Leaderboard

I think you are mistaking pop-science journalism with science. I can’t reconcile either of these statements Science is performed by the scientific community. Any shifting is from them. Not all surprising results pan out, so it’s not prudent to chase after them until they are confirmed, and one result might not be nearly enough to formulate a new model. If a model is not wrong - it accurately predicts/matches results - then what constitutes a better model? There has to be some discrepancy between model and experiment for there to be improvement in the model. i.e. there has to be something that it gets wrong.

True. But if you destroy $100 worth of my fence, and I destroy $100 worth of yours, you have to make a judgement as to whether you got $100 worth of entertainment, if you are rationalizing it in economic terms when deciding to do it again.

I don’t know what you mean by “simultaneity must vary physically” Things are simultaneous or not, and it’s a temporal effect. Events that are simultaneous in one frame are not simultaneous in other frames. The earth twin sends out a continuous signal at some frequency, with some wavelength. The space twin travels at some speed, and sees this signal as red-shifted - they get the crest of one wave, but have moved away before the next crest can reach them, so they measure the signal with a longer wavelength and lower frequency. Then they turn around, and are now moving toward the source. They get the crest of one wave, but have moved closer before the next crest reaches them. Since the signal was sent continuously, this happens immediately - the light is already there to be detected. They measure the crests as being closer together and with a higher frequency. Blue-shifted. I can’t fathom why you think this would not happen as soon as they started moving toward earth.

There is a difference in equivalent response and punitive proportionality. Also I don't think that it makes a lot of sense to trying to translate criminal justice to diplomatic relationships. Even worse, the literature on deterrence (going back a long time) shows not simple relationship between punishment and deterrence. But where the largest agreement is that punishment works best as deterrent on minor crime, whereas the effect in violent crime has almost no relationship to the severity of punishment (up and including death sentences). Likely because many of these acts are not part of rational decision-making.

Because there are some more compounds in the battery like ammonium chloride, the practical voltage is 1,5 V https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=22363 The voltages can be found in electrical potential tables.

I don't know if concerns about radionuclide residues and their longevity (iodine 131 is brief, 8 day HL, cesium 137 is a 30 year HL) are still the main locus of concern about nuclear weapons. At least not since the TTAPS paper (and Sagan's popularized version which appeared in Parade Magazine) drew wide public attention to sweeping ecological and climatic changes from even a quite limited nuclear exchange. IIRC that paper, detailing the nuclear winter scenario (prolonged dust and smoke, a precipitous drop in Earth's temperatures and widespread failure of crops, leading to massive famine, etc) was what gave momentum to the Nuclear Freeze movement in the eighties. The concerns raised seemed to rise well above the level of phobia (granted, some concerns about peacetime nuclear power do verge on phobic). Again, we have been incredibly lucky. And it might take only one rogue general somewhere to fire up the apocalypse. Happy Earth Day, y'all.

Such is the meaning of life...

Indeed, the answer is a bigger stick is difficult to define if enough of you continue to wield it...

Excellent precisely what you should be of it in terms of

Your fairly close to the right idea. Without going into the quantum regime too intensely. In essence the overall electron spin up/ spin down alignments contained in each domain gets altered. Some electrons will switch from spin up to spin down or the overall orientation changes by some angle. So the fields of the magnet is already present even when it's not interacting with another object. So the charge currents are essentially zero (it's never truly zero as there is always some electron exchanges). So one can equate this to the PE term (potential energy) When the nail interacts with the magnet. The interaction of the magnet including the B field provide directivity of the charge current that results from the interaction between the magnet and the nail. We see this directivity in the magnetic field lines. The tighter the field lines the greater the amount of force. So further away the field lines diverge and gets weaker. (1/r^2). So in essence the electrostatic field does the work. The B field interaction in essence provides directivity of the charge current. A charge current is a kinetic energy term.

The 'change' in simultaneity is 'real'? Simultaneity is a frame-dependent concept, rather. The Earth 'suddenly ages' for real? The accelerating twin finds a path in ST for which proper time is less, rather. Time dilation/length contraction are real. As much as anything else that you see. They're very much like foreshortening. Is foreshortening just a matter of 'perspective', and therefore 'not real'? If you think that's the case, try to get a 4m-long pole inside a garage through a 3m-wide door with the pole's length parallel to the door. A clever person --who knows the laws of foreshortening-- manages to get the pole inside the garage by rotating it, and then rotating it back once inside (the close equivalent of the twin's U-turn). Don't get me wrong. You seem to be trying to make sense in an honest way, but you're trapped in an early-20th-century illusion. That's why you express yourself in such an obscure --and incorrect-- way. Some of the things you've said, though, sound like you're groping towards Mach's principle. But with the wrong toolkit taken from the junkyard of discarded ideas. And with the wrong outlook. Your 'ether' or 'absolute space' is (if anything) the distribution of energy in the universe.* That's why most of us look at you in disbelief, like the proverbial Earth-bound twin, wondering, "where have you been all these years? Your ideas haven't changed at all since the early 20th Century!" ----------------------------------- * Unfortunately (or not) Mach's principle is not a very useful constructive starting point in order to reach the right theory of gravitation. Although GR is definitely Machian in spirit: The distribution of stuff tells you how much you must deviate from locally inertiall in order to be aware that you're moving.

OK, I'm trying to follow this in the context of a permanent magnet. I'm not finding the motor analogy very helpful (sorry, my background is chemistry rather than engineering). I'm aware that ferromagnetism arises due to aligned, unpaired electron intrinsic "spin" and orbital angular momentum. So I presume the "current" you refer to in this case would comprise the "spinning" (not really but let's call it that) and orbital motion of the electrons. Is that right? But it seems to me this aligned angular momentum does not lead to an overall E field external to a bar magnet, which can interact with a nail some distance away. Or does it? If, as you say, the energy in the magnet that changes, when the nail is brought close to it, comes from the E field, what change do we get at the atomic level? Are we saying the quantum states of the unpaired electrons drop slightly in electrostatic energy, e.g. their mean distance from the nucleus reduces fractionally, or something like that? As you will see, I am trying to get a physics tutorial on this from @Mordred, who is I gather a professional physicist (respect). It looks to me so far (i.e. pending what I may be about to learn) that I may have been a bit too cavalier in strict physics terms in claiming the work done by, and on, your magnets comes from what I have been calling "the magnetic field". We are now into a discussion of the E field and the B field and where exactly the extra energy due to magnetisation resides in a permanent magnet. I think though that, in terms intelligible to a non-physicist, we can still say it is the extra energy in the fields due to their magnetised condition that rises and falls as work is done. But let's see what brother Mordred comes back with. I just hope I have enough grey cells left, at approaching 70, to take in a change in my mental picture of how this all works. 😀

Nernst law Potontials with positiv voltage minus Potential with more negative voltage gives potential between the two electrodes Here 1 V -(-0.26 V) = 1.26 V Zinc -0,763 V carbon-manganeseoxide +0,975 V 0,975V - (-0,763) = 1,738 V

I like your example +1 in point of detail Amperes law teaches us that all magnetic phenomena is the result of electric charges in motion. Faraday discovered moving magnets generates an electric current. Maxwell and Lorentz in essence put together the final touch that E and B are not separate entities but are inexplicitly intertwined. So even a point charge has E and B fields. Now it takes a charge to produce an electromagnetic field, but just as importantly is that it takes another charge to detect an electromagnetic field. Now when you have an ensemble of charges you use the principle of superposition which tells us the interaction of two charges is unaffected by the presence of others. So you can compute the force resulting from each charge to the test charge and sum up to the total vector sum for total force on the test charge. Now you probably recognize I just described the electrostatic field. However with that field you now have to think in terms of charge density and charge currents. (By the way this applies to QFT as well) including the Feymann path integrals, just an FYI). So in point of detail the force on the test charge results from the sum of force of the individual point charges mediated by the EM field. Now we can further break down this Electrostatic field into surface charge, line charge, continuous distribution and volume charge. Each has has its own integral combined with Coulombs law. for example charge distribution \[E_r=\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0}\int\frac{1}{r^2}\hat{r}dq\] line distribution \[E_r=\frac{1}{4 \pi\epsilon_0}\int \frac{\lambda(\acute{r})}{r^2}\hat{r}d\acute{l}\] surface charge \[E_r=\frac{1}{4 \pi\epsilon_0}\int\frac{\sigma(\acute{r})}{r^2}\hat{r}d \acute{a}\] and volume charge which we use most often. as being the one most referred to with Coulombs law \[E_r=\frac{1}{4 \pi\epsilon_0}\int\frac{\rho(\acute{r})}{r^2}\hat{r}d\acute{\tau}\] So knowing that according to Amperes law magnetism is the result of electric charges in motion. One has to ask well how does a permanent magnet work. What materials are more likely to make a magnet which materials would make a stronger magnet? To better understand that one has to understand how readily a material accepts domain realignment via a process called hysteresis. However it should be more clear that the charge distributions described by the formulas above directly relates to the sum of coulomb force to the test charge "d" is domain while the identifier after it is the domain type. the "r" with the hat is the distance from the domain to the test charge. So ferromagnets has domains with domain walls the walls are potential difference separations each domain has its own hysteresis. Histeresis describes a phenomena that when you pass a magnet near a ferrous material the alignments of the point charges do not return to the original configuration. (ever have a screw driver that you often use to work on an electric circuit eventually become a permanent magnet ? ) its due to hysteresis. hope that helps better understand the electrostatic field and ferromagnetism So now you should be able to answer the question :" Where does the energy come from" in the permanent magnet case...think domain charge densities and hysteresis due to the magnet interacting with the nail. This will also help when you look at things like Currie temperature and how it effectively it can be used to realign domains The domain alignments has potential energy there is no outside interaction so no current flow but you still have a charge density. When you place the nail near the magnet to interact the interaction exchange results in a charge current flow. This describes a kinetic energy term mediating the force. Now unfortunately a lot textbooks teach flow of electrons in a copper wire etc. It isn't the flow of electrons, its the flow of charge. Electrons could not flow through a medium fast enough for one thing. However the flow of charge can as charge is mediated by photons. It serves as the momentum carrier to alter the spin alignments of the electron ensemble edit forgot to add the primes (I tend to use acute ) are the source coordinates of the given domain for example \(d \acute{a}\). The symbols \(\lambda, \sigma, \rho\) is charge per unit (length, area, volume). The above also helps better understand induction. Your inducing charge current.

It’s more than whether it’s a force. Work requires a force acting through a displacement. A centripetal force, for example, does no work because force and displacement are perpendicular. Pressure is not an energy, but pressure can do work.

This reminds me of how pressure is not an 'energy' but mediates the transfer of internal energy of a gas which is a function of temperature alone. However, pressure is a 'force' so that analogy breaks down. I did wonder why electron charge cropped up as a coefficient on both terms of the Lorentz force, both the E and vxB terms. So without q there is no electromagnetic force. Is this what you mean? That the B field is merely a mechanism for transforming dynamic changes to the Coulomb force into a torsional effect?

I have wondered if the moral equation, when nukes enter into a seemingly practical cost/benefit analysis, changes in a way that is unique as equations go. When conventional weapons are used, it doesn't open a special door through which a vision of apocalypse is visible. To use a nuke is not merely to conduct warfare, but to decide to use a principle of deterrence which, if widely applied, would end us. (there's kind of a Kantian categorical imperative aspect to this) So, ethically, using a nuke seems to require a kind of myopic view of reality: sure, you showed those [insert adversary name here] bastards not to mess with us anymore, but you also crossed a line where the unthinkable is now an instrument of foreign policy. Maybe we were able to step back over the line after Hiroshima, but there's little chance that could happen now.

My response would be to first state that my ideal is no war, no nuclear weapons or conventional warfare of any kind, is always preferable. But that my ideal is an impossible goal based on what I know of human nature and the lack of control or say that the majority people have in determining how militaries choose to fight those wars. It's not that I find conventional weapons acceptable, just less bad. For a simple reason, the firebombing of Tokyo didn't release radioactive material 50 miles up into the atmosphere and had way less long-term effects on the environment nor longterm genetic damage and radiation poisoning that caused cancer, fetal abnormalities etc. While I understand the residual radiation of those bombs had a relatively short half-life, today we have a number of different types of nuclear and radioactive weapons to be concerned about. Neutron bombs have a much higher radiactive yield, some nuclear weapons have a vastly higher explosive yield, strategically placed dirty bombs in the right (or wrong depending on how you look at it) weather conditions could give radiation poisoning to many more than the intended target and setting off numerous nuclear bombs could bring on a nuclear winter, send radiactive material all over the globe and cause massive amounts of harm to humans, animals and plant life for generations to come. If the bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima had a similar radioactive yield as the Chernobyl disaster, they'd have likely remained uninhabitable for much much longer than they did. Genuinely, if I was forced to choose between being burned alive or being given a lethal dose of radiation, I'd pick being burned alive. It's quicker. I wouldn't wish death by radiation poisoning on my worst enemy and I cried like a baby watching Dr Daniel Jackson dying of radiation poisoning in Stargate and was highly disturbed just listening to him describe what he knew was going to happen to him. I was 7 years old when I watched that for the first of many times, and it's one of my strongest memories. I'm going to end by sharing Albert Schweitzers Declaration of Conscience. @MigL I would really appreciate it if you especially would read this. You don't have to agree with it but it did win the Nobel peace prize in 1957 and I believe it is an extremely powerful argument against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. I'd also like to add that if a nuclear or radiological weapon was used where any of you are and if we lost any of you to that, I'd mourn you deeply and weep for humanity far more than I already do. I mean I'd mourn your deaths by any means but that way would leave me the most choked. I hope you all die old and peacefully with loved ones by your side and a feeling of serenity looking back at a life well lived.

It might help to consider even in atoms electrons never stay still. In permanent magnets those electrons are moving around within the atoms of the magnet as well as the environment. However magnetism isn't a force nor is it a form of energy. A common analogy is to think of it as a translator with the E field. It results from the E field current and can thus be used to affect the E field through induction. lol you also run into articles etc stating permanant magnets have no E field but that wouldn't be true. The atoms have electrons and is held together by the EM field. So when you move the magnet to the nail your really just inducing electric current in a field already present which does the work via electromagnetic induction. (keep in mind I'm keeping the mediator photons out of the equation for this discussion) ie keeping it classical rather than quantum lol

I suspect that the guarded responses you've received to this query so far are because the simple answer we used to be given at school was bowlocks and sort of implied the existence of magnetic monopoles. Hence no self-respecting physicist will go down that path. As I don't fall into the above category, I'm quite content to picture the energy source as a form of potential energy created by the separation between the nail and the magnet. Much akin to gravitational or (ahem) Coulomb potential. As nail approaches magnet, potential energy begets kinetic energy begets heat (in collision) producing a new magnet that is the sum of its initial magnetic dipole moments, just as a meteor descending to earth creates a new body that is the sum of their individual masses. Now I am expecting this simplistic picture to be shot down in flames, but then I too will be wondering (in the absence of electrical current) where the energy came from.

Sanitation workers?

I think it's more a case of what you "feel" should not be dismissed out-of hand. I suspect alot of scientific discovery starts with someone just having a feeling, or hunch about something. But Dawky and people like him were extremely unwise in the so-called "atheist spring" post 9/11 to encourage people to be disrespectful, which is another word for bigoted. What Dawky's too dumb to realise is that if he encourages bigotry in one department eg religion, it never stops there. Given that over the last 15y or so there seems to have been a noticeable increase in racism and in particular antisemitism, Dawky should cut out the rabble rousing. Cheerz GIAN🙂XXX

Time dilation occurs in a propagating medium when confined standing waves are set in motion. Lorentz transformations are classical wave physics. Here are references: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.4356.pdf https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.4534 https://web.archive.org/web/20120228112717/http://glafreniere.com/sa_Lorentz.htm So the Lorentz transformations tell us that matter is made up of standing waves of ether. Electron is probably a standing wave according to Milo Wolff's model.

It's all based on the photo electric effect Einstein wrote. The layout of the touchscreen uses photoelectronics. The process Microsoft uses to interface is say light reflected through the glass off the fingertip, reflected again off of a mirror based on trigonometric functions into particular photovoltaic particles through fiber-optics. The current let off through electron excitation travels through conductive wires into LEDs which let out frequencies at alternating intervals (01s) into photo-ionics of opposing charge into a series of em motors which can change the outputs of leds which ones are on or off. The process of installing an app that uses that interface has to do with lasers sending certain intervals of light frequencies into remote servers, usually with the satellite being the proxy, which then returns a set that makes that interface behave in a new way. You know, anything from flash-drives to neural interfaces in nanotechnologies use these. Beyond that I have designed a stationary nanorobotic arm with two axes of rotation and now I do know how to control and automate its motion with a digital interface like an iphone. The actual operational specs require trigonometric functions as well maths in order to direct light reflected off the fingertips into the right fiber optic cables for ported to those particular induction motors which open and close the contacts for the LEDs whilst charging a microlaser (keylogging). It is important for any interested parties to know that if you want to manufacture any type of relevant technology in this day and age it all uses this technology.

You are very smart for reading, understanding and responding to my message in one minute. YOU are in bad faith.