« on: 03/05/2020 17:45:01 »
Wait. ... Wait ... Just let me get settled with a cuppa and a rich tea.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Do you still have the same snow crystals?For an infinitesimally small change, yes you do- obviously.
Did you think you had a point there?
Precisely!!! in principle these things are reversible, but somehow, in reality, they aren't... I wonder why... it's almost as if the world is not made of ideal systems that readily achieve equilibrium, and that machines we make (macroscopic or molecular) can be inefficient at doing things, but more inefficient one way than in the reverse (think of pushing or pulling a mass with a string).
Precisely!!! in principle these things are reversible, but somehow, in reality, they aren't... I wonder why... it's almost as if the world is not made of ideal systems that readily achieve equilibrium, and that machines we make (macroscopic or molecular) can be inefficient at doing things, but more inefficient one way than in the reverse (think of pushing or pulling a mass with a string). LEDs make lousy photodiodes and PV cells make lousy LEDs, because there are ways of inherently tipping where the inefficiencies lie.
It may be less proper to talk about catalysts in systems that cannot achieve equilibrium, but I would rather be developing catalysts that can be useful in non-equilibrium systems that surround us. I should be more careful in defining what is "in" the systems that I work with, but functionally and practically, it still makes sense to me to talk about irreversible catalytic systems.
Given that it's not really to do with statistics, am I allowed to say "Be quiet; the grown ups are talking" ?The freezing and thawing of water is not a naturally reversible process.Utter bollocks.
You don't seem to know the meaning of the word.
Well if you want to be all statistical about it ... I am talking natural and not statistical. I remember being a kid and taking out the half frozen ice cubes from the freezer. You could crack them open and drink out the cold water inside.
It fascinated me that the same ice cube would thaw from the outside when it had initially frozen from the outside. This wasn't reversing the process, since it couldn't. You couldn't magically introduce heat into the centre of the ice cube. Certainly nature couldn't do that.
Heat transfer itself is not naturally reversible so how could freezing and thawing be a naturally reversible process? Statistics can hide a multitude of sins.
Quote from: JanusAgain, since the m here refers to proper mass, it doesn't apply to a photon. Instead, the momentum for a photon is found by
p = hf/c
And the general equation ends up giving you E= hf for the photon.
I understand both equations (surprise!), but am not clear as to how p = hf/c becomes E= hf.
The freezing and thawing of water is not a naturally reversible process.Utter bollocks.
You don't seem to know the meaning of the word.
What is your point? When was the N.T. penned? You never answered correctly. You changed your answer but that too was way off as I showed you.HE's my DAD, the ONE I longed for all my life and gave up hope I'd fine.This really belongs in the "God" thread, but it's the key to monotheistic faith.
Most people spend their childhood in an environment where, whatever happens during the day, a big man with a beard (or at least a 5 o'clock shadow) arrives in the evening and dishes out justice, forgiveness, pizza, etc. Some of us grow up and assume all the responsibilities of a dad (or mum), including the liability for failure. Others, who lack the guts to be a proper adult, get on their knees and hope that there's another big man with a beard who will put things right in this life or the next, if you ask nicely. And some make a living by embellishing and selling that ridiculous idea, for which there is no actual evidence.
Here is a way to calculate the age of the universe.
In the article it is stated:
Time = distance to a given galaxy /its velocity recession = age of the Universe.
This is a fatal mistake!!!
Based on the expansion rate, the recession velocity is just a temporary velocity that represents its current distance.
It is quite clear that in the past the distance was shorter and therefore its recession velocity was lower.
Don't forget that at the past this galaxy could be located at a distance of only 3MLY.
At that time its recession velocity was only 72 Km/s due to Ho
H = 72 km/s/Mpc
So, it is our obligation to calculate how long time it took the galaxy to increase its distance and velocity.
Based on my calculation it should take 12 By just to cross the first 3MLyHow many years are needed for the 75Km/s expansion rate to cross that distance of 3MLY?Therefore, that simple calculation doesn't represent the reality of space expansion.
28.38 * 10^18 Km / 2,366,769,450 Km/y = 11.991 * 10^9 years
Let's assume that 11.991 * 10^9 years is almost 12 *10^9 Years.
How could they make such a sever mistake?
That is a hope of some. Others hope for termination. I studied reincarnation and cosmic reincarnation for quite a long time. It is manís dreams. Yet it is not Godís dreams.
For most of my life I have assumed that when I die I will cease to exist, except for a while in the memory of some. My experiences tell me that there is likely to be life after death and that we reincarnate. I did not get the belief out of hope that I will not cease to exist.
A lot of people fear death and also fear the nothingness that might come, and I accept that some might believe in a soul because it offers hope. I have lived with the belief of simple termination for so long that it does not bother me that I might be wrong..
A simple rational reason for reincarnation is that the afterlife would be so full of souls it could not cope. When one goes back to man's origin as a single cell then the number of single celled souls would be even more mind-boggling. If one argues that only modern man (after Neanderthal man) has a soul then one has to ask why? What was the defining point? You should also realize that the concept of life after death has been with humankind for a very long time - probably even with the Neanderthals.
Since you claim the "structure" is conserved, a photon and an electron must have the same structure.
I claim that the positron has anti-structure (totally picturable in my model), so positron-electron annihilation has a sum over structures that cancels. I don't know how to be modest about this.Maxwell explained that a hundred years and more ago. Without needing your imaginary particle.
Maxwell states that a photon start out at light speed. But the particle it came from must have gone slower than light. So exactly what happens at the moment the particle emits a photon? Maxwell does not give a step by step explanation of this.
Your making up new particles now?
With the made up particle I can explain how an emitted photon reaches light speed in classical physical terms. Or how it appears to be generated at light speed.Well, the implication of what you say is that gammas are the same as electrons.
Why does it imply that?
You said "If the hole was really big, and there was an observer inside the EH then they would see the particles behaving in just the way particles normally do."The answer is essentially correct. An event horizon is a mathematical singularity, meaningful only to an outside perspective, not a local one. A system crossing the event horizon defined by some distant observer O will simply cease to be a possible source of causal interaction to O, forever. This is no different than a star crossing Earth's event horizon 16 BLY away. That star can no longer have any effect on us, yet nothing physical happens to the star because it has done this.
Likewise, a molecule inside a black hole experiences similar physics like it always did. Bosons and gravitons and such cannot cross back over the distant observer's EH, which is why the waves detected by LIGO from merging black holes abruptly switch off.
Large black holes do matter. Small ones have insane tidal forces, and that is very much locally detectable. Under strong enough tidal forces, molecules and even atoms can be ripped apart, which is empirically different physics than a relatively uniform gravitational field.
All the above answer is based on a mathematical model that presumes spacetime within a black hole. There are some models that put such locations outside of spacetime, rendering it meaningless to discuss the physics within.
Have you been beyond the event horizon of a black hole?It's sort of possible that I have, but if I have, I still am.
A few decades ago it was reasonable to ponder the idea that the whole universe was a black hole and were all inside it.
Better measurements etc have ruled that out.
The point is that you might be in a black hole, but not know it.