Jump to content

jajrussel

Senior Members
  • Posts

    683
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jajrussel

  1. Isn't radiation a medium?
  2. In the first link they created an environment free of mass particles to act as the medium for photons travel through? Is it safe to say that in its own medium a photon will travel at c? Or, would this be dependent on the mediums energy? I am not sure I have asked the question right. Does radiation have a density based on its energy, and would this density effect a photon of lower energy value passing through it? The second link eventually led me to an article about the moon spinning around my head which I can not even begin to explain, but it was making sense while I read it and led to a thought of could the first link experiment have been designed smaller using a laser mounted on a spinning shaft inside a box with a sensor to represent the moon, or maybe a laser mounted on one side of the box with a mirror on the spinning shaft and a sensor mounted somewhere on the box that would allow extrapolation to calculate c?
  3. I am trying to understand exactly what the chart says and my understanding may be wrong, but it seems to say that Super PACs have taken the art of buying elections to a super level. Can I assume that their original intent was to create a state of fairness where the little guy who could never hope to run for office for lack of financing might benifit if he or she could attract the attention of those who control the Super PAC, and that now those who thought the Super PACs were a good idea at the time are having second thoughts because there is no control over who actually gets the money? Well actually it seems to mean that there is no control over who the money is spent on rather than who gets the money. If my understanding is correct they could virtually take control of both parties through selective distribution. There is the making of a really good book here! It will not make a difference how many parties there are. You can wear whatever political hat you want. Their right to freedom of speech guarantees that they retain control. I was wrong congress hasn't been filibustering for status quo, they have been stalling until all the right pieces are in place, and it is likely already too late. Not only would it make a good book, it is ingenious so far as conspiracy theories go. Who would believe it? I'm trying to decide if I am being serious. I'm really not sure?
  4. When were elections not bought? It seems to me that the difference between then, and now is that then those who won no matter how they got there governed. The leaders who steam rolled over all resistance are the ones remembered as having actually gotten something done. It is not that congress can not govern it is their opinion that it is safer for their careers to feed the perpetual money machine than it is to do something that might immediately make a difference in the quality of life for the majority of Americans. They have become professional filibusters for the status quo.
  5. Extreme directions are not binding. They are what they are, extreme. No politician is bound by their campaign promises, or even their statements. It does make for a good debate but its not binding. The money spent campaigning is insane, but all caps really do is increase infighting within the parties. The no hope candidate remains just that, and if they are actually backed by billionaires they stand a better chance of staying in the race if there are no caps, so if caps are in place all a party has to do is decide where their energies are best spent. Fighting each other, or fighting the opposing parties? The republican party is the best example the power shifting within the party at a time when solidarity was needed crippled them as a party. There is always a way to manipulate the system. Economic Caps of any kind always have disruptive results which are hardly ever the intended result. Increasing the number of buyers results in higer prices giving more power to the sellers. They already want to tell us who to vote for, and when to go to war, and when not to go to war, and when we should be mad at someone, and when we should not be mad at someone. Insult them, then you can spend all your campaign money on an add, and you will look like a fool when they are done with you. No one really expects them to tell the truth, any more than a politician is expected to tell the truth. The real winners are the ones presenting the campaign. The caps are just news makers. Actually, anymore the news makers are the new makers. The rest of us are just along for the ride. It is the money given after the campaign is won that causes the most damage. The money spent by lobbyist to gain controls that fit their investors interest.
  6. Spending limits seem to make sense, but they will not effect who is actually running for an office, or who gets elected, all you are doing is creating a lot more i's to dot, and a lot more t's to cross while improving the chance that someone who is a poor bookkeeper, or who is actually just doing what they are told to do will go to jail after a lot of money is also spent on the investigation. Algorithms, can be manipulated, and it would seem far easier and more fair to stop creating population pockets within a state and go with a majority rule. Election day should be a national holiday with punitive protections. Four parties might be better than three, but multiple parties have always been used as a tool to manipulate the strength of one of the two strongest parties with the best party candidate losing votes within their own party to a third party that has no chance of winning. The result being that a candidate that would have best represented the interest of one of the two strongest parties is no longer a candidate. Their party is guaranteed to lose. Point 5 is my favorite, everyone goes to jail.
  7. Why exactly would Russia or Cuba want the president dead? Seems to me that organized crime had the better motive, and from what I have read I have always been under the impression that organized crime had a lot of money tied up in Cuba. Castro taking over Cuba would not have exactly hurt America's fight against crime, and a half hearted attempt to invade Cuba would not have exactly pleased anyone who had money tied up there.
  8. Okay! You have outclassed me. I am back to watching from the bleachers.
  9. So in the beginning it was an act of mourning, and then it became an act of remembrance?
  10. I am not sure what you want to prove. Your statements however do not seen to be true to me. Nothing has no value. Zero has value. To say that zero and nothing are the same is a rhetorical statement, one that is not true. Scripture says that faith is everything, it also says God is faith. Which rhetorically translates to God is infinite, or God is everything. But (God is infinite), or (God is everything), is missing from the logic progression, and in its place is what I assume is the preferred substitute. Math is only true so long as it's values are truly represented. A logical argument asks, which proof is better, and does not require (truth) for anything more than an argument. Math is not more logical it is more true. The equations presented seem to be lacking truth. Personally, I would choose the cheese sandwich, but I will always want more.
  11. Who would have thought that a discussion about nothing could be so entertaining. It seems to me that logic is based on analogy, and in oder for it to work well one should assume that there are two possible choices. If there is only one choice do I need logic? If there are two choices and I feel I need to use logic. Then logic being analogous suggest that the difference between the two choices is somewhat small. When you say nothing is equal to zero. Then you say that something is equal to one. Then present these statements as the base for a logical argument. You start out with a problem, actually what seems to me to be a large problem. The difference between zero and one is infinite, well at least I believe it is, and though what I believe often turns out to be wrong, sometimes what I believe turns out to be right. Actually I am really terrible with logic and should refrain from using it. I just can not help myself sometime.
  12. I thought it might be a trail something like U+2038, which seems to fit both postulates. Then from there to u238, but I don't know enough about u238 to determine if either, or both postulates apply? But the step from U+2038 to u238, might be streching my speculation a bit. Maybe by now a response has been made to the last post, and I will find out that the postulates are purely mathematical.
  13. Do you intend to use the caret and stick approach to enlightenment?
  14. I have a tendency to focus too entirely on my own thoughts sometimes, and it happened here. I should have been paying more attention to what you wrote. Instead I rambled on in senseless confusion. I am sorry? If the refractive index controls the speed limit, and massless particles cannot speed up or slow down what exactly is the refractive index presenting? If you read an article it usually says something like light moves slower through water when explaining the refractive index. As a massless particle which speed is said constant this doesn't make sense to me unless I assume that c is the speed of light in a vacuum, and that it's speed can be slower in a more dense medium, and that in that same medium it's speed will be constant throughout that medium because it is interacting at a fairly constant rate. Now if the massless particles speed has to be c the only explanation that does make sense to me is that over a given distance the particle is constantly changing direction, and the rate of change is determined by the medium through which it is passing. This would make the slower speed be to be an illusion, and if that is what it is why not just say that is what it is then give the reason why. Even in this post you wrote; In some materials massive particles can travel faster than light does in that material, see Cerenkov radiation. Is that exactly what is happening, or are the massive particles just crossing the finish line first because they are taking the more direct route? I still need to see Cerenkov radiation. Thank you for pointing me on that direction. As for geodesics, I understand the desire for the term more than I do the need. Maybe as I learn more my understanding will change.
  15. I believe I read somewhere else that when a photon interacts it ceases to exist then it exist then it interacts again then it ceases to exist then it exist again. That the interaction takes time resulting in the apparent slowing down. Is this what you mean by the refraction index? I'm sorry if I got the question wrong I didn't quote your post and this little box I am writing in won't allow me to see anything but what I am writing in the little box. I am reasonably sure you used the word refraction, but I am not sure about the word index. The reason I want to refer to a photon as being under constant acceleration is that I read once that in vector math a change of position could constitute a change of direction, so I am wondering why a change of position can not be viewed as a form of acceleration. This would seem to allow that gravitational lensing could occur without a seeming need for a photon to slowdown. Then you could call it a geodesic path, or you could call it a curved path the photon is simply changing position at a constant rate. Once I make this little box go away then I can re-read your post then try to understand it better. Thanks.
  16. I did expand on it in an edit to my original post when I realized that the term calculated speed might be confusing, but I cannot figure out how to copy it here, so you just need to scroll up and read the bottom portion. I read something to the effect in another thread that special relativity assures that something with zero mass can have no change in velocity magnitude. When I looked up velocity magnitude I read that it basically ment speed, so I am assuming this means that c is c under all conditions. If this is so what is the need for the term vacuum applied to c? Also, what is happening during gravitational lensing? I thought that a change of direction ment a change in acceleration. In this case since the photon can't speed up it had to be slowing down until it reached a point where it could return to its normal state of c. Apparently,I have it all wrong? This is actually a question not just a statement though as a statement it may be true. One more question. In terms is physics when you have something going as fast as it can physically go is it wrong to assume, or say that if it maintains that speed then it is under constant acceleration? I ask because because though it may not be changing direction it would seem that at that point it would still need a reason to change position even at a constant rate, and I can't think of a reason why this particular thought would conflict with Newton's laws of motion.
  17. I tend to get a little confused sometimes when people start talking about c being constant. I thought that c is said to be constant in a vacuum, allowing it in any other states to go slower. So this led me to believe that c had to be a calculated number since it seems to me that actually finding a vacuum where nothing interacts with the photon might be difficult. Yet people constantly talk of photon, partial interaction as if while interacting the photon is in a vacuum state therefore its speed is c. So is c a calculated speed, or do people have a fuzzy way of viewing vacuum? To remove some possible confusion when I say calculated I mean by measuring as precisely as possible then removing mathematically what you can not possibly remove any other way from the controlled experiment that may be affecting the photons speed.
  18. No, you do not need to be explicit, but had you been my answer might have led to the question you have asked here.
  19. To answer the first question; No. To answer the second question; I can't see that it leads us anywhere. The answer (no) is the conclusion. I should put a little smiley face here I realize that you are looking for debate, but you should state your opinion before asking for others so that one can be clear as to where it is you want to lead them with your questions. I need another smiley face you did state your opinion, my bad. Still I get the feeling that you want too impart wisdom through questions, and the second question suggests that a simple no isn't the wisdom you are alluding to. Please advise?
  20. What garden? Where is it? Is it metaphorical? Who specifically said; "I choose to leave the garden". I live on a beautiful garden. There are places in it I choose not to go. There are places I would love to go but will never be able to go, but the view of my front yard is beautiful also, and I would choose to see it everyday for the rest of my life, but there are no guarantees. It will not be a God who forces me to leave when that day comes.
  21. 1. I would agree, but most people have the need to rationalize existence. It is perfectly normal. We have been doing it for years, and history is written by the survivors. Ultimately there will be no survivors, so that is rationalized, and we are offered immortality. 2&3. God does not seem to express existence nearly so well as humanity. All good, and all evil is of or own doing. When this is pointed out in any scripture history repeats itself, and we rationalize what we are doing. It is all perfectly normal.
  22. The first time I realized my own ignorance was when I realized that what I was feeling was a conditioned response. From then on it has been of my own doing, is never ending, I continually suffer for it, and haven't got a clue how to avoid it. I don't possess the means to fulfill the desire to own even a small portion of what there is to learn, yet I go through the motions, eagerly taking in whatever knowledge I can, all the while knowing that time is running out. Hmmm, of course it would help if I didn't challenge knowledge at its every revealing, but seriously where's the fun in that?
  23. I am working on 35 year old memory here, but the only thing consistent at first was that most of the numbers would be wrong, usually the last four digits. 56637844 would come out 56634487 most often. 44873665 on occasion, and a two digit transposition could occur just about any time. I had to learn to think in sets of 4 & 4, or 4 & 3. Then I had to learn to stick with those sets. I also had to be careful not to use a 4 & 3 set on an eight digit number. Then I had to be careful not to start with a three set, which I tried to do a lot at first. Then one day I caught myself using a 5 & 2 set, which scared me. I checked that number a lot of times convinced that I would find a mistake that wasn't there. I had no clue at first, but basically what I was doing was reading, and writing the the first part of the number in the right order. Then knowing that there were three to four digits left, look up and start reading from the right, and counting from right as I did so. Then I would check my work by making sure I had the right amount of numbers, then assume at that point that everything was good. It never occurred to me that I was reading right to left as I counted. So that part was most consistent.
  24. My first encounter with dyslexia was when I got a job that required writing down large numbers. I made it through school, and the military not knowing I had a problem. I am guessing that anxiety can heighten the problem. I got lucky. The manager had a son who was dyslexic, so she knew what she was looking at when she saw it. Half the number would be written left to right, the other half right to left. Sometimes the whole number would be right to left. Sometimes only two numbers would be transposed. It was her patience and a lot of writing, and erasing to write again, that eventually won the day. It was frustrating for me because I would be so confident that I had gotten every number right. Not once did she show any kind of impatience. She would simply point out my mistake, then have me go write down the number again. Constantly encouraging, saying take your time and concentrate, this is what you did wrong this time, think about what you did wrong when you check your number, then check again that every number is written in the right order left to right. It was three weeks before I managed to get it right on the first trip, only to get it wrong the next day. Around four months later writing the numbers and getting the numbers right the first time was no longer an issue, but it took a long time before I could write a long number, check it once, and feel confident that it was right. Even today I find myself repeating a number I have written down over and over until something distracts me. Patience, understanding, and a lot of encouragement will get her, and her student through the roughest part. My problem was with numbers, so I imagine it might be different with reading. Maybe something that focuses the readers attention on each word one word at a time in such a way that the reader can see that the word is part of a sentence, but can only clearly make out the one word, if word order is the problem. For letters, maybe plastic letters laid out in the silliest of ways. The letter is on its side, it is upside down, it is backwards, and a game is made of getting the letters positioned the way they should be so that they can spell a word, spell out a word like cab, but place the b sideways or upside down then have the student reposition the b until it is right. As far as a program that inverts the letters to meet the students needs, I think it would be better to place a bar under the b to distinguish it from a d. Then it becomes b for bar. Something easy to remember. Best of luck to both teacher and student.
  25. I am still working out what the two off you have said, basically so I can quit using my head to do all the work. While I was thinking of a diagram I realized that my thoughts on direction were too limited. Pretty much straight up and down with a slight angle toward the moons center. Every part of the moon is attracted to every part of the wheel, and every part of the wheel is attracted to every part of the moon. In a sense everything flattens out, and the difference in acceleration from one side to the other was negligible to begin with.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.