Leaderboard

An excellent editorial that expresses very clearly and concisely the reservations some of us have been trying to articulate about this announcement: - the huge gap between laser beam energy input and the power needed to run the lasers, - the huge and yet-to-be addressed challenges in capturing the energy released and converting it into steam to run a turbine, - the issue, once all that is solved, of bringing the costs down to a scale that enable the technology to become economic, - and finally, given that all the above will take decades of further work with a still uncertain prospect of success, the risk the paper clearly sees of people taking fusion as yet another excuse for procrastinating on the urgent issue of decarbonising the world's economy as soon as we possibly can, using the renewable energy technologies that we have in our hands already.

Right. Experimental evidence. Of course. The net force is the sum of the two forces, so it would be nonzero if one force were stronger than the other.

Hi everyone. So I understand deduction to be any argument where the conclusion is certain to follow from the premises assuming those premises are true. With induction, the conclusion is only likely if the premises are true. But I have noticed that in some academic circles, specifically related to criminology/criminal profiling that people seem to think things like: 1. "Induction is reasoning from the specific to the general" 2. "Induction is when a conclusion is made using generalisations and probability" (those are types of induction, but not the only kind). 3. "Deduction is drawing conclusions from the physical evidence" (What?!?!?!?!?) 4. "Deduction is reasoning from the general to the specific". In each of these examples, I am referring to situations where a criminology textbook/expert has specifically made the distinction between induction and deduction. So it is not an example where a detective might have been giving an interview and then used the word "deduced" as a synonym for "I reasoned...". I was wondering if anyone knew what is leading to all the confusion in a subject that is very clear about the definitions. I would also add that the definitions found in criminology/profiling literature don't seem useful. For example, if you accept their definitions there is nothing more to learn. They don't begin to explain how to improve thinking when you are reasoning from the specific to the general or vis versa. It is as if they just give a definition for the limited purpose of being able to classify their thinking.

Sure, it does. Of course, it can. There is no issue with these.

Gosh and I though that some scholars received a thorough grounding in the classics. Forget the word even in its scientific use it has nothing to do with whatever you are asking about. You might like to be informed that mechanics and electrics are different sciences following different physical laws. You cannot explain all of mechanics in terms of electrics or all of electrics in terms of mechanics. That is why science recognises four fundamental forces operating in the universe , gravity and the 'electric force' being two of them. But then that is only when working within the force model of things. There are several other models with different interpretations.

This is right. The weight is electrical grounding. No questions here.

I don't see how this represents a chain of reasoning explaining how you get from my demonstrating that there is more than one meaning to the word grounding to your assertion that Surely you can see that many implications could result from from my demonstration. So it is encumbent upon your own goodself to sift through and discard inappropriate ones before asserting anything ? In fact the correct implication is that scientists use particular definitions of many if not most words so that they are not confused with everyday definitions or if there are multiple definitions the appropriate one is chosen. Exactly so +1

No. A plane being grounded is a decision made by humans; it’s not a physics issue. It’s not analogous to electrical grounding. An object at rest has no net force on it. How is that analogous to electrical grounding? An object’s “internal conserved charge” is not involved in grounding. Grounding involves conduction electrons, which are not attached to any particular atom. Newtonian gravity is an attraction of masses. I’m not seeing the connection. Science uses more precise definitions for its terminology than in everyday speech.

But those are completely different meanings. Electrical grounding means providing a conducting pathway for charges to flow through. Grounding airplanes means a human being orders the pilots to land and/or not take off. You need to figure out what your questions are and explain what you mean by the terms in them before criticizing how people answer them. And this is a good place to start. How do you define "grounded" and "the grounding process"? Citing meanings in electrostatics and aviation is worthless in discussions about gravity and bulk matter.

It's up to the repliers to present the facts to you. If you're unable to understand them or unwilling to accept them, that's your business.

No. A child that has misbehaved my be 'grounded' , but that is also an entirely different non scientific usage. I agree the experiment is not relevant to this thread, any more than most of your posting. However I also observe that you appear from your responses not to have understood it. Firstly Millikan's experiment was to measure the ratio of charge to mass of the electron, not the charge or the mass. Secondly the oil drop experiment did confirm Faraday's electrochemical experiment that there is a fundamental unit of charge that the charge always changes in integer multiples of. Millakan's book is a masterpiece of patient experiment - observation - deduction.

To me, lecturing people about things you don't understand is cheating.

You can figure all that out once you understand how a simple capacitor works. Charges ( or lack of ) do migrate, and attract opposite charges. Take Mordred's advice and start with the basics.

I have no more proof that you are genuine or a clever troll, than you have for any of the outrageous and unsubstantiated claims you have made here. But I do find your response style to anyone who genuinely tries to answer your questions reminiscent of a now banned member who claimed to be a philosopher living in Hong Kong. To whit ignore the offered explanation and introduce further irrelevant or outrageous statements.

To add to Lorentz Jr answer you might want to study Newtons laws of momentum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion there is a section there specifically on electromagnetism while your at it memorize the following statement "Mass is the resistance to inertia change" then look and see how that applies to the Laws above the reason I suggest the above is that you seem to lack in basic physics and the above applies to every physics theory. So its highly important to understand the above. for example your title Could mass be grounded by Mass makes zero sense if you apply the definition given By substitution it would read as Could resistance to inertia change be grounded by resistance to inertia change ? the answer is obviously no once to use the definition of mass, the others are doing an excellent job helping you on the EM field so I wont interfere with their progress .

! Moderator Note This is a valid assumption. And you should think about this before insisting someone's response to you "can't be correct". This style is very reminiscent of the time-wasters you claim not to be. Either knock it off now or I see some suspensions headed your way. Nobody has the time to correct your hand-waving insistence. This modnote is for you to take under consideration. Don't waste anyone's time responding to it.

The net force exerted by the atom on an external charge Q is [math]F = \frac{kQ(q-q)}{r^2} = \frac{kQ(0)}{r^2} = \frac{0}{r^2} = 0[/math]

Coulomb's law No, the general expression for the classical electrostatic force is [math]F = \frac{kQq}{r^2}[/math], where q is the net charge on the atom, which is zero.

They're not. The electron and the proton both contribute to the net electric field created by the atom. The electron's charge and center of mass are exactly the same (and opposite for charge) as the proton's. So the total force exerted by a hydrogen atom on a distant charge Q is [math]F = k_e Q(\frac{(+q) + (-q)}{r^2}) = k_e Q(\frac{q-q}{r^2}) = k_e Q(\frac{0}{r^2}) = 0[/math]

Apparently you spent 4 pages NOT supporting this idea in that other thread: ! Moderator Note You were told not to bring it up again if you didn't have anything more to support it. You ignored people telling you the reasons why your concept was wrong, and we're not doing THAT again. Theories are the best supported explanations we have for a particular phenomenon. They aren't laws, but in order to supercede them, you need something that explains the phenomenon at least as well, if not better. Your idea doesn't explain anything, you have no evidence to support it, and others have pointed out your flaws. Study some more science, or ask questions, but don't bring this topic up again. The idea is demonstrably WRONG.

Might help to know that in order for the cosmological constant to stay constant the. W=-1 too far from that value and it will vary over time. The options are still viable for an evolving cosmological constant but so far research is showing non evolving. If Lambda does evolve then you may have an eventual collapse as opposed to a big rip. Still going through the article however they seems to be using as negative pressure however still unclear on that myself till have a chance to better study the math. Yeah looks looks like the second terms in equation one is describing a vacuum scalar field. The positive and negative kinetic energy sign flips directly apply to that same equation. The stress tensor components in the article equation 10. The -T^00 component is the energy density term T^0_i is the mixed covariant/contravariant momentum Flux in the I direction with T^0_j being in the j direction. Just to help you better understand some of the equations in the article. Insofar as he is describing the stress momentum terms of H_{ij}. The majority of the other equations are fairly standard from thevFLRW metric including the related equations of state. Hope that helps. Edit; are you familiar with how the equations of state are derived ? That might help if the answer is no. I should also note that the article is in the Newton limit under GR and does not include quantum field theory itself (QFT equations are second order). Here is an article on first order perturbation theory as applied to QM. https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys485/fa2015/web/perturb.pdf

The breakthrough would be if people stopped doing things for money..

I did a quick look to affirm my recollection that it mostly a problem of human senses and the nausea and discomfit from the mismatch between what our sense of balance is saying and what our other senses say. Sounds a lot like the spinning sensation from lying down drunk on alcohol. I expect actually moving around and adapting our motions to such an environment isn't the problem, the problem is people feel ill. Whilst actual conditions can't be tested there have been attempts to mimic some of the effects using centrifuges and rotating spaces on Earth. A few different conclusions cited at http://www.artificial-gravity.com/Dissertation/2_2.htm - eg - @Gian - I did watch some of the vid starting from the point you picked out. Sorry, not going to watch the whole 30+ minute video (a synopsis would be good) but what I did watch made no mention of the role of the sense of balance (vestibular/inner ear), only more direct sensations of changing directions and strengths of pseudo gravity. Did I miss it or is it absent? It would be a serious omission - it wasn't hard to find references to the disorientation and nausea as one of, if not the most significant problem for human occupants.

Yes, I think the point is that "r dot" signifies velocity in the direction of r, which means radially. That's what I and others have been saying. What is misleading, it seems to me, is that the film accompanies this by showing a film of someone jogging round the circumference, i.e. not moving radially. I suppose there is a little bit of radial motion, in that the jogger is moving up and down a little as he runs. Whether that is enough to cause a sensation of his head moving sideways to left and the right, as it goes up and down, I am not sure. It will depend on the radius of the circular tube he is running inside. It's a very small diameter tube in the film. Whereas If you think of 2001, for instance, the space station is hundreds of metres across. (The effect of r dot will be much less because ω will be much less: you need a lower rotation rate to simulate 1g of gravity in a larger ring.) The two guys trying to throw a ball to one another, across the centre of the circle as they rotate, is a much better example of what happens, I feel. That is radial motion, so that is the scenario in which the Coriolis effect arises.

Just because you CANNOT imagine something happening, that doesn't move it into the 'unsound' category. I think you are stuck in a 21st century technological mindset.

While this is true, the problem here is that what constitutes a “real-life standard” is relative to the technological development of the civilisation in question. Back in 1800, the idea of travelling from New York to London in ~7 hours using a jet-powered, pressurised, heavier-than-air flying machine at altitudes of ~30.000ft would have been so ludicrous that you’d have been laughed out of town, had you brought it up. Nowadays it’s so trivial that no one even thinks about it anymore. And that’s just 200 years. Now, what will the real-life standards of a civilisation that is - say - 2 million years ahead of us be like? Today, we can accelerate electrons and protons to energies on the order of ~TeV, which is very close to the speed of light. To do the same (proportionally) with a block of solid metal the size of the Empire State Building (and that’s probably all that is needed) requires nothing more than a scaling-up of already existing technology, as well as lots and lots of energy, and some kind of suitable guidance system to make sure you hit your target. Obviously ludicrous to us at present, but probably not ludicrous to someone 2 million years ahead of us in technological terms, who is able to harness the necessary amount of energy. I do not find this inconceivable at all. Besides, there might be other ways to bring about the desired result; the relativistic projectile was just the most straightforward method that came to mind, since it doesn’t require speculative technologies, just lots of lots of energy. Also, real-life standards go both ways. If you look at the data we actually do have available, being the set of all the different species that have evolved on Earth, then it would seem to me that different species co-existing peacefully and cooperatively is most definitely not the norm we see (though there are examples of symbiotic relationships that are mutually beneficial). Rather, the overall real-life standard here seems to be one of competition over scarce resources, as well as predator-prey dynamics. I can only hope that the addition of higher intelligence changes this, but there are no guarantees of that being the case. So in the absence of more data, I would argue that the equation “intelligent”=“benevolent and peaceful” should be treated as suspect. It may hold - but then again, it may not. Until we know for sure, it may be a wise policy to not advertise our presence and exact location all too loudly. You never know who might be listening.

Ideas that have no prospect of being put into practice in the real world are hardly sound. A sound idea in game terms is meaningless in real life, unless the game adheres to a real life standards. So I would say it's a sound idea for a meaningless game. But not a sound idea for reality. Just because you can imagine something happening, that doesn't move it into the 'sound' category.

This is a good explaination of the mechanism of love for another human being from the point of view of an atheist. But I believe that some atheists profess a love for science.

You are assuming passing through air rather than using the Earths field as a ''medium'' . You say positive and negative isn't really relevant although we know that a positive and a negative both apply forces acting on each other . We measure 0 net charge when an electron and a proton is binded together but that doesn't necessary equate to no net force . Take ourselves for instant , we have an amount of conserved electrical energy that must be grounded by the earth . I calculate that gravity isn't one force , instead 2 forces at work . The negative of a ''loose'' object attracted to the positive of the ground and the positive of a ''loose'' object attracted to the negative of the ground and vice versus . Current is the flow , grounded has been discussed in another thread , voltage a magnitude , charge the polarity ? P.s Does this work ?

Can you give me any citations where this red shift of light coming from the center of our milky way is mentioned? So far, I can only read that galaxies moving away are being responsible for any type of red shifting (Hubble constant). The red shifting related to light moving into and out of wells is completely ignored. It is like scientists are only interested in justifying the big bang theory, so whenever you want to be part of the community, the first thing you have to do is to bow your head and say "yes, there was a big bang and I commit myself to only believe in the big bang" without any type of questioning. And it is also funny, because even the sunlight should be more red shifted in the evening than in the morning, if the Doppler effect according to the Hubble constant is true. Also stars behind us while travelling around the center of the milky way and even other galaxies that are behind use while moving should be red shifted. But all this is not mentioned.

You said that "The BBC is one of the most trustworthy news sources around." The BBC had a program about the relation between Russia and China. It says China dominated Russia at the time of the Manchuria Empire. The BBC makes itself a joke. China was conquered by Mongols and Manchus, China dominated nobody. 1)Mongols killed 50% of the Chinese population. ---"According to the Chinese history not more than one hundredth part of the population survived, the countryside was covered with human bones, the cities left desolate..." Ref: “The Mongol Conquest Of China And Its Consequences”, by George Tait Edwards. ---Before the Mongol invasion, Chinese dynasties reportedly had approximately 120 million inhabitants; after the conquest had been completed in 1279, the 1300 census reported roughly 60 million people. Destruction under the Mongol Empire, Wikipedia --The figure put on the Mongolian invasions of northern China from 1210 to 1219 and from 1311 to 1340 are both of the order of 35 million. Mass killings | Guinness World Records --Bayan, the Mongolian Prime Minister suggested killing all Chinese with one of the most popular surnames. Bayan of the Merkid, Wikipedia -- “In cases of murder, one could ransom himself by paying fines which were: for a Mohammedan, 40 golden coins: and for a Chinese, one donkey (which was the cheapest).” Genghis Khan’s Yassa. 2)After Mongols conquered China, China became a part of Mongol Empire, the Chinese King was ordered to commit suicide. Emperor Gong of Song, Wikipedia 3)” Earlier historians had emphasized the power of Chinese to “sinicize” their conquerors… (But) the Grand Council operated only in Manchu until the 1730s, and many other important edicts and memorials did not have Chinese translations." New Qing History, Wikipedia ---Manchurian King, Yongzheng said that, “Heaven (The God) detested that the inner lands (China) had no one with virtue and so in concern ordered we outlanders to be lords of the inlands., then it is the people of the Middle Kingdom (China) who are no better than birds and beasts.” Ref: “Resolving Confusion with a Discourse on Righteousness”, by Manchurian King, Yongzheng. 4) Manchus ruled China till 1911. In 1911, China became an independent country. (the last photo)

I'm not sure that the projectile is a runner at all. If you add energy to a star, you're surely delaying the day that it goes supernova, or swells up like our Sun will. You may be just turning back the clock, making the star effectively younger. I know we can't possibly forecast what might be possible in a million years time. (or not possible) Your guess is as good as mine, probably better. But both are just shots in the dark. Maybe if astronomers were to witness an exploding star, that should not have exploded, that might be grounds for suspicion. I personally don't think that there's much of a motive for destroying aliens, or them destroying us. I think that there must be billions of uninhabited Earthlike planets out there to exploit, if that's what they want. And the way that technology accelerates, if they are ahead of us now, they will always be ahead of us, so there's no real need to fear that a less advanced culture might overtake us. Unless they live and function at a much higher tempo, I guess.

Words have different uses , why do you think that science has to use a specific set of wording ? I'm not being awkward but you are implying that scientists can't understand the every day use of wording with explanation of the context . Yes , children can be grounded , aeroplanes can also be grounded , electrical wiring that is attached to a plug has a ground or alternatively an earth . Ok , lets say I agree with you , my use of grounding is a missuse . What would you call the process in scientific terms for what I've explained ? I did say that . ''I agree the experiment is not relevant to this thread, any more than most of your posting.'' Do you suggest I leave the thread I started that is asking questions ? It isn't up to me to convince me that what you all are telling me is the truth and accurate facts. I am not that smart but I am neither naive . It is up to the repliers to convince me of the facts . This far every replier as ignored the questions I posed about the balloon and the plasma ball that shows there is an unbalance of force .