humility

I was reading through machine learning methods when I had a thought, "Wasn't some of these how the body programmed its cells?" Like with the Thymus The Body continouly produce T-Cells then runs them through examples of the various cells in the body and examples of remembered bad cells. If the T-cells attack a good cell or don't attack a bad cell, they are recycled That sounds to me like the same method used for basic machine learning. Is machine learning called something different when done by the body?

To be honest I could never quite grasp how to comprehend electricity. Amps, Watts, Volts, Watt hours, Quads, I can never quite figure out what does what or means what. So when I read that there are 3 trillion wattseconds of energy in the tides, that doesn't sound like a lot to me. I just thought "Thats just 30 million lightbulbs at one time, thats a very small number. But a single Tidal Turbine Produces 25 gigawatts a year, thats 79 watts a second, so you would half the amount of tidal energy in the oceans after just 19 million turbines built. Which is a lot, but there is more than enough space in the oceans for them. There are already over 300k wind turbines in the world and those can only go in very specific locations." But I think the responses largely solved my curiosity regardless.

So I was thinking about how long the earth core will remain molten and the how much power is produced by the earth's core compared the amount of energy earth receives from sunlight and what would happen if geothermal energy was overused, pretty straight forward, the earth's core solidifies and that led me to thinking about tidal energy, which is powered by the moon rotating around the earth. And what happens if tidal energy is overused. The tide ceases. But then I thought "Hmm there has to be something else being used up, otherwise that would just be providing far too much energy considering the moon's orbit won't finish decaying for billions more years. Can it really be a constant energy source for that long?" So what am I missing here?

Actually yes I think it does. Thanks! Im going to have to go back and reread a few books with this in mind.

I dont mean the dictionary definition. I mean, well, it seems sometimes that the word information is used in a very special sense in physics. Does it have a special meaning or is my perception off?

Sorry, this is too annoying and you missed the point of my question anyway. Im not really paying attention to who exactly Im talking to. I lose track once I get into a concersation. As Thats not really important. So you being whomever I was talking to. And I expect you to notice when Im applying concepts to the wrong words and to correct that, instead of assuming Im using the right words. Because we just wasted an entire page of discussion because I was calling spacetime just space and no one apparently noticed that, instead kept trying to point out the definition of space instead of pointing out that space and spacetime were two different concepts. I honestly thought space and time were literally the same thing and the words, space, time and spacetime were interchangeable. Because thats just one of the wierd things science does.

Maybe also you are the kind of people that see pi and theorems as real as the rocks and trees. As you only see the rocks and trees as collections of measurements. And so you cant comprehend why one would want to differentiate a measurable pattern as less real than a rock or tree. That could also be adding to the confusion. yes, yes

So mass warps the spacetime field, which is like an object in that it is not merely a mathamatical or linguistic construct, the warping is called gravity, and space is just the measurement of distance and movement. This is a lot of effort just to slot in the correct words. And you need to do a lot better at identifying when concepts are being applied to the wrong words if its such a big deal.

I would yes, if that distance could be twisted so my cup and me touch. So mass waes Maybe it is a problem with words. So mass warps space, and spacetime is a thing that gets warped but space is just measurement? Wait you calked it a spacetime field, so there a field isnt a mathamatical word so there IS an actual object like thing and its called the spacetime field. And I do want to understand, You are just terrible at explaining and seem to keep contradicting yourself.

So Space is like an object that is being warped by gravity? And not just the measurement of distance? I feel like you kerp going back and forth. Either space gets warped by gravity, or its a measurement of distance. I cant understand how it could be both. Actually I see how it could be both, but it seems like you keep insisting space isnt something getting warped by gravity then saying it is.

Your analogy doesnt work because earth is still an object. So one can say that magnets curve the space of other magnets then? Like those magnetic spinning toys that just keep spinning for years before running out of energy. Also wouldnt it be better to just stop referring to space directly then? If you want to be super accurate with all terms, why say "Gravity curves space" instead of saying "Gravity pulls objects into hyperbolic arcs" Since its not actually curving space, its curving trajectories. Nope, I still have no idea what you are trying to say.

There are probably some vocabulary words Im missing that is causing this confusion. My initial question was making the assumption that space is basically its own force. Because its always described as if it was some kind of object that we are just sitting in. An object that gets curved and twisted by gravity, torn apart by black holes, and of course science fiction likes using warping of space to do all sorts of stupid things. But thinking of space and time as just the numbers used to describe the relationship objects have with each other. Really strongly changes my perspective on everything. And it means however the force of gravity works, its affecting objects directly instead of the emptiness the objects are sitting in.

As I understood it, You described how movement is measured then went on towards linguistical definitions of the word. By actual thing, I meant sometjing that can be influenced by external factors. You know, if you have a big block its a thing because you can push and pull it and do stuff with it. But if you draw a picture of a big block, then that isnt a thing. The paper you drew on is a thing, the paint is a thing, but the apparent block, although you can measure its color and size, isnt a thing. No more than a cloud that looks like a marshmellow is actually anything more than a cloud. Ive always thought of gravity as a thing since it could be warped and affected. And it seems like you are saying spacetime isnt real. Its just a conviently related set of equations that make nice pictures. At least this explains gravitons, I did wonder how gravity could be caused by space curving and gravitons. But if space doesnt curve then that means its all just gravitons curving the path of the objects. Since its the objects being affected, not the space the objects are in. Ill have to drop spacetime as a word I use.

What does 'sec' mean? I assume you dont mean Secant and its not in the dictionary except as meaning very dry. Wait... wait... so if the 'space' used to measure position and movement and time is not an actual thing, but just a placeholder so you can drop numbers into to measure where objects are in relation to each other. Then that would mean that the space that gets curved by gravity, is completely unrelated to the space we move through? Or that saying space curves was a misleading choice of words just to describe the change in relationship gravity had on objects moving. In which case, if the sun's gravity wasnt curving space, how exactly did the light from stars behind our sun be visible even though they should have been blocked? Should I create a different thread for that? Huh, that explanation creates a new and even wierder mental image in my head, where objects that are moving, arent actually in motion, but its more like space itself is moving them in those byperbola arcs in lazy circles around each other. Isnt that what Markus said? Am I missing something?

I was just wondering, what exactly is movement? Like if we are all part of space, then what exactly is our movement within space? We can't move relative to space obviously, but what exactly is happening to space as we move? Wow this is hard to explain. I have this weird incomplete picture in my head of space like a thick web of strings and when we move its like the mass of strings moves with us but pulls and sways on other masses of strings from other objects. Why strings instead of water I don't know, probably just my brain trying to picture einstein's sheet metaphor in 3d. Point is I don't know how we move through space. I'm not even sure if space is an actual thing or just a word used as a placeholder. Well maybe it'll be easier to explain if I explain why I started wondering. So I suddenly recalled that I read somewhere that time is literally finite and will eventually run out, but we won't notice as its running out will be a slowing and slowing down of time until the entire universe is frozen in a single moment. So I thought huh, if time is a finite resource then that would make space finite as well. And I thought if something is finite than it can probably be isolated. And I thought what would happen if you isolated a bit of space from all the other space. Would it vanish from perception, would say you isolated a person's space, would they have a period of time to live equal to the amount of space they take up or would they instantly freeze? Then I thought well obviously two isolated bits of space can't move since space itself can't move otherwise space would be something you could move relative to. But then I thought but what actually happens to the space in a different bit when you move around, maybe you are moving relative to space when you move relative to an object. But then I thought wait but space and objects aren't the same thing. Objects are just in space. But then I remembered time and space are the same thing and we are clearly a part of time. And then I realized I just didn't have a clue.

Okay well this answers most of my questions. Sorry about the slow response, this was a late night post when I couldn't get to sleep and I forgot about it by the morning. So sea salt. How is natural evaporation in lakes different from forced evaporation by boiling?

I noticed that borax is naturally occuring in salt lake beds that regularily dry up and then refill. Google was useless so Im asking here, if I took salt,dumped it in a pot of water, boiled the water away, then refilled and repeated, would I eventually wind up with borax?

If light doesnt degrade, can be used as a power source and can even be slowed down and takes up no space so can be stored in infinitely dense concentrations. Why dont they make batteries out of light? Sounds like they have the technology to do it. And I cant imagine cost is a factor, light is free.

How can the universe be expanding if there is no edge? Its supposed to be expanding faster than the speed of light. And when I say time I mean space/time. Since space and time are the same thing. There is no actual such thing as time or space I think. So whenever I refer to one or the other, Im referring to both. Does space/time have energy.

Dang, and here I thought I solved all of the universe's problems. What does long radiation decay into if you put it inside a flawed mirror?

And each bounce on the perfect mirrors would impart a small amount of energy. Sounds like a potential exploit to gain infinite energy. Just make the top of the box out of microscopic pistons. Then make a billion boxes.

If you put a photon inside a mirrored box, will it bounce forever?

Does time have energy? Like if you go to the edge of the universe and try to leave, time stops. So that suggests to me time in not infinite. So is time powered by some kind of energy? Which of the four forces make up time?

This made me wonder just now, does the equal and opposite reaction rule apply to light? Because thats a Newtonian rule but light is a quantum thing. And lots of Newtonian rules dont apply to quantum mechanics.

I dont think the ball would roll. It would just be dragged. And without the rolling motion the wheel won't spin. Because the magnet would have to just pull on the top edge of the ball, letting go as soon as that edge is no longer the top, repeat. For the ball to roll. And thats not how magnets work. Like how if you try to play pool on a air hockey table, everytime you hit a ball in the center, it just skids along the table rather than rolling.