1

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: 21/09/2018 05:48:43 »

Then again, as a individual you will die anyway. Global warming or not.
If you stop there, then it doesn't matter.

But if ask yourself what we could become?
Then it matters

2

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: 21/09/2018 05:44:48 »

Sometimes you can be so smart that you outsmart yourself.
That's what I expect us to have done.

Maybe there is a future waiting
But not for the likes of us.

3

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: 21/09/2018 05:40:28 »

Good riddance

4

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: 21/09/2018 05:38:20 »

Soo, how desperate are we?

Well, you're not. Every summer is like the last one, more or less :)
Am I right?

How desperate are those looking at statistics then?
quite....

How about seeding the atmosphere, or the the Arctic Antarctic surface?
Or this https://www.the-cryosphere.net/12/2955/2018/

Building underwater walls.

Jules Verne, come back, we need you :)
Won't work, won't help.
We're working against a chaotic system that we've forced into a 'superposition' of sorts.
The climate is wobbling

Everybody is so phreaking scared about their savings, and so locked into a system fostering inequality and the basest instincts you have. It may be that this is 'humanity'

If so?

=
'Spelling

5

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: 13/09/2018 14:20:20 »

And a lesson learnt.

6

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: 13/09/2018 14:19:14 »

And yes, it will be a tragedy.
But there may also be a future past that tragedy.

7

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: 13/09/2018 14:15:55 »

What I want to come to is that, maybe, just maybe, global warming can help us get out from that mold. Presuming we don't kill ourselves off in the mean time that is. Because it will force us to change, no matter how little we want too.

8

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: 13/09/2018 14:12:53 »

Not really Opportunity :)
Aliens etc has nothing to do with it.

And yes, I do use money. We all do, one way or another everyone barter what resources they have. Money is just a simplified extension of it.

9

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: 13/09/2018 13:54:43 »

Maybe it's inevitable. Maybe those that think that the real reason why we don't 'see' any extra terrestrial life around us are right. Maybe they all are stepped in the same mold as us, and so they go extinct in a geologically short period of time.

10

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: 13/09/2018 13:50:26 »

And the instinctive reaction to famines wars etc is to reproduce.

11

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: 13/09/2018 13:49:19 »

So what makes us unable to change course?
We're animals, no different from the rest of the fauna, and we have needs.

Those needs steer us through life, sexuality, food, somewhere you call home. Our territorial instincts. All of those, and then there is greed. they combine to put us into a mold that is extremely hard to cut lose from. and it gives even those of us seeing what happens a sense of futility. Like the idea of blaming global warming on us not being vegetarian, it doesn't make sense, if we want to stop it you need to get rid of everything that use fossil fuels, including power plants, cars, including the industries that gives you your job. That's what we need to do, we also need to stop reproducing. We need to recycle all and any stuff that doesn't fit our planets cycle of life. But we do noting about it, instead we compete harder and harder for those diminishing resources that still exist.

12

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: 12/09/2018 05:10:06 »

Let's take a look at Hurricane Harvey, and some of its costs.
http://www.bkfs.com/CorporateInformation/NewsRoom/Pages/20170908a.aspx

13

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: 11/09/2018 15:36:26 »

So what are our chances then?

It's between increasing inequality, poverty and famine, getting into debt due to loans that you won't be able to pay back as global warming increase and storms etc hits you, droughts and floods.

And a growing feeling of it all being due to SEP and SEF.
The last one leads to wars, small arm wars, where big states 'compete' on other peoples territory to then grow to bigger wars.

You're in between those two extremes. Which one is better? Well, my hope is for the first, because I sincerely hope such will delay a third world war, and possibly make it impossible as Global warming will take precedence locally. But everyone wants to blame it on somebody, don't they?

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Are there different types of gravity?

« on: 11/09/2018 05:29:04 »

It's tricky Bill

Did you mean that finding a quote in which Einstein said that gravity is not a force, would be tricky?

Perhaps my interpretation is skewed, but your excellent posts seem to say quite clearly that Einstein saw gravity as a force, albeit one that was more complex, and perhaps less mysterious, than "simple" Newtonian gravity.

No, you have to reread it.
It's not about 'forces', then again it is. And it's not about 'fields', then again, it is :)

Seems to me he didn't agree wholeheartedly with any of the modern interpretations.
Do as I, reread and reread :) until it hurts
=

what he did believe though, is that it was relative
and that in itself demands some/one/thing to interact, doesn't it?
=

" Already in the first papers in which Einstein starts making use of the metric tensor to give an account of gravitation, he is at pains to establish the status of the geodesic equation as describing the motion of particles as “straight and uniform” (geradlinig und gleichförmig) even when subject to gravity.  ...   Einstein thought of (static) gravitational fields not as invariant force fields diverting particles from inertial motion. Already, in 1912, he thought of equation (1) as describing inertial motion on one hand, and as describing motion in the presence of (static) gravitational fields on the other. "

=

That's different from what the geometric idea describes today, a 'bent' SpaceTime. He's looking at it differently.
But we both have a hard time not reading into it what we ourselves think. I called a 'field' of sorts earlier, but I'm not sure Einstein would have agreed to that.

It's like he saw something we still are blind too. A 'SpaceTime' that isn't 'bent' at all. Which makes me wonder what he thought his 'fifth dimension' would do

15

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is it feasible to create higgs boson without accelerator?

« on: 10/09/2018 15:49:26 »

?

Einstein defines the electromagnetic field as observer dependent. So you need both a EM field and a observer, in motion relative it, or co moving with it, to define it one way or another. As you say gluons are massless particles, similar to 'photons/bosons'. Presuming there is something even more fundamental than gluons you possibly could release as a byproduct, some 'energy' in a interaction, otherwise no as I think?

But I'm not sure what you are thinking of here. It's like Evan wrote, indeterministic behavior at that very small quantum scale and maybe that's all that are needed.

16

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What is Important About Instantaneous Age Changes in the Twin "paradox"?

« on: 09/09/2018 09:50:51 »

I don't see why you think that a time dilation always must be slower Mike. As long as the arrow of time goes in one same direction for both.

17

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Are there different types of gravity?

« on: 08/09/2018 20:31:39 »

It's pretty cool, isn't it :)
He defined it as relativity joining inertia and gravity into one entity as I gather.

This " Already, in 1912, he thought of equation (1) as describing inertial motion on one hand, and as describing motion in the presence of (static) gravitational fields on the other. "

And notice how he then treat 'motion'
=

Actually it's more than tricky.   " Already in the first papers in which Einstein starts making use of the metric tensor to give an account of gravitation, he is at pains to establish the status of the geodesic equation as describing the motion of particles as “straight and uniform” (geradlinig und gleichförmig) even when subject to gravity."

What that states to me is that even if there is no 'force' acting he presumably still could consider it a 'field', in where what we would call a 'force' became induced by what frame of reference you choose. You can always take away a gravitational 'field' by being in a free fall, the 'force' of gravity only exist as long as long as you're without that free fall. Earth may be in a geodesic, but we're not. Ah, well we are, but we aren't :)

18

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Are there different types of gravity?

« on: 08/09/2018 20:14:04 »

It's tricky Bill. Einstein didn't consider it a geometry, as far as I get it,. He used calculus and thought of gravity and inertia in those terms. the geometric interpretation was something that came without him, not meaning that he didn't see the implications, just that he found it questionable. " he thought that General Relativity was no more and no less geometrical than Maxwells theory of electromagnetism; and that the important achievement of GR was the advancement of the unification programme in direct continuation of special relativistic electrodynamics. Einstein thought that the special theory unified electricity and magnetism, the general theory inertia and gravity. Yet, we shall see that, unbeknown to most scholars, Einstein was emphatic in his belief that this should not be interpreted as a ‘geometrization’of gravity, especially if ‘geometrization’was seen as a reduction of gravity/inertia to spacetime geometry

.... As early as 1926 Einstein insisted, explicitly, that his work should not be understood as reducing physics to geometry, either his work on GR or his (and Weyl's and Eddington's) work on a unified field theory of gravitation and electromagnetism. Interestingly, what seems to be Einstein's first clear statement on the matter was prompted by a letter from Hans Reichenbach. Reichenbach was at the time engaging with Weyl's and Eddington's theories, and wrote Einstein that he thought that seeing electricity as geometrical in Weyl's theory is not more than an illustration (Veranschaulichung), one that, he argued, is equally possible (and equally trivial) in GR. Einstein agreed wholeheartedly, writing ' You are completely right. It is wrong to think that ‘geometrization’ is something essential. It is only a kind of crutch (Eselsbrücke) for the finding of numerical laws. Whether one links ‘geometrical’ intuitions with a theory is a … private matter. '   "

So when speaking about a geodesic it's not a geometric path in his terms, " Already in the first papers in which Einstein starts making use of the metric tensor to give an account of gravitation, he is at pains to establish the status of the geodesic equation as describing the motion of particles as “straight and uniform” (geradlinig und gleichförmig) even when subject to gravity. This would lead him to call the geodesic equation a “generalized law of inertia”; redefining inertial paths such that the category includes motion under the influence of gravity. ..... Already in a note added in proof to Einstein (1912), Einstein had stated that equation (1) gives the equation of motion of point particles “not subject to external forces”.

Thus, it was clear that already in 1912, before even embarking on a metric theory of gravitation, Einstein thought of (static) gravitational fields not as invariant force fields diverting particles from inertial motion. Already, in 1912, he thought of equation (1) as describing inertial motion on one hand, and as describing motion in the presence of (static) gravitational fields on the other. "

"  Einstein effectively states that the very distinction between ‘gravity’ and ‘inertia’ is useful only for relating the theory to its predecessor theories; it is not a distinction from within the theory itself. Put differently, if one just looks at the theory without relating it to predecessor theories, there is no need whatsoever to distinguish ‘inertial terms’ and ‘gravitational terms’ in the geodesic equation. "

By that I understand he meaning that talking about gravity as a force directing the inertia (willingness to keep on indefinitely) of a test particle made little sense to him.

"  In Einstein's mind, the unification was very similar indeed, as the December 1919/January 1920 text on the development of relativity shows. There, he recalls the magnet-conductor thought experiment described in the first paragraph of his 1905 paper on special relativity, from which he concludes. ' The existence of the electric field is a relative one, depending on the state of motion of the coordinate system used; only the electric and magnetic field together can be attributed a kind of objective reality, independent of the state of motion of the observer, i.e. of the coordinate system. '

Einstein then describes how he worked on a review article of special relativity in 1907, and links the above realisation regarding the electric and magnetic field to another thought experiment regarding inertia and gravity: ' Then I had the most fortunate thought of my life in the following form: The gravitational field only has a relative existence in a manner similar to the electric field generated by electro-magnetic induction. Because for an observer in free fall from the roof of a house, there is during the fall — at least in his immediate vicinity — no gravitational field. Namely, if the observer lets go of any bodies, they remain, relative to him, in a state of rest or uniform motion, independent of their special chemical or physical nature '

quotes taken from " Why Einstein did not believe that General Relativity geometrizes gravity " By Dennis Lehmkuhl.

19

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does a Crooke's Radiometer behave differently in an ultrahigh vacuum?

« on: 08/09/2018 18:33:31 »

And thank you Chris for bringing this up, it made my day.

20

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does a Crooke's Radiometer behave differently in an ultrahigh vacuum?

« on: 08/09/2018 18:14:10 »

It's correct that it turns around in a cold environment, just as you said BC,, and space definitely is a cool place. But reading the comments I still don't know how it works, well there are some pretty shrewd ideas in the link but? :) Check the link I gave out and see if you guys make more sense of it. And yes, the link contains both simulations you can try and practical tests.