 14/02/2018 16:04:33
PHYSICS
cause (something) to acquire polarity.
Being obtuse I see.   

Ok, I will rephrase the question, if the contents of the box were to become ionised and became Cations, would the contents expand?
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2018 16:11:27
" if the contents of the box were to become ionised and became Cations, would the contents expand?"
OK, two things.
Did you mean "polarised" or did you mean "ionised"?
Second,
This
"if the contents of the box were to become ionised and became Cations, "
 is impossible- because it would be a breach of charge conservation.

It's not that I'm being obtuse, it's that what you say doesn't make sense.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Kryptid on 14/02/2018 16:32:31
In before he tries to argue that electrons are somehow analogous to this box of charged gas and therefore should expand...
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2018 16:36:45
In before he tries to argue that electrons are somehow analogous to this box of charged gas and therefore should expand...
I know.
He didn't make much sense then either.
I'm hoping that this time he might, at lest, tell us what he thinks he's proposing to do but at the moment it's  something like this

, if we had a low pressure of gas inside the box and did magic , would the low pressure become high pressure because the gas would expand?
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 14/02/2018 18:03:50
Quite clearly you have poor abilities in imaginary concept to devise proper concepts.

Ok, if I had a magic box that contains electrons, would these electrons pressure the box by expanding in length apart?
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2018 18:51:07
expanding in length
Electrons don't have length.
Will you please try to frame your questions so that they are in the realms of science.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 14/02/2018 18:52:41
expanding in length
Electrons don't have length.
Will you please try to frame your questions so that they are in the realms of science.
Your being a troll, it say expand in length between the electrons. 
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2018 20:56:32
Ok, if I had a magic box that contains electrons, would these electrons pressure the box by expanding in length apart?
say expand in length between the electrons.
And combining those we get

Ok, if I had a magic box that contains electrons, would these electrons pressure the box by expanding in length
 expand in length between the electrons apart?
which is still gibberish.

Why don't you take your time, and work out what question you are actually trying to ask?

Do you mean this?
"If you had a box full of electrons, would they exert an outward force on the walls of the box?"
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 14/02/2018 23:47:42

"If you had a box full of electrons, would they exert an outward force on the walls of the box?"


That is what I said......
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/02/2018 20:16:20

"If you had a box full of electrons, would they exert an outward force on the walls of the box?"


That is what I said......
Anyone who reads the thread will realise that it is not what you said.
And the answer is...
It depends.
For a start I guess we assume that the box is made of some magic stuff that electrons bounce off.
For a perfectly  insulating box the answer is yes.
For a box that conducts the answer is No  (I think), but it may depend on the temperature of the electrons.

Somehow I don't see this model is going to get us very far.
It's not a physically valid model of the real world.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 15/02/2018 21:15:05

For a start I guess we assume that the box is made of some magic stuff that electrons bounce off.
For a perfectly  insulating box the answer is yes.



Well eventually the question was answered.   


So you say yes to what I have quoted.  So what will happen to these electrons if we opened the magic box?

1)  They stay in the box?

2)  They expand out of the box?
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/02/2018 22:23:15
It depends.
The "electron in a 1 dimensional box" model is quite commonly used as an example while teaching quantum mechanics.
and the "real life example" of it is a box which is inside the electrons.
Yes, I wrote that the right way round.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 15/02/2018 23:23:05
It depends.
The "electron in a 1 dimensional box" model is quite commonly used as an example while teaching quantum mechanics.
and the "real life example" of it is a box which is inside the electrons.
Yes, I wrote that the right way round.

That was avoiding the question, but ok,  A box inside an electron , I presume this box has dimensions?   

So if all the integer points of the box are electron points, what should happen to these points ? 

Considering your earlier answer of yes

Quote
For a start I guess we assume that the box is made of some magic stuff that electrons bounce off.
For a perfectly  insulating box the answer is yes.

Supposing I said that the magic box that stops the electrons expanding is a magic box made of protons.

Your yes answer would also be true for a magic box of protons?


What happens if we put protons and electrons in the box, does one stop the other expanding ?



Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: alancalverd on 17/02/2018 16:13:27
You might corral a bunch of charged particles with a magnetic field. On release, particles with like charges will repel each other so the cloud will expand. The practical problem with plasma physics is that it is actually more difficult than herding cats.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 17/02/2018 17:28:29
You might corral a bunch of charged particles with a magnetic field. On release, particles with like charges will repel each other so the cloud will expand. The practical problem with plasma physics is that it is actually more difficult than herding cats.
I have never stopped considering the magnetic bottling problem in the attempted sustained generation of Plasma.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2018 17:48:40
That was avoiding the question,
I answered the question.
The answer is "it depends".
A box inside an electron
No, a box inside a cloud of electrons.
So if all the integer points of the box
What do you think "integer point" means?
electron points
What do you think  an "electron point "is?
what should happen to these points
How would we know?
You are the one who invented them.
What happens if we put protons and electrons in the box,
You get hydrogen (though my earlier caveat about temperature may also apply here).
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Kryptid on 17/02/2018 21:13:58
You get hydrogen (though my earlier caveat about temperature may also apply here).

And that gas will still have an internal pressure and attempt to expand even though it is electrically neutral.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2018 22:48:51
You get hydrogen (though my earlier caveat about temperature may also apply here).

And that gas will still have an internal pressure and attempt to expand even though it is electrically neutral.
Unless it's really cold, in which case it will condense to a liquid.
Unfortunately the answer to the question "what will happen" is really "it depends" and the OP doesn't think that's an answer.
So I don't think this thread is going anywhere.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 17/02/2018 23:40:33
You get hydrogen (though my earlier caveat about temperature may also apply here).

And that gas will still have an internal pressure and attempt to expand even though it is electrically neutral.
Thats because both halves of the atom gain charge equally so it always measures neutral
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/02/2018 09:38:41
The charge of an atom is measured as being zero, because it is zero.
So what?
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: alancalverd on 18/02/2018 09:50:47
In the above air tight box there is a pressured gas.


When  I open the box will the gas expand?

Yes.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 18/02/2018 14:29:21
The charge of an atom is measured as being zero, because it is zero.
So what?
In the above air tight box there is a pressured gas.


When  I open the box will the gas expand?

Yes.
Thank you for your direct and straight forward answer Alan.

If now in our box we have a low pressured gas or no pressure, when we open the box will it expand?
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: alancalverd on 18/02/2018 14:34:43
If the pressure inside is greater than the pressure outside, the contents will expand outwards when you open the box.

If the pressure outside is greater than the pressure inside, then whatever is outside will flow into the box when you open it.

Gases also tend to diffuse , so even if the pressure were equal inside and outside, after a while you will find some "outside" molecules inside the box and some "inside" molecules outside.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 18/02/2018 14:37:45
If the pressure inside is greater than the pressure outside, the contents will expand outwards when you open the box.

If the pressure outside is greater than the pressure inside, then whatever is outside will flow into the box when you open it.

Gases also tend to diffuse , so even if the pressure were equal inside and outside, after a while you will find some "outside" molecules inside the box and some "inside" molecules outside.
Thank you Alan.

If the low pressure inside the box was an imaginary mono-pole gas,  what would happen when we open the lid on the box?
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/02/2018 18:19:22
If the low pressure inside the box was an imaginary mono-pole gas,  what would happen when we open the lid on the box?

Whatever you imagine  should happen.
That's the problem with magic, you can't science it.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/02/2018 18:24:05
When  I open the box will the gas expand?


Yes.



Yes.
Thank you for your direct and straight forward answer Alan.


Was Colin2B's answer somehow not straightforward enough?
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 18/02/2018 18:38:28

When  I open the box will the gas expand?


Yes.



Yes.
Thank you for your direct and straight forward answer Alan.


Was Colin2B's answer somehow not straightforward enough?
Yes of course, I thanked Colin in post 2.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 18/02/2018 18:40:46
If the low pressure inside the box was an imaginary mono-pole gas,  what would happen when we open the lid on the box?

Whatever you imagine  should happen.
That's the problem with magic, you can't science it.
The magic of science, I always have another way to explain or ask the question,   I can simply ask about a polarised gas cloud which gives the same answer.  It expands because all points of the volume are likewise in polarity and gain strength and field density.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/02/2018 18:45:52
What does " gain strength and field density." mean to you?

A bunch of electrons will repel one another.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 18/02/2018 18:53:59
What does " gain strength and field density." mean to you?

A bunch of electrons will repel one another.
Yes a bunch of electrons will repel each other and my single box full of electrons will empty rather fast if opened.   Luckily this box is ''magic'' and it also has protons which also repel each other.   But luckily the electrons and the protons hold hands in the box to stop each other being forced out of the box.  However if the box gains more energy , there is a problem , and both of the ''people''  in the box have to hands even tighter, because both people have a tendency of a self destructive nature, so when there is more energy added, both ''people'' increase in their self destructive nature at the same time, they are still  holding hands but become stretched, the stretching increase the density around them, space outside the box now occupied by the box. 
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/02/2018 19:01:58
What does " gain strength and field density." mean to you?
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 18/02/2018 19:07:22
What does " gain strength and field density." mean to you?

It means that space becomes more solid nearer the body directly proportional to the transverse and going outwards directly proportional the the inverse less solid. The fields of bodies gaining more physicality relative to other fields.

my q.f.s and q.f.d  explains this

Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/02/2018 19:46:08
my q.f.s and q.f.d  explains this
No. They explained nothing. That was the big problem with them.

Also this
It means that space becomes more solid nearer the body directly proportional to the transverse and going outwards directly proportional the the inverse less solid.
means nothing.

Space isn't solid.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 18/02/2018 21:24:48


Space isn't solid.

Obviously space itself is not a solid, the fields are the solid,  you did not understand like u wont understand now, just consider the solid ''space'' between two likewise magnetic poles. 
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/02/2018 22:01:47
You are right in saying I don't understand.
Nor does anyone else, as far as I can tell.
Whose fault is that?
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Kryptid on 18/02/2018 23:03:23
space outside the box now occupied by the box.

Um, how can a box occupy space outside of itself?

I don't mean this to be rude, but it might help give me an understanding as to why people have trouble understanding you: is English your first language? Alternatively, might you have dyslexia or something related?
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 18/02/2018 23:12:44
You are right in saying I don't understand.
Nor does anyone else, as far as I can tell.
Whose fault is that?

Imagine a metal ball suspended by a force , field.  Now if we increased the strength of the field the field will become denser and the balls radius from the source will increase ,   so directly proportional to the invert, an increase in energy is an increase in density of the field directly proportional to the invert

ok?
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 18/02/2018 23:15:17
space outside the box now occupied by the box.

Um, how can a box occupy space outside of itself?

I don't mean this to be rude, but it might help give me an understanding as to why people have trouble understanding you: is English your first language? Alternatively, might you have dyslexia or something related?
Or maybe I am just not very good at explanation.  Answer to your question, think of a balloon expanding.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/02/2018 19:54:32
the balls radius from the source will increase
Says who?
Or maybe I am just not very good at explanation.
Let us know when something changes.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 19/02/2018 20:35:51
Says who?
Say's the Universe.

The firmament which is dark matter which really is field density, is expanding.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 19/02/2018 20:42:39
If you do not believe me take a trip to the sun, at first time will slow down as the earths field weakens the more you travel away, then time will start to speed up as you get nearer the sun and the field density increase.  There is of course the eventuality time will be so fast your skin will just flake away and you will feel a horrible burning sensation.   
Now if the sun was to increase in output, the field density extends in radius, you would burn up much faster and earlier on in your journey.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: The Spoon on 19/02/2018 21:28:18
If you do not believe me take a trip to the sun, at first time will slow down as the earths field weakens the more you travel away, then time will start to speed up as you get nearer the sun and the field density increase.  There is of course the eventuality time will be so fast your skin will just flake away and you will feel a horrible burning sensation.   
Now if the sun was to increase in output, the field density extends in radius, you would burn up much faster and earlier on in your journey.
That is absolute nonsense.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 19/02/2018 21:32:00
If you do not believe me take a trip to the sun, at first time will slow down as the earths field weakens the more you travel away, then time will start to speed up as you get nearer the sun and the field density increase.  There is of course the eventuality time will be so fast your skin will just flake away and you will feel a horrible burning sensation.   
Now if the sun was to increase in output, the field density extends in radius, you would burn up much faster and earlier on in your journey.
That is absolute nonsense.
Electromagnetic radiation does not need a medium to heat,  to be activated, this why astronauts where reflective space suits .

The astronaut travelling to the sun becomes the ''medium'' that reacts to the density of the field.   

Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: The Spoon on 19/02/2018 21:33:06
You are right in saying I don't understand.
Nor does anyone else, as far as I can tell.
Whose fault is that?

Imagine a metal ball suspended by a force , field.  Now if we increased the strength of the field the field will become denser and the balls radius from the source will increase ,   so directly proportional to the invert, an increase in energy is an increase in density of the field directly proportional to the invert

ok?
That is also nonsense. Why do you use such bizarre phrases as 'proportional to the invert'? Why not use terms that are commonly accepted if you want people to understand you? Or is it the case that you dont want people to understand and you are just stringing them along with meaningless phrases in an attempt to maintain attention?
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: The Spoon on 19/02/2018 21:35:14
If you do not believe me take a trip to the sun, at first time will slow down as the earths field weakens the more you travel away, then time will start to speed up as you get nearer the sun and the field density increase.  There is of course the eventuality time will be so fast your skin will just flake away and you will feel a horrible burning sensation.   
Now if the sun was to increase in output, the field density extends in radius, you would burn up much faster and earlier on in your journey.
That is absolute nonsense.
Electromagnetic radiation does not need a medium to heat,  to be activated, this why astronauts where reflective space suits .

The astronaut travelling to the sun becomes the ''medium'' that reacts to the density of the field.   


'Where reflective spacesuits'? As Kryptid asked  - is English not your first language? It is not just that you are bad at explanation, your use of English is inept.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 19/02/2018 21:36:39
You are right in saying I don't understand.
Nor does anyone else, as far as I can tell.
Whose fault is that?

Imagine a metal ball suspended by a force , field.  Now if we increased the strength of the field the field will become denser and the balls radius from the source will increase ,   so directly proportional to the invert, an increase in energy is an increase in density of the field directly proportional to the invert

ok?
That is also nonsense. Why do you use such bizarre phrases as 'proportional to the invert'? Why not use terms that are commonly accepted if you want people to understand you? Or is it the case that you dont want people to understand and you are just stringing them along with meaningless phrases in an attempt to maintain attention?

A typo because I am human, it should of said inverse.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: The Spoon on 19/02/2018 21:39:40
You are right in saying I don't understand.
Nor does anyone else, as far as I can tell.
Whose fault is that?

Imagine a metal ball suspended by a force , field.  Now if we increased the strength of the field the field will become denser and the balls radius from the source will increase ,   so directly proportional to the invert, an increase in energy is an increase in density of the field directly proportional to the invert

ok?
That is also nonsense. Why do you use such bizarre phrases as 'proportional to the invert'? Why not use terms that are commonly accepted if you want people to understand you? Or is it the case that you dont want people to understand and you are just stringing them along with meaningless phrases in an attempt to maintain attention?

A typo because I am human, it should of said inverse.

Still a nonsense phrase.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 19/02/2018 21:39:51
If you do not believe me take a trip to the sun, at first time will slow down as the earths field weakens the more you travel away, then time will start to speed up as you get nearer the sun and the field density increase.  There is of course the eventuality time will be so fast your skin will just flake away and you will feel a horrible burning sensation.   
Now if the sun was to increase in output, the field density extends in radius, you would burn up much faster and earlier on in your journey.
That is absolute nonsense.
Electromagnetic radiation does not need a medium to heat,  to be activated, this why astronauts where reflective space suits .

The astronaut travelling to the sun becomes the ''medium'' that reacts to the density of the field.   


'Where reflective spacesuits'? As Kryptid asked  - is English not your first language? It is not just that you are bad at explanation, your use of English is inept.
I am hardly going to concentrate on my grammar, on somebody whom may be trolling me. Did u nt no tha it does no mattr ow it is spelt hit cn be undrstud
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 19/02/2018 21:41:11
You are right in saying I don't understand.
Nor does anyone else, as far as I can tell.
Whose fault is that?

Imagine a metal ball suspended by a force , field.  Now if we increased the strength of the field the field will become denser and the balls radius from the source will increase ,   so directly proportional to the invert, an increase in energy is an increase in density of the field directly proportional to the invert

ok?
That is also nonsense. Why do you use such bizarre phrases as 'proportional to the invert'? Why not use terms that are commonly accepted if you want people to understand you? Or is it the case that you dont want people to understand and you are just stringing them along with meaningless phrases in an attempt to maintain attention?

A typo because I am human, it should of said inverse.

Still a nonsense phrase.
Maybe you need pictures

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

try here i.e inverse
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: The Spoon on 19/02/2018 21:45:16
You are right in saying I don't understand.
Nor does anyone else, as far as I can tell.
Whose fault is that?

Imagine a metal ball suspended by a force , field.  Now if we increased the strength of the field the field will become denser and the balls radius from the source will increase ,   so directly proportional to the invert, an increase in energy is an increase in density of the field directly proportional to the invert

ok?
That is also nonsense. Why do you use such bizarre phrases as 'proportional to the invert'? Why not use terms that are commonly accepted if you want people to understand you? Or is it the case that you dont want people to understand and you are just stringing them along with meaningless phrases in an attempt to maintain attention?

A typo because I am human, it should of said inverse.

Still a nonsense phrase.
Maybe you need pictures

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

try here i.e inverse
So why the hell didnt you say proportional to the inverse square law which people would have understood? If you tried to concentrate a little bit more on your grammar and language in general people may just be able to understand you but instead you play loose with the English language, come up with nonsense phrases then use the excuse that peopel are 'trolling' you when they dont understand.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: The Spoon on 19/02/2018 21:46:24
time will slow down as the earths field weakens the more you travel away, then time will start to speed up as you get nearer the sun and the field density increase.  There is of course the eventuality time will be so fast your skin will just flake away and you will feel a horrible burning sensation
This is of course nonsense and betrays a complete misunderstanding of physics if you really believe this.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 19/02/2018 21:51:32
You are right in saying I don't understand.
Nor does anyone else, as far as I can tell.
Whose fault is that?

Imagine a metal ball suspended by a force , field.  Now if we increased the strength of the field the field will become denser and the balls radius from the source will increase ,   so directly proportional to the invert, an increase in energy is an increase in density of the field directly proportional to the invert

ok?
That is also nonsense. Why do you use such bizarre phrases as 'proportional to the invert'? Why not use terms that are commonly accepted if you want people to understand you? Or is it the case that you dont want people to understand and you are just stringing them along with meaningless phrases in an attempt to maintain attention?

A typo because I am human, it should of said inverse.

Still a nonsense phrase.
Maybe you need pictures

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

try here i.e inverse
So why the hell didnt you say proportional to the inverse square law which people would have understood? If you tried to concentrate a little bit more on your grammar and language in general people may just be able to understand you but instead you play loose with the English language, come up with nonsense phrases then use the excuse that peopel are 'trolling' you when they dont understand.
I assume that any scientist would be smart enough to work out exactly what I was saying with my casual relaxed style of posts.  I am hardly writing a lecture speech or a scientific article in most threads.  You can see over in my N-field thread that I am improving, although I do admit I have some help and they are helping me improve .   
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 19/02/2018 21:54:45
time will slow down as the earths field weakens the more you travel away, then time will start to speed up as you get nearer the sun and the field density increase.  There is of course the eventuality time will be so fast your skin will just flake away and you will feel a horrible burning sensation
This is of course nonsense and betrays a complete misunderstanding of physics if you really believe this.
Or it conveys a better understanding of physics.  Light intensity decreases inversely proportional to the square of the distance.   Why would you think that field density does not?
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: The Spoon on 19/02/2018 21:57:49
You are right in saying I don't understand.
Nor does anyone else, as far as I can tell.
Whose fault is that?

Imagine a metal ball suspended by a force , field.  Now if we increased the strength of the field the field will become denser and the balls radius from the source will increase ,   so directly proportional to the invert, an increase in energy is an increase in density of the field directly proportional to the invert

ok?
That is also nonsense. Why do you use such bizarre phrases as 'proportional to the invert'? Why not use terms that are commonly accepted if you want people to understand you? Or is it the case that you dont want people to understand and you are just stringing them along with meaningless phrases in an attempt to maintain attention?

A typo because I am human, it should of said inverse.

Still a nonsense phrase.
Maybe you need pictures

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

try here i.e inverse
So why the hell didnt you say proportional to the inverse square law which people would have understood? If you tried to concentrate a little bit more on your grammar and language in general people may just be able to understand you but instead you play loose with the English language, come up with nonsense phrases then use the excuse that peopel are 'trolling' you when they dont understand.
I assume that any scientist would be smart enough to work out exactly what I was saying with my casual relaxed style of posts.  I am hardly writing a lecture speech or a scientific article in most threads.  You can see over in my N-field thread that I am improving, although I do admit I have some help and they are helping me improve .   
Why would they? If you provide incomplete information people will not understand, be they scientists or otherwise. Communication is about providing the correct information. You have stated that you have spent 10 years on forums. Has the penny not yet dropped that 'your relaxed, casual style' is not helping to communicate your ideas? It is you who wants to get your ideas across, people arent waiting with baited breath to hear them.

From what I have seen from the N-Field thread you are not really improving at all - you have just increase the amount of jargon.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/02/2018 21:58:13
I am hardly going to concentrate on my grammar, on somebody whom may be trolling me. Did u nt no tha it does no mattr ow it is spelt hit cn be undrstud
It isn't the words themselves that are the problem.
It's the fact that you repeatedly misuse them.
You string them together in ways that make no sense.
You say things happen- "the balls radius from the source will increase ,"- without offering any sort of reason why you think  they might.
And then you refuse to explain what you think it means.
Essentially nothing you write makes sense.
It's not that we are troling.
You just write nonsense.
You might think it makes  sense, but it doesn't.

I assume that any scientist would be smart enough to work out exactly what I was saying with my casual relaxed style of posts. 

It isn't "casual" it's nonsense.
We may be scientists, but you seem to think we are mind readers.

Why bother to post dross?
You just waste our time and yours.
Why not take the time to write clearly, that way you might not need to spend so much time failing to explains stuff because you write it uncleanly the second and third time too.

Why would you think that field density does not?
What do you think "field density" means?
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: The Spoon on 19/02/2018 21:59:40
time will slow down as the earths field weakens the more you travel away, then time will start to speed up as you get nearer the sun and the field density increase.  There is of course the eventuality time will be so fast your skin will just flake away and you will feel a horrible burning sensation
This is of course nonsense and betrays a complete misunderstanding of physics if you really believe this.
Or it conveys a better understanding of physics.  Light intensity decreases inversely proportional to the square of the distance.   Why would you think that field density does not?
Your claim that as you get nearer to the sun 'eventuality time will be so fast your skin will just flake away and you will feel a horrible burning sensation' is utter nonsnese and sounds like it was thought up by an 8 year old.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 19/02/2018 22:01:52
time will slow down as the earths field weakens the more you travel away, then time will start to speed up as you get nearer the sun and the field density increase.  There is of course the eventuality time will be so fast your skin will just flake away and you will feel a horrible burning sensation
This is of course nonsense and betrays a complete misunderstanding of physics if you really believe this.
Or it conveys a better understanding of physics.  Light intensity decreases inversely proportional to the square of the distance.   Why would you think that field density does not?
Your claim that as you get nearer to the sun 'eventuality time will be so fast your skin will just flake away and you will feel a horrible burning sensation' is utter nonsnese and sounds like it was thought up by an 8 year old.
So you think , that if you get closer to a ''gas fire'' that is about 5,778 Kelvin's ,  it will not get any warmer?
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 19/02/2018 22:07:46
What do you think "field density" means?
It means how many different ''parts'' are crammed into one space.    example a   2 cm    grid reference [a],    x,y  dimensions

We can fit in the area a 2cm * 2cm square, but if we squash the square making it denser, we can put two 2cm*2cm squares in the same size area.

ok?

Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 19/02/2018 22:15:22
In short , density is when the space is ''squeezed out of something''.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/02/2018 22:20:05
We can fit in the area a 2cm * 2cm square, but if we squash the square making it denser, we can put two 2cm*2cm squares in the same size area.

ok?
No.
Not  "OK".
It is nonsense.
It seems we have finally got to what it s that you don't understand (or, at least one thing you don't understand).
You can't squash space in that way.
So, after two pages of nonsense we finally get you to say something clear- and it's wrong.
If you wrote competently, we could have spent the time telling you stuff that's true.
But, once again, your dimwitted refusal to start with the basics, or to explain what you mean  got you nowhere.

Why don't you learn?
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 19/02/2018 22:22:37
We can fit in the area a 2cm * 2cm square, but if we squash the square making it denser, we can put two 2cm*2cm squares in the same size area.

ok?
No.
Not  "OK".
It is nonsense.
It seems we have finally got to what it s that you don't understand (or, at least one thing you don't understand).
You can't squash space in that way.
So, after two pages of nonsense we finally get you to say something clear- and it's wrong.
If you wrote competently, we could have spent the time telling you stuff that's true.
But, once again, your dimwitted refusal to start with the basics, or to explain what you mean  got you nowhere.

Why don't you learn?

I know you can't squash space, density is taking up space, the less space there is in an object , the more dense that object is.


I take a full tube of smarties and melt them down, put them back in the same tube melted down, I can now fit more smarties in the tube.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: The Spoon on 19/02/2018 22:25:00
time will slow down as the earths field weakens the more you travel away, then time will start to speed up as you get nearer the sun and the field density increase.  There is of course the eventuality time will be so fast your skin will just flake away and you will feel a horrible burning sensation
This is of course nonsense and betrays a complete misunderstanding of physics if you really believe this.
Or it conveys a better understanding of physics.  Light intensity decreases inversely proportional to the square of the distance.   Why would you think that field density does not?
Your claim that as you get nearer to the sun 'eventuality time will be so fast your skin will just flake away and you will feel a horrible burning sensation' is utter nonsnese and sounds like it was thought up by an 8 year old.
So you think , that if you get closer to a ''gas fire'' that is about 5,778 Kelvin's ,  it will not get any warmer?
If you think that is what I am implying you are either playing the fool or you are one.

You said as you approach the sun:
'time will slow down as the earths field weakens the more you travel away, then time will start to speed up as you get nearer the sun and the field density increase.  There is of course the eventuality time will be so fast your skin will just flake away and you will feel a horrible burning sensation'
That is just preposterous. Do you really think that if you travel near the sun that time will speed in that way? Do you think that time will speed up so much that the speeding up of time will burn your skin off? If so you are more of an idiot than I thought.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 19/02/2018 22:31:52
time will slow down as the earths field weakens the more you travel away, then time will start to speed up as you get nearer the sun and the field density increase.  There is of course the eventuality time will be so fast your skin will just flake away and you will feel a horrible burning sensation
This is of course nonsense and betrays a complete misunderstanding of physics if you really believe this.
Or it conveys a better understanding of physics.  Light intensity decreases inversely proportional to the square of the distance.   Why would you think that field density does not?
Your claim that as you get nearer to the sun 'eventuality time will be so fast your skin will just flake away and you will feel a horrible burning sensation' is utter nonsnese and sounds like it was thought up by an 8 year old.
So you think , that if you get closer to a ''gas fire'' that is about 5,778 Kelvin's ,  it will not get any warmer?
If you think that is what I am implying you are either playing the fool or you are one.

You said as you approach the sun:
'time will slow down as the earths field weakens the more you travel away, then time will start to speed up as you get nearer the sun and the field density increase.  There is of course the eventuality time will be so fast your skin will just flake away and you will feel a horrible burning sensation'
That is just preposterous. Do you really think that if you travel near the sun that time will speed in that way? Do you think that time will speed up so much that the speeding up of time will burn your skin off? If so you are more of an idiot than I thought.
Then think me an idiot.     The astronaut, I and you, the ground you walk on, the air that you breathe is time.    The change of matter is a change of time.   On average we live about 88 years, if we were born 1m away from the sun , you would live for a fraction of  a second, time would pass very fast for you, so fast you would have no memory of it.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/02/2018 22:33:21
I take a full tube of smarties and melt them down, put them back in the same tube melted down, I can now fit more smarties in the tube.
So what?
the volume of the smarties was less than the volume of the tube before you melted them and it was still less than the volume of the tube after you recast them.

if we were born 1m away from the sun , you would live for a fraction of  a second,

Are you deliberately muddling up time dilation with simply getting burned up?
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 19/02/2018 22:43:06
the volume of the smarties was less than the volume of the tube before you melted them and it was still less than the volume of the tube after you recast them.
But the new volume of smarties was more dense , less space between molecules and/or atoms.

Are you deliberately muddling up time dilation with simply getting burned up?
I am not mixing them up, getting burnt would be an extreme case of time dilation and time speeding up, the cells in your arm for example having a rapid response and burning out.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 19/02/2018 22:46:41
Try to understand that if you place your hand in a naked flame, it is not the naked flame that is burning, it is you that is burning by the reaction to the flame.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: The Spoon on 19/02/2018 22:57:44
the volume of the smarties was less than the volume of the tube before you melted them and it was still less than the volume of the tube after you recast them.
But the new volume of smarties was more dense , less space between molecules and/or atoms.

Are you deliberately muddling up time dilation with simply getting burned up?
I am not mixing them up, getting burnt would be an extreme case of time dilation and time speeding up, the cells in your arm for example having a rapid response and burning out.
Oh FFS.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 19/02/2018 23:01:05
the volume of the smarties was less than the volume of the tube before you melted them and it was still less than the volume of the tube after you recast them.
But the new volume of smarties was more dense , less space between molecules and/or atoms.

Are you deliberately muddling up time dilation with simply getting burned up?
I am not mixing them up, getting burnt would be an extreme case of time dilation and time speeding up, the cells in your arm for example having a rapid response and burning out.
Oh FFS.
A very simple experiment I have for you, add some energy to the Caesium atom and see if time speeds up.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 19/02/2018 23:08:07
I predict that if you were to variate the temperature in an atomic clock, time would speed up and slow down even at relative rest.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Kryptid on 20/02/2018 00:12:30
getting burnt would be an extreme case of time dilation and time speeding up

there is no time dilation.

 ::)
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 20/02/2018 00:45:29
getting burnt would be an extreme case of time dilation and time speeding up

there is no time dilation.

 ::)
Then I finally understood the Universe and time

:Δx = ΔS ∝ Δ f ∝ Δ t
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Kryptid on 20/02/2018 00:52:01
:Δx = ΔS ∝ Δ f ∝ Δ t

So you are saying that you accept the existence of time dilation now or what?
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 20/02/2018 00:55:57
:Δx = ΔS ∝ Δ f ∝ Δ t

So you are saying that you accept the existence of time dilation now or what?
Accept it! I have re-written it to be even more accurate, however you have to accept that relativistic time is dependent to mass and occupies absolute space-time.  In simple terms things age relative to the absolute 0 of space-time.


Space -time and absolute :Δx'→0


Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Kryptid on 20/02/2018 01:03:19
When you say "Accept it!", are you telling me to accept time dilation or are you saying that you now accept time dilation?
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 20/02/2018 01:05:37
When you say "Accept it!", are you telling me to accept time dilation or are you saying that you now accept time dilation?
I was being sarcastic, saying , not only do I accept it, I have improved it and can totally explain the reality of it. 
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 20/02/2018 01:13:04
From what I have seen from the N-Field thread you are not really improving at all - you have just increase the amount of jargon.
Hmmm, there is very little jargon in my latest edit and far less attempts at math, I kept the math simple, Please query the thread if there is something you do not understand.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Kryptid on 20/02/2018 01:25:02
I was being sarcastic, saying , not only do I accept it, I have improved it and can totally explain the reality of it. 

Interesting, given how absolutely certain you said you were that you had completely disproved the possibility of time dilation. The quote in my signature comes to mind. So you were the master of time and space, were you? Einstein would have conceded to you about the nonexistence of time dilation, eh? We were all wrong when we told you that your time dilation denial was nonsense, yes?

My two opening statements that are true, show no actual time dilation.

So you proved that time dilation could not exist using "logical axiom proofs" in the past, huh? How does that look in retrospect now? A little short on logic and axioms, it seems.

You'd best use this as a lesson for future reference next time you think you can't be wrong about something.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 20/02/2018 01:33:33
I was being sarcastic, saying , not only do I accept it, I have improved it and can totally explain the reality of it. 

Interesting, given how absolutely certain you said you were that you had completely disproved the possibility of time dilation. The quote in my signature comes to mind. So you were the master of time and space, were you? Einstein would have conceded to you about the nonexistence of time dilation, eh? We were all wrong when we told you that your time dilation denial was nonsense, yes?

My two opening statements that are true, show no actual time dilation.

So you proved that time dilation could not exist using "logical axiom proofs" in the past, huh? How does that look in retrospect now? A little short on logic and axioms, it seems.

You'd best use this as a lesson for future reference next time you think you can't be wrong about something.
Theories take time to develop , while developing they can change, but like I said earlier, you have to understand that absolute time is constant and relativistic time occupies absolute space-time.   So although twin two experiences time at a slower frequency and ages less, he returns to twin one in the present,  because they have both experienced the same amount of absolute time.
So yes there is a time dilation and things can age differently , but everything experiences the same amount of absolute time.

There is also no need for lorentz contractions or light thought experiments, which are poor gimmicks that do not even work.

(Δk = 0 )  = (Δt = 0)

(ΔS = var(E))  = Δt'

Where k is space and E is energy




Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Kryptid on 20/02/2018 02:01:11
A very simple experiment I have for you, add some energy to the Caesium atom and see if time speeds up.

I can think of another experiment, one that wouldn't require the high-precision equipment needed to observe a single atom. Take a water-soluble radioactive tracer and dissolve it in a certain quantity of water. Then separate that radioactive water into two batches of equal mass. Put one batch in the refrigerator and heat the other batch on the stove until it is close to boiling. Now take both batches and use a Geiger counter to measure their respective radioactivity.

If increases in temperature cause time to move more quickly, then the radioisotope dissolved in the hot water should decay more quickly than the radioisotope dissolved in the cold water. This would result in the Geiger counter picking up more "hits" from the hot water than from the cold water. If time dilation doesn't work this way, then the Geiger counter should show no difference between the two samples.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 20/02/2018 02:08:04
A very simple experiment I have for you, add some energy to the Caesium atom and see if time speeds up.

I can think of another experiment, one that wouldn't require the high-precision equipment needed to observe a single atom. Take a water-soluble radioactive tracer and dissolve it in a certain quantity of water. Then separate that radioactive water into two batches of equal mass. Put one batch in the refrigerator and heat the other batch on the stove until it is close to boiling. Now take both batches and use a Geiger counter to measure their respective radioactivity.

If increases in temperature cause time to move more quickly, then the radioisotope dissolved in the hot water should decay more quickly than the radioisotope dissolved in the cold water. This would result in the Geiger counter picking up more "hits" from the hot water than from the cold water. If time dilation doesn't work this way, then the Geiger counter should show no difference between the two samples.
An interesting experiment that I will ponder over, my first though was an error in the experiment but I could not quite put my finger on it.   Have you done this experiment?  If so what was the outcome?

added- I can do a similar experiment with p.v.a lol
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Kryptid on 20/02/2018 04:42:04
Have you done this experiment?  If so what was the outcome?

I haven't, but it could potentially be done at home. Geiger counters can easily exceed one hundred dollars, so it would be a serious investment. Getting a hold of something radioactive is a bigger problem, but the americium in a smoke detector might work. I wouldn't necessarily recommend it, though.

Experiments testing to see if temperature affects radioactive decay rates have been done before: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/416009/do-nuclear-decay-rates-depend-on-temperature/ (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/416009/do-nuclear-decay-rates-depend-on-temperature/)
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: syhprum on 20/02/2018 07:37:10
It is normally stated that the rate of radioactive decay is unaffected by temperature but it has recently suggested  that the stream of Neutrinos that flow from the Sun has some affect.
The intensity of this stream varies according to our distance from the Sun that changes by a small amount thru the year and this is thought to affect the rate of decay
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: The Spoon on 20/02/2018 11:00:28
It is normally stated that the rate of radioactive decay is unaffected by temperature but it has recently suggested  that the stream of Neutrinos that flow from the Sun has some affect.
The intensity of this stream varies according to our distance from the Sun that changes by a small amount thru the year and this is thought to affect the rate of decay

Please state your source.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Kryptid on 20/02/2018 14:40:12
Please state your source.
There were some studies purporting to show that half-life changes (slightly) with the seasons: http://wavewatching.net/2012/09/01/from-the-annals-of-the-impossible-experimental-physics-edition/ (http://wavewatching.net/2012/09/01/from-the-annals-of-the-impossible-experimental-physics-edition/)

A later study suggests that such seasonal variations may not actually happen: https://phys.org/news/2014-10-textbook-knowledge-reconfirmed-radioactive-substances.html (https://phys.org/news/2014-10-textbook-knowledge-reconfirmed-radioactive-substances.html)
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 20/02/2018 15:32:42
Please state your source.
There were some studies purporting to show that half-life changes (slightly) with the seasons: http://wavewatching.net/2012/09/01/from-the-annals-of-the-impossible-experimental-physics-edition/ (http://wavewatching.net/2012/09/01/from-the-annals-of-the-impossible-experimental-physics-edition/)

A later study suggests that such seasonal variations may not actually happen: https://phys.org/news/2014-10-textbook-knowledge-reconfirmed-radioactive-substances.html (https://phys.org/news/2014-10-textbook-knowledge-reconfirmed-radioactive-substances.html)

I prefer the example of my snowmen,  much simpler to explain a change in state of entropy.

Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/02/2018 20:18:18
There are lots of things you can use for measuring the flow of time.
One possibility is to look at the linewidth of a gas discharge lamp- say a sodium lamp.
There are effects of temerperature- very carfully measured ones- and they show the effects of Dopler shifts, but not of time dilation.
The experiment has been done.
Temperature didn't affect time.

So, we can write that idea of as "not how the world works".
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 20/02/2018 21:19:52
There are lots of things you can use for measuring the flow of time.
One possibility is to look at the linewidth of a gas discharge lamp- say a sodium lamp.
There are effects of temerperature- very carfully measured ones- and they show the effects of Dopler shifts, but not of time dilation.
The experiment has been done.
Temperature didn't affect time.

So, we can write that idea of as "not how the world works".
Well it is lucky I do not use temperature T to explain time isn't it. I use S which is more general and shows time can change in many ways.

f(t) ∝  ΔS
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/02/2018 21:39:49
Well, it's an unorthodox approach.
Can you show where it leads?
(and I want maths + thermodynamics rather than hogwash here)

You may find this a useful place to start
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isentropic_process
There are processes where ΔS is zero, but time doesn't stop.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 20/02/2018 21:47:08
Well, it's an unorthodox approach.
Can you show where it leads?
(and I want maths + thermodynamics rather than hogwash here)
I can attempt the math :D
You could probably correct math

Δ t (k ) = 0  where k is space

Δt (m) = x

Δ t (m1) ≠ Δ t' (m2)

Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 20/02/2018 21:56:40
There are processes where ΔS is zero, but time doesn't stop.
(ΔS=0)  =  (Δf (t)  = 0 )
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/02/2018 22:04:52
Did you see this bit
(and I want maths + thermodynamics rather than hogwash here)
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 20/02/2018 22:08:46
Did you see this bit
(and I want maths + thermodynamics rather than hogwash here)

Well as you know I am useless at maths, you must be quite good at it , why don't you do the maths and present it to the forum?
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 20/02/2018 22:13:59
∑ΔS = u/S +hf-hf+hf-hf..............................................

∑S/Rn=c0efbb5b854cd77c8e02a069d69d41b9.gif ∝  1/d
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/02/2018 19:53:22
Did you see this bit
(and I want maths + thermodynamics rather than hogwash here)

Well as you know I am useless at maths, you must be quite good at it , why don't you do the maths and present it to the forum?
Because (broadly speaking) maths is a language for expressing logic, and you haven't provided any.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 21/02/2018 19:57:33
Did you see this bit
(and I want maths + thermodynamics rather than hogwash here)

Well as you know I am useless at maths, you must be quite good at it , why don't you do the maths and present it to the forum?
Because (broadly speaking) maths is a language for expressing logic, and you haven't provided any.
Contrary, I have expressed math based on my logic, this just means you can't automatically read it.  You do not know  my language.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: alancalverd on 21/02/2018 20:00:09
Ah! The British abroad! IF THE NATIVES DON'T UNDERSTAND, JUST SHOUT LOUDER.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 21/02/2018 20:03:29
Ah! The British abroad! IF THE NATIVES DON'T UNDERSTAND, JUST SHOUT LOUDER.
I try to learn the present math Alan, but there isn't always math that explains what I want to try and explain.  The obvious result,  I try to devise some math using present symbols.   
It obviously reads well in my head because I devised it, I understand that you and others may not understand.

Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/02/2018 20:07:03
I have expressed math based on my logic
Try using someone else's, it may work better.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 21/02/2018 20:11:57
I have expressed math based on my logic
Try using someone else's, it may work better.
I use ''your'' symbols, it is the same words, I would happily use somebody else's math if it explains what I need to explain.

I have tried Wiki math several times and you and others say I am wrong, so of course it is quite confusing when I feel I have learnt something then you tell me I am wrong in my learning.

Please tell me , what am I describing when I say   R euclidean space?

Is that made up?

Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/02/2018 21:59:00
Please tell me , what am I describing when I say   R euclidean space?
God only knows what you mean by it, but what the rest of us mean is the sort of 3 d space that a school kind would be expected to broadly understand.
A space where you can define your position relative to some "start point " by saying how much you have gone up and down, how much you have gone left or right and how much you have gone  forwards or backwards.

Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 21/02/2018 22:37:15
Please tell me , what am I describing when I say   R euclidean space?
God only knows what you mean by it, but what the rest of us mean is the sort of 3 d space that a school kind would be expected to broadly understand.
A space where you can define your position relative to some "start point " by saying how much you have gone up and down, how much you have gone left or right and how much you have gone  forwards or backwards.


Well that is what I thought, what about a R Cartesian space?
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/02/2018 19:29:14
A Cartesian space is much the same.

It's possible to be euclidean, but not Cartesian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_space#Non-Cartesian_coordinates
but it's messy.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 23/02/2018 00:31:44
A Cartesian space is much the same.

It's possible to be euclidean, but not Cartesian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_space#Non-Cartesian_coordinates
but it's messy.

So a R Cartesian coordinate system in an Euclidean space would be just a representation of normal space?

Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/02/2018 17:24:10
Pretty much.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 17:29:29
Pretty much.
So why can I not define the conceptual definition of a matrix in being a  R Cartesian coordinate system in an Euclidean space ?

When a matrix in physics is defined:

Quote
In physics, particularly in quantum perturbation theory, the "matrix element" refers to the linear operator of a modified Hamiltonian using Dirac notation. ... Matrix elements are important in atomic, nuclear and particle physics.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/02/2018 19:27:23
"So why can I not define the conceptual definition of a matrix in being a  R Cartesian coordinate system in an Euclidean space ?"

Would you like to try defining some of the terms you just introduced?
"define the conceptual definition "


However , when it comes down to it, matrices have two dimensions and R3 has three.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 19:43:04
"define the conceptual definition "
relating to or based on mental concepts.

Quote
However , when it comes down to it, matrices have two dimensions and R3 has three.

And why can matrices not have 3 ?   



Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/02/2018 21:07:25
"define the conceptual definition "
relating to or based on mental concepts.

Quote
However , when it comes down to it, matrices have two dimensions and R3 has three.

And why can matrices not have 3 ?   

They are 2 dimensional by definition- they have rows and columns.
As I already pointed out.
The rules of maths for them are only defined for 2 dimensions.

Did you not understand that?

Also, I didn't ask you do define " conceptual definition"
I asked you to define "define the conceptual definition ".
Basically, you need to explain what you think you mean by "So why can I not define the conceptual definition of a matrix in being a  R Cartesian coordinate system in an Euclidean space ?".
To do that, you need to break it up into clauses and then define each of them.
Alternatively, you could rewrite it, but properly this time.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 19:12:04
A Cartesian space is much the same.

It's possible to be euclidean, but not Cartesian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_space#Non-Cartesian_coordinates
but it's messy.

So a R Cartesian coordinate system in an Euclidean space would be just a representation of normal space?


So you understood this



 
 
 Online Bored chemist
Naked Science Forum GOD!
*******
 10746
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 147 times
View Profile  Personal Message (Online)
ACTIONS

Re: A gas problem?
Reply #109 on: Yesterday at 17:24:10
Pretty much.

Then claim to not understand one word difference.

Quote
Also, I didn't ask you do define " conceptual definition"
I asked you to define "define the conceptual definition ".
Basically, you need to explain what you think you mean by "So why can I not define the conceptual definition of a matrix in being a  R Cartesian coordinate system in an Euclidean space ?".
To do that, you need to break it up into clauses and then define each of them.
Alternatively, you could rewrite it, but properly this time.

How odd.

Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2018 21:14:42
It's not odd that I understand well documented conventions but not rambling gibberish.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 21:35:31
R Cartesian coordinate system in an Euclidean space would be just a representation of normal space
You said you understood that to be just a normal space, but you can't understand rows and columns in a normal space?
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/02/2018 20:17:23
You said you understood that to be just a normal space, but you can't understand rows and columns in a normal space?
The problem is that you don't seem to understand the difference between 2 and 3

R3 has 3 dimensions. A matrix has 2.
(and thus R3 is not a matrix)

Why are you struggling with that?
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 01:53:45
You said you understood that to be just a normal space, but you can't understand rows and columns in a normal space?
The problem is that you don't seem to understand the difference between 2 and 3

R3 has 3 dimensions. A matrix has 2.
(and thus R3 is not a matrix)

Why are you struggling with that?
You seem to be struggling with rows and columns in a 3 dimension  space, have you never played with a Rubik cube?

Have you never used CGI and coordinate grids?

Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 08:54:38
You seem to be struggling with rows and columns in a 3 dimension  space
I'm not struggling, I can count them just fine.
"Rows" That's one dimension.
"Columns" that's two dimensions.

Where are you seeing a third dimension there?
Do you understand that 2 is not 3?
Do you understand that a 2 dimensional thing like a matrix is not a 3 dimensional thing like R3?
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 08:57:02
You seem to be struggling with rows and columns in a 3 dimension  space
I'm not struggling, I can count them just fine.
"Rows" That's one dimension.
"Columns" that's two dimensions.

Where are you seeing a third dimension there?
Do you understand that 2 is not 3?
Do you understand that a 2 dimensional thing like a matrix is not a 3 dimensional thing like R3?
You need to move yourself around to the side of the cube, you will see more rows and columns.   

Yes I know the difference between 2d and 3d, however you can't seem to comprehend a 3d matrix.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 14:11:02
You need to stop assuming that you are right. It would stop you posting dross like this
You need to move yourself around to the side of the cube, you will see more rows and columns.   

A matrix, by definition is two dimensional.

If you want to try to invent some entity that's a bit like a matrix, but not two dimensional, feel free.
But it will not be a matrix.

Also you will need to invent the laws of maths that go with your new creation.
Frankly I don't think you are clever enough.

however you can't seem to comprehend a 3d matrix.
There is, by definition,  no such thing.
The lack of comprehension is your failure to grasp that.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: alancalverd on 27/02/2018 15:09:00
Semantics.

A mathematical matrix is 2-dimensional. You can have any number of dimensions in an array, but only a 2D array can be called a matrix.

In materials science, a matrix has three dimensions.

The Matrix was just bullshit: a pointless plot and some cheap CGI.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 18:12:25
The Matrix was just bullshit: a pointless plot and some cheap CGI.
I am in no way referring to a movie called the Matrix.   I am talking about a material matrix that is 3 dimensional.   The material being whatever is filling the space.
An atom to me is a R matrix made up of elements a + b ?

Quote from: MrC
If you want to try to invent some entity that's a bit like a matrix, but not two dimensional, feel free.
But it will not be a matrix.

Also you will need to invent the laws of maths that go with your new creation.
Frankly I don't think you are clever enough.

It is xyz math, what is difficult about that?
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 19:09:28
It is xyz math, what is difficult about that?
What do you think that means?
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 19:31:13
It is xyz math, what is difficult about that?
What do you think that means?
I think that means it is dimensional maths and can also be used for coordinate maths.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 19:40:41
Why do you think it helps to post stuff like that?
You have introduced three terms, without explaining what any of them means.
" dimensional maths", " coordinate maths" and ". xyz math".

Since people do maths on 3 dimensional (and huger dimensional) structures with 2 dimensional matrices, why do you think that you need a "matrix" with three dimensions  (in fact something that clearly isn't a matrix)?

No matter what rambling gibberish you post R3 will never be a matrix.

Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 19:47:18
Why do you think it helps to post stuff like that?
You have introduced three terms, without explaining what any of them means.
" dimensional maths", " coordinate maths" and ". xyz math".

Since people do maths on 3 dimensional (and huger dimensional) structures with 2 dimensional matrices, why do you think that you need a "matrix" with three dimensions  (in fact something that clearly isn't a matrix)?

No matter what rambling gibberish you post R3 will never be a matrix.


But the word Matrix sound so cool. :D

Ok I accept that it is not a matrix and will only use a R space.   

As for the other, I think you are cold reading again, if something is a math about something, i.e dimensions , then that math would be dimensional math or whatever the math is being used for.


Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 20:31:09
Just as a concrete example of why you are wrong, here's something I don't expect you to understand.
The matrix which represents rotation in three dimensions is given here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_matrix#In_three_dimensions

The matrix has two dimensions. It has three rows and three columns.





As for the other, I think you are cold reading again, i
What do you think "cold reading" means?
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 20:37:20
Just as a concrete example of why you are wrong, here's something I don't expect you to understand.
The matrix which represents rotation in three dimensions is given here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_matrix#In_three_dimensions

The matrix has two dimensions. It has three rows and three columns.





As for the other, I think you are cold reading again, i
What do you think "cold reading" means?

Can't interpret anything other than the exact,  not having enough ambiguity in your reading to comprehend something with words used in relation to rather than the exact.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 20:38:50
Just as a concrete example of why you are wrong, here's something I don't expect you to understand.
The matrix which represents rotation in three dimensions is given here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_matrix#In_three_dimensions
I understood that because I have used cgi.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 20:42:05
Just as a concrete example of why you are wrong, here's something I don't expect you to understand.
The matrix which represents rotation in three dimensions is given here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_matrix#In_three_dimensions
I understood that because I have used cgi.
Then why did you think you needed a three d matrix?
Just as a concrete example of why you are wrong, here's something I don't expect you to understand.
The matrix which represents rotation in three dimensions is given here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_matrix#In_three_dimensions

The matrix has two dimensions. It has three rows and three columns.





As for the other, I think you are cold reading again, i
What do you think "cold reading" means?

Can't interpret anything other than the exact,  not having enough ambiguity in your reading to comprehend something with words used in relation to rather than the exact.
That's interesting.
Now go and look up what it really means.

That's the point.
It's not a problem with my reading.
You just keep using the wrong words.
Why not stop being crap at communication and science, by being a bit more careful and not making up dross?
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 20:48:11
Just as a concrete example of why you are wrong, here's something I don't expect you to understand.
The matrix which represents rotation in three dimensions is given here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_matrix#In_three_dimensions
I understood that because I have used cgi.
Then why did you think you needed a three d matrix?
Just as a concrete example of why you are wrong, here's something I don't expect you to understand.
The matrix which represents rotation in three dimensions is given here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_matrix#In_three_dimensions

The matrix has two dimensions. It has three rows and three columns.





As for the other, I think you are cold reading again, i
What do you think "cold reading" means?

Can't interpret anything other than the exact,  not having enough ambiguity in your reading to comprehend something with words used in relation to rather than the exact.
That's interesting.
Now go and look up what it really means.

That's the point.
It's not a problem with my reading.
You just keep using the wrong words.
Why not stop being crap at communication and science, by being a bit more careful and not making up dross?
If one must start to communicate as if having a dictionary shoved up their proverbial backside, then one must stop having fun while learning.  One cannot  make up physical facts, the physical facts govern themselves.
One is hardly making up dross when one is using present information for one's reference.   If one was to not use reference, then one would indeed be making things up.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 20:51:55
One cannot  make up physical facts, the physical facts govern themselves.

You made this up
, density is when the space is ''squeezed out of something''.
There are plenty of other examples.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 21:02:09
One cannot  make up physical facts, the physical facts govern themselves.

You made this up
, density is when the space is ''squeezed out of something''.
There are plenty of other examples.
Again Sir , a classic example of my definition of cold reading.  Did you not think to yourself, that maybe something else was meant by this?   As the obvious is space cannot be squeezed.   
In an example of ''your ''cold reading, space is expanding.   That is similar context to me saying the space is squeezed out.  However I accept I could of thought better and worded that differently.  I should of said the more dense an object is , the less space there is between atoms.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 21:59:57
Did you not think to yourself, that maybe something else was meant by this?   As the obvious is space cannot be squeezed

It was possible that you meant something other than what you said.
However, you did say it when I asked you to clarify something.
If your  reaction to being asked to explain something it so say something other than what you mean, then I really don't see how you plan to make progress.
I should of said the more dense an object is , the less space there is between atoms.
That wouldn't have made much sense in context.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 22:01:28


Here's the context.
What do you think "field density" means?
It means how many different ''parts'' are crammed into one space.    example a   2 cm    grid reference [a],    x,y  dimensions

We can fit in the area a 2cm * 2cm square, but if we squash the square making it denser, we can put two 2cm*2cm squares in the same size area.

ok?


Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 02/03/2018 10:27:44


Here's the context.
What do you think "field density" means?
It means how many different ''parts'' are crammed into one space.    example a   2 cm    grid reference [a],    x,y  dimensions

We can fit in the area a 2cm * 2cm square, but if we squash the square making it denser, we can put two 2cm*2cm squares in the same size area.

ok?



Dude I know what density is,  just because I can't explain back in my own words very good, that does not mean I do not understand it .
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 11:07:19
Dude I know what density is,  just because I can't explain back in my own words very good, that does not mean I do not understand it
Two things.
First, the  quotes show you don't understand it. Secondly
 [ Invalid Attachment ]
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 02/03/2018 11:10:41
Dude I know what density is,  just because I can't explain back in my own words very good, that does not mean I do not understand it
Two things.
First, the  quotes show you don't understand it. Secondly
 [ Invalid Attachment ]

I could just use the google definition

Quote
Density is a measure of mass per unit of volume. ... The average density of an object equals its total mass divided by its total volume. An object made from a comparatively dense material (such as iron) will have less volume than an object of equal mass made from some less dense substance (such as water).


Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 12:03:41
Yes, you could use that one.
But instead, you invented one that makes no sense.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 02/03/2018 12:08:06
Yes, you could use that one.
But instead, you invented one that makes no sense.
I could define density another way, the way I tried to describe it to you.  I see density to be different than ''your'' version.

It is physics that uses their own definitions , different to what normal people understand.

normal density
ˈdɛnsɪti/Submit
noun
1.
the degree of compactness of a substance.


I did not explain it wrong,

It means how many different ''parts'' are crammed into one space.    example a   2 cm    grid reference [a],    x,y  dimensions

We can fit in the area a 2cm * 2cm square, but if we squash the square making it denser, we can put two 2cm*2cm squares in the same size area.

Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 18:05:33
We can fit in the area a 2cm * 2cm square, but if we squash the square making it denser, we can put two 2cm*2cm squares in the same size area.
Are you really not able to recognise that, while you can scrunch up paper to fit into a smaller space, you have nor scrunched up the space itself.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: The Spoon on 02/03/2018 18:46:06
We can fit in the area a 2cm * 2cm square, but if we squash the square making it denser, we can put two 2cm*2cm squares in the same size area.
No, by squashing it you make it smaller. You dont make it denser. You therefore obviously dont understand density then. Amongst many other things.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 04/03/2018 12:26:34
We can fit in the area a 2cm * 2cm square, but if we squash the square making it denser, we can put two 2cm*2cm squares in the same size area.
No, by squashing it you make it smaller. You dont make it denser. You therefore obviously dont understand density then. Amongst many other things.
Quite obviously to the trained mind, if you can squash something making it smaller, it was not very dense to begin with.   Using a diamond in my example would not work for  because it would be to  dense to squash. However if used something sponge like I could squash a few in because the molecules of the sponge are not tight ''knitted'' like a diamond.

Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/03/2018 14:37:42
Using a diamond in my example would not work for  because it would be to  dense to squash.
The comprehensibility of diamond is about 0.2ppm per atmosphere.
It's about the same as that of tungsten carbide.
However, diamond is about a quarter of the density of tungsten carbide.

You seem not to recognise that density is not a measure of compresssibility.

This, in turn, shows that you do not understand density.
Since you are relying on a misunderstanding of density when you talk about space, it is not surprising that you don't seem to understand space either.

It really is time you stopped posting this rubbish and went  and learned something.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 04/03/2018 14:52:53
Using a diamond in my example would not work for  because it would be to  dense to squash.
The comprehensibility of diamond is about 0.2ppm per atmosphere.
It's about the same as that of tungsten carbide.
However, diamond is about a quarter of the density of tungsten carbide.

You seem not to recognise that density is not a measure of compresssibility.

This, in turn, shows that you do not understand density.
Since you are relying on a misunderstanding of density when you talk about space, it is not surprising that you don't seem to understand space either.

It really is time you stopped posting this rubbish and went  and learned something.
Wow ! your ego inflates more than the universe.  It is quite rude that you think you understand how I think about things.  I already have answered what time is and what gravity is.  A lot more than you ever do.  In fact all you seem to do is moan at people , I think I will rename you Meldrew.
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/03/2018 15:44:48
Wow ! your ego inflates more than the universe.  It is quite rude that you think you understand how I think about things.  I already have answered what time is and what gravity is.  A lot more than you ever do. 

I have a massive ego.
However it's not so big that it deludes me into thinking that " already have answered what time is and what gravity is."

In fact all you seem to do is moan at people
Only when they warrant it.
I moan at you because you post dross on a science web site.

Perhaps you would like to go back an rework your ideas now that you recognise the difference between density and compressibility.

Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: guest39538 on 04/03/2018 15:58:09
Wow ! your ego inflates more than the universe.  It is quite rude that you think you understand how I think about things.  I already have answered what time is and what gravity is.  A lot more than you ever do.

I have a massive ego.
However it's not so big that it deludes me into thinking that " already have answered what time is and what gravity is."

In fact all you seem to do is moan at people
Only when they warrant it.
I moan at you because you post dross on a science web site.

Perhaps you would like to go back an rework your ideas now that you recognise the difference between density and compressibility.


No, I have answered time and gravity,  I know I have because the answers I give are the end answer.  There is no other answer after my conclusive answer. My answers are based on reality, science and objective facts, in short when I give my certainty, that is because the laws of the universe confirm my certainty.

Challenge my time notions if you like or that neutral is attracted neutral is gravity. You will lose every time because I did not make reality .
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Kryptid on 04/03/2018 17:52:22
No, I have answered time and gravity,  I know I have because the answers I give are the end answer.  There is no other answer after my conclusive answer. My answers are based on reality, science and objective facts, in short when I give my certainty, that is because the laws of the universe confirm my certainty.

Challenge my time notions if you like or that neutral is attracted neutral is gravity. You will lose every time because I did not make reality .

You have expressed similar certainty about things in the past that you ultimately ended up changing your mind about:

(Earlier) "Time dilation absolutely cannot exist, here is my logical axiom proof!"
(Later) "Okay, time dilation does exist, but it doesn't work the way scientists think it does."

(Earlier) "Electrons cannot exist independently of protons!"
(Later) "Okay, electrons can exist independently of protons, but only because they are bottled by an N-field."
Title: Re: A gas problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/03/2018 17:56:00
You will lose every time because I did not make reality .

I think that says a lot.