koti

There are also differnt kinds and sizes of infinities. The infinity of natutral numbers starting at zero is much different that the infinite amount of fractions between the numbers 4 and 5.

Yes, majority of flashlights are made from HAIII aluminium. The more expensive ones are copper, titanium or ceramic.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptocurrency

This might come as insightful: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/ethereum-effect-graphics-card-prices,34928.html

Math is not perfect, new branches of math are created all the time to cope with problems which the old math couldn’t handle. Its not only math, science in general is not „perfect”, it evolves and changes all the time.

No. If you're having lunch with somebody at the crossing of 1st and 2nd street in a building on the 3rd floor (3 spacial coordinates) you need to add that its on Saturday 14:00 (1 temporal coordinate) You need 3+1 spacetime coordinates to pinpoint events. It makes no sense whatsoever though to state that "time is basic information about space" it is not, they walk together and are inseparable in GR but time is not telling us anything about space. Please kill me.

First off I'd like to apologize, I opened a thread then complained that nobody answers and when quite a few people answered I sat quiet for 2 weeks. I'm treating this as a thought experiment, I'm not going to buy 1kg plates of Lead and Aluminium, it's enough that I have to buy Copper all the time for parts which need good heat transfer and times are thin. I am familiar with thermal resistance ofcourse, here's a datasheet of one of the emitters which I often used in my builds last year: http://www.cree.com/led-components/media/documents/ds-XPL.pdf As you can see, this particular emitter has a thermal resistance of 2.2 °C/W @ 3000 mA. The thing is that I overdrive these emitters heavily, and by heavily I mean 200%-250% which is nuts heat-wise but above a certain level of amperage the lumen surplus starts to grow very slowly so I push these emitters to their limit to get the max output. I mainly build small, pocketable flashlights (single and multi-emitter) so these things get hot and they get hot fast. I do this only in my own builds - the torches I build for people are less overkill. Thanks for the links, I will find use for them. This explains my condition in short: I buy lights to mod them to sell them to buy more lights to mod - I'm a junkie. The source are mainly CREE and Nichia LED emitters, varying from model they are stock between 3,5v-12v and 3A-20A amperage. These tiny ~10m^2 emitters give out ridiculous amounts of heat when driven high. I build single, triple and quad emitter builds from these. The higher amp emitters are mainly single emitter builds. Electroplating (especially Ag) is the holy grail of high-end torch building, I haven't had a chance to do my own project yet (cost). In small form factor pocketable torches the reflection quality factor is not significant, the emitter output is what does the job. In larger reflectors it becomes a very significant factor ofcourse. I use TiR optics as well and aspheric lenses instead of reflectors for more concentrated beam (more throw instead a wall of light) After reading through the above it struck me that in order to get any decent heatsinking increase (time-wise) on one of my very small, high amp torches I will need to increase the material volume significantly - make the whole thing a lot thicker. This way I'll at least keep the emitter cooler for a few seconds more before it heats up the torch body. Fins are a thing for larger torches. I will try to work out the calculations on my own, thanks. Edit: A CNC maschine and a few hundred kg’s of copper for trial and error is what I need I guess

Very funny Information is non physical but it's a hell of a currency. There is a very good chance that you are right

I would do a weekly wrap up through a mailing list of the most interesting threads or maybe even posts. And maybe some fun polls which we could vote in weekly or monthly with fun, non material prizes for the users.

I don’t trust you. Please explain what you are talking about.

It is imperative that you explain your point of view on the validity of the Copernican principle before you start calling people ignorant. Copernican principle is a well established fact backed up by countless evidence and there is no dissention amongst the scientific community, wait...am I really writing this?! Please start backing up what you are saying with evidence and please be clear about what dissention there is in the scientific community about the copernican principle.

I see hope in the fact that you seem reluctant in explaining this. Presumably it is shame which prevents you from explaining this ridiculousness further. I would urge you to hold on to that shame and guide yourself in such a way that you will be able to express your views without that shame. Having said that; Earth is not in the center of the observable universe, amongst others WMAP project gave us evidence for this, we are sure where we are and it is not the center of the universe.

This is especially interesting, could you abbreviate on this and explain what exactly you mean?

The concept of a creator is based only on belief (not evidence) that is why it is tied with religion. As opposed to the OP, I was always puzzled why a cosmically insignificant, 160K year old species belief could have a chance of being true on a 4,5 billion year old earth. Human existence is a grain of sand in the vast dunes of time and evolution which took place before us and most likely will take place long after we are gone. Our human beliefs have such an incredibly small chance of being true in this fantastically big void of time and space that I find it equally plausible that our creator is a pink flying unicorn flying around in space quacking like a duck.

I think it might be easier to understand if you consider that; Spacetime is inseperable, our 3 spacial dimentions are always glued together with our 1 temporal dimention. Gravity or velocity (its not only gravity which affects clocks) cause both time dilation and lenght contraction...apart from clocks running slower for a moving or gravity affectet frame also things change their size within our 3 spacial dimentions. It is not the clocks which run slower, it is time itself - clocks just measure the effect.

As a professional I’ll tell you that if you wont stop commenting on the mod notes you will get banned. You might also brush up on the very basics of physics before you jump into the most complex issues that physics deals with.

Did you just say that we as a species have a problem with the issue of dividing by zero? This is the relativity section of physics on a science forum, you must be joking right?

Me and dimreepr arguing about religion

Thanks CharonY, although I am well aware of everything you wrote, it is well written. This has no merit in my opinion in answering the simple OP question. Color perception is a tricky subject for example and Ive spent quite some time researching it for work but whether we can or cannot see light - common. None of the processes mentioned in your post can take place without light entering the eye. Arguing the semantic side of „I can see pitch black darkness therefore light is not all I can see” is just silly in my opinion.

His question was can we or can we not see light which the answer to is a yes we can. His statement that "we never see actual light" is false. Look at the emitter below which I just took a picture of...its in very low mode below 2 lumens to take see the emitter in the photo. In one of the pictures the emitter is on in the other its off. Can you guess which is which? If you can, you can in fact see the photons being emitted straight from the source of light.

No. In the context of seeing or not seeing light - No. What happens in somebodies brain when parsing light which was fed into it is outside of the scope of the OP question. Light is visible. Im pretry sure we are not in disagreement on the physics (Ive seen your posts in physics, you are not impaired as to knowledege in physics) I might be wrong though, maybe you do not know how image is being created in human eye and brain, you tell me.

Because their brains parse light differently based on knowledge, experience and dozens of other factors.

Absolutely not, I do not have to come to this conclusion. In fact it would be a ridiculous conclusion, we see macro objects (or any other object) only due to light emitting or reflecting off of them and there is no other means of seeing for humans. That is the only meaning of „seeing”, there is only one way of „seeing” for humans.

You brought up the faulty car analogy, my mistake is I went with it to try to explain my view. i will not make that mistake again: No, I disagree with the above, it is wrong. It doesn’t matter if the object is macro or any other size, you always see light either at the source or reflected - that is all you see and that is all you will ever see unless you put on night vision goggles or thermal vision goggles which operate outside of the human visible spectrum of 390-700nm. You could also get an implant feeding your brain with something else than light to bypass your eyes. I am absolutely sure that you get this, Im not sure as to why you are keeping this argument alive - its ridiculous and you know it. All we can see is light - nothing less, nothing more - only light. FFS. Edit: I changed "nothing else" to "nothing less"

I will do it for you for a decent size bottle of Jack Daniels which we can drink together during the procedure. This way you can not only save ~90% off the original price but also cut on the anesthesia costs. As you can see by my above post my expert advice is questionable but personally, I wouldn’t worry much about the recovery and restriction of movement during weight lifting. Just stop lifting when it bleeds too much, otherwise I don’t see a reason to stop a perfectly good workout.