davidivad

cmon guys, lets not poke each other's eyes out with feather dusters and sharpies. firstly, everyone that does not live there should go home. they are burning down buildings for their own cause and do not care about the community themselves. this is a problem as we only have so many places to burn. it is destroying the community as percieved by the residents themselves. they are afraid to stop the violent visitors. now what do we do since we have removed the capacity of the police? here is the problem right now. the problem right now is not a black guy shot by a white officer. its the crowd that took over. if you dont believe me, then pack up and stay there yourself and see how you like it...

mike you are awesome. im wondering if these photons lose any momenum through traveling a curved path as do the particles in the LHC where they emitt radiation due to the turn of the tunnel. my guess is no as this is the easiest path due to the field of gravitons (gravity well).

amen thanks for the read mordred. edit: that was an excellent article..

could it therefore be considered that everything has its own time? i say this because i am considering that cooling down the atoms removes all noise in the system so that the natural frequency can be utilized. i know this is a jump, but does that idea conform to the way time is handled with any current method? one could imagine that if everything had its own clock based on its natural frequency then it would only be constrained by the speed of light. in other words each has its own time and can be affected by speed of light transmissions of force carriers. remember, this is just an idea. edit: under such conditions, waves themselves are constrained by the light constant and time is dependant on the object itself while interacting with its medium. gravitational information might be passed through thier own force carier.. i am only speculating here.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDUQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fphilsci-archive.pitt.edu%2F1504%2F1%2Fphoton.doc&ei=i-B4VIeIAsuxsASek4DoDw&usg=AFQjCNFYTrnPWU4q7ue4tFTsclg0MyOk5Q&sig2=8CBcE5mvbU4rgBAWqBCEcA here is an interesting view that considers the field real and the photon as an observable under measurement. it still needs work but is interesting nonetheless.

swansont, how do they measure the atoms in an atomic clock? i think this may be a good thing to shed light on for the concept of time and quantum theory.

hahaha, that's great! sounds awesome.

for the record, i think it would be helpful if someone could explain time as it is considered under quantum theory instead of classic approach because the question is one of quantum nature. or put the thread under the appropriate spot. There is a time parameter in the equations of quantum mechanics. The Schrödinger equation[33] is One solution can be . where is called the time evolution operator, and H is the Hamiltonian. i will refrain from explaining this in hopes that someone more adept at math or physics can explain it much better. to think that we are too set in our ways to test things is horrid. perhaps someone could use this to explain why it is better to use classical physics in such a case. that way the author of the thread gets what he asked for too. einstein, "yea, give me a couple of math guys." edit: i think that it may be important to note also that time is kept currently by caesium clock. is this done by relativity or by other means? i believe someone around here is a time keeper, am i right?

yup, it strikes you at the strangest times, right?

migl, you make a very interesting point as the thread is placed under quantum theory so why is the answer classical? i do believe that there are still interactions going on subatomicly all the time. since everything is considered to have a wave function, does this mean that interactions occur at the speed in which forces are carried?

if time is not real, does this possibly mean that spacetime is not either? how do we prove that spacetime is something more than an equation based on our experience and thus relative? please note this is just a question to test your theory about time if you feel it doesnt exist.

here is a viewpoint from a relative around the area. he said that it was the usual bull**** that happens for the hood. the guy was a big thug that was painted up as a kid on his way through school. he said he was upset about what had happened to the cop until he saw his response when he actually got an interview. he said the cop came off like a typical cop when he said he wouldnt have done anything differently. there was also mention that the panthers might be involved with some of the events taking place. this was from an older white male. here is my view as a once resident of the area. for those who do not know, there are areas in st lois where a white guy walking alone is a sitting duck. i know this because ive been pegged with a 40 oz on the way to the bus stop and have been robbed of my riley burger before too. in certain areas it is just this way. if a cop comes into the hood he is noticed let alone being white. now when a white cop comes into the hood and shoots a man, there's a problem. this can be proven by the disrespect given to the cop. as typical hoodlems they were strutting the street and had just scored some materials to roll some dubs. so they werent exactly obeying the law in any sense of the word. however, this is not the point. if the police department was involved in the community, there would have been at least some form of open dialogue to work with. it is not the cops fault but the system's fault for allowing such a dangerous situation to persist. trained in security myself, i would however recognized the area i was in as a place you respond in numbers not alone. part of the reason you see so many cops when you get pulled over is because it creates a more controllable situation. if the officer was part of a community program that put a name with his face with at least a few people, then everyone would know who he is. that makes him a real person instead of an ousider white or black. i dont think we can afford all the cameras though it would be a great idea. we may actually have to work the problem this time.

i actually have an idea board opposite of the mirror in my bathroom... i get ideas when im relaxed....

my sister has several stores she manages in st louis area. she was not affected by the aftermath but there is definitely enough tension to cut it with a knife. the situation just keeps getting more and more polarized. she was talking to a customer who was a young educated black lady recently who said she is tired of all the crap and is moving out. this is the opposite of what ferguson needs. but what do you do with it?

well, hopefully others will see this and realize that there are rules for a reason. once i saw that everyone was saying the same thing i had to put down my ego and face what i had done. i was not observing the rules of the forum as much as i hate to say it (not purposely). note to all. what is science without a submission? yup, theres the prob. good to read, bad for science.

ok, i have given my use of the term and you guys refuse its use and declare a different definition for it. i realize that standard use of the word is dfferent and that i cannot argue my point due to this. therefore i am dropping the issue due to my improper use of the term. here is my mistake... 1. Vocabulary Crackpots misuse terminology, especially terms like theory, or dogma. You don't want to be the one who proclaims "it's only a theory" or "you're being dogmatic" and make it clear you don't know the definitions of the words. Unless your posts actually get redacted, don't claim "censorship," either, unless you want peoples' irony meters to explode. You also don't want to get caught making up new jargon, especially not terms you've named after yourself. i redact my arguments due to word usage error. after a further study to find proof of granularity i discovered an article that i feel is important to this topic. as a person who loves good science, i cannot, in good consciousness, consider granularity of spacetime. http://phys.org/news/2012-08-spacetime-smoother-brew-knew.html here is an article that explains results of scattering of photons. it goes as such: if spacetime is granular, then certain photons of a particular length should show scattering due to interactions at the planck scale. this should be measureable at distance. it is not. i have qustion still about whether spacetime is a real strucure or an image cast from the quantum realm but that deserves a different thread. i appreciate the candor of most of the responses and the considerations that took place which were an honest effort to help. i appreciate that effort and can in only in good effort accept current views on the topic. thanks guys. for anyone curios about the appoach i was looking at, here is a wiki article that expains the approach i was planning to take. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_spacetime

the earths magnetic field is pretty weak at any given location it is measured even though as a whole im sure it has quite a kick. you would need a way to store the energy and then release it at once. or perhaps one could somehow cause a large drop in the resistance of the core thereby dumping out what is stored already. these are just wild speculations though. here is an article i think you will find interesting. http://www.icr.org/article/mystery-earths-magnetic-field/ i hope that assists your cause.

strange, if you are going to follow me around, i suggest you start using references because this is how im going to handle you. this is partially my fault as i have failed everyone by not supporting my ideas without references. now i will give a ral explanationas to why i am wrong and support my claim with references. ready? if the test is set up with enough precision then you get the banding along with courseness in the pattern as if both are taking place. this is not consistent with my original idea. or at the very least, it does not explain in any detail why the interference pattern shows coarseness. here is a reference just foryou strange from a source i though you would definitely appreciate... a laymens view. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/06/07/what-does-the-new-double-slit-experiment-actually-show/ hey, wait...

yes, but you still have to use numbers to do work. this is my point. a function is different than a number while it may contain one. you cannot get a numerical answer unless you have a number. if i remember correctly, we had a different usage of the word. i was using this to get attention as i said before. under your definition it would be wrong. this is true. i am not using the same definition.

most people dont want to hear a logical contraption. the common response i get is a look that says "your a *********" in reality they could care less. science requires attention that the average person does not want to spend. having all the answers is not always the best solution. for most, technicalities will due and they do not have to be correct to be effective. you can lie.

hmm... my appologies. i felt compelled to at least give you some material on GUP per your request. i am on my phone right now so i will keep it short. post 95 1. & 2. "You appear to treat Planck units differently from other units when you say that metres and volts can be subdivided but Planck units can't." here you are not asking a question. i assure you that i handle the math in the same way you do. i hope this statement resolves any implied question. "And, unless I have misunderstood you, you also appear to say that only Planck length and Planck time cannot be subdivided, while other Planck units (e.g. Planck mass or Planck voltage) can be." here is another statement posed as a question. we have already decided that yes, you can divide as many times as you want as a consequence of the math involved. i think what the deal is is that you would prefer me to say such a thing so you can beat me with it. this is not the case. no matter what, the fact that you must create units to work with is my actual destination. i use the term units loosely. please do not extend the meaning beyond the scope. i feel the argument you would like to support is the continuous side of nature while i believe it is granular. we cannot prove it either way yet. your argument is that space tis not treated as granular so it must therefore be smooth. my argument is that we must still use units in the form of a number system and this requirement of math is a consequence of mother natures inner workings. even if numbers are precise locations or pointers instead of units, you must still use them in light of the unit of difference. the community is trying to solve the issue right now. this is why i brought up GUP. i left a link to the pdf of the paper as an example to show the action of the scientific community within such areas of research. as i said with the link, this is in its infancy but we realize we need an answer. if the universe ends up continuous then i will be happy to have learned the truth. untill then, i stick to my original post on the original topic. the smallest unit of time is calculated with the speed of light. this is the planck time. it is considered by the scientific community to be the smallest amount no matter if you can divide it or not. pi... it is roughly 3.14 TIMES the unit used. it can be described using a fraction of 22 over 7. this fraction carries the information of 3.14 units for each unit used.

Strange. thank you for the attempt. i actually do appreciate the gesture. your still fired... lol i will answer your questions after the holiday as i am very busy right now with visits and the likes. just to let you know though, i understand your point that not everything is quantized. i even understand your use of it as i have passed all my classes a while ago. the concept tends to be important. i used this to creat a juxtaposition and thus draw attention. it worked quite well. this is a literary technique. i used it to point at a rule of nature we often overlook. we have to use numbers to do any actual calculations beyond simplification. we have to use units of measure. the macroscopic world we inhabit is a result of interaction or "measurement." while we can split a unit up into seemingly as many parts as we want, we still lose the ability to measure it completely with accuracy. in other words, it can only be so useful to do so. either way, we still have to use units of measure for the system to work. if you cannot measure it, then you have nothing to work with. why is this the only successful way to do math? while one could say to use another math, they all work with numbers. this is a consequence brought upon us by nature herself. while what i say may seem like a farce, it is undeniable that math requires numbers to work. anything else is just formatting which is how you handle operations. common thought might be that it is inconsequential. i say it is a result of the way nature works. no matter how many time you divide something, you always need to assign it a value. math must resemble the real world to calculate within it and get a result. i mentioned GUP because it is an attempt at answering that uncomfortable question that none of us here have an answer to despite how well it has been argued on this site. here is a pdf of a 2010 paper on GUP which is truly only in its infancy but a sign of what is to come. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.2642v2.pdf we are obviously looking for granularity right now. like i said, i will post a response to #95 for you after vacation. i appreciate your effort. i give you a point. happy holidays all.

could you do me a favor and use a different tactic for once? perhaps this could be something that teaches everyone involved something new or interesting. you leave the impression that this is a third world conflict or something. i will not carry a gun or grenade for you. sugar will get you more than salt...

i am using a literary technique to get attention. i was taught to do this during my educational "tour". i am ponting to a very basic concept of math. it is incremental in nature. to look at things this way may feel a bit uncomfortable. but it leads to a serious implication. whether or not we percieve something as real or quantized , we must give it units in order to do the math. this is a natural consequence. i will answer the thread more later when i have got reenforcement.

here is a five lead cap. it should have the information on the pins available from the retailer. give them a call. caps can explode if they are severely overcharged. i doubt you will run into this problem. in class, i used to plug caps into outlets by thier leads. smells horrid when it starts to leak and will pop with enough juice.