Mike Smith Cosmos

I am not totally sure of my facts here, but I think a lot of the weather forecasting is less to do with maths and formulas and more to do with probability based on mass numbers , statistics and models as you say. Perhaps an analogue computer/machine as opposed to digital computers [ highly maths driven , whereas analogue computers are more measurement of values driven]. would be more suitable for this sort of prediction . Rather than a down side to my argument , this is supportive. unless, as I say you are going to use the word MATHS to swell up and take over the whole territory of physics . Perhaps for the sake of argument we should leave Maths in the deterministic, accurate predictive camp. And put probability and emergence and models and non determanism ideas, into the Physics camp . This might prevent potential physics students from running screaming into the ARTS !

I Know . That is just " tong in cheek " about the gathering. If you have some pre history of calcium from super nova to precambrian/cambrian border I would be delighted.

Not at all. This is a forum. A place where minds meet and debate . As this is the "speculation" section ,it is more open than the specific subject debates. No , and I am not suggesting that as a way forward, predicting hurricanes on an abacus . You are potentially making me out to be a 'Luddite', which I am not. But I am very zealous that other ways of understanding the bigger picture, which may not be seen if we have our eyes down on the keyboard, when the answer lies out there in observation and concept development, perhaps at a systems level rather than a detail level. If the hurricanes come sometime,somewhere , maybe we will have to reorganize ourselves not to be where the hurricanes come ,and when they come. If the floods come regularly to some lands, maybe we should arrange to re distribute land area. The herds of animals have sussed this one out thousands of years ago. It is really time to question what and how we do things. I am sure there is refined technology that can work in with a redistributed globe.

I think you are staking too big a claim on the territory . Namely the following :- I think a more reasonable territorial claim would be the following :- But that is how half at least of nature is: Based on hugh numbers , random etc Hence variety, beauty,living things hurricanes, floods etc etc True the other half that is based on equations :- lifts, I pods , Railway systems most of our industrial way of life. The net .Banking systems But look where it is leading us at the moment . To Rack and Ruin .

Go and have a look the pair of you on Maths v Hypothesis link http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72725-is-mathematics-alone-a-safe-medium-for-exploring-the-frontiers-of-science-or-should-observation-and-hypothesis-lead-in-front/page-6 mike

Surely you mean :- "But you're missing part of the message: that what we have found is that nature can ( among other ways ) be described by, or not including , math."

SWANSONT said Are you saying , that if or while the angular velocity is increasing, there WILL be a centrafugal force ?

Yes , but he is presenting the culmination of his life's work to the world on TIME , and he has chosen to do it without a single mathematical equation. However I have to be honest, that I have just read a part of a previous book by him as his life in theoretical physics ( The life of the Cosmos by Lee Smolin). Here he describes the joy of seeing the nature of reality being illuminated by mathematical models,over and over again, much as DH comments over the last few posts ( as indeed you have ). However having referred in this 'life of the cosmos ' book to the holy grail of every aspiring scientist ,(including himself,)in the theory of physics being to develop the theory that reflects everything he ends that reasoning with :- He ends up in this particular missive by discussing Guess it must look sort of like this :-

Well I think what fascinates me is this post Cambrian/pre-Cambrian divide. If I have picked it up right , some 3,000,000,000 years went by with calcium being about in one form or another, and yet it did not seem to take off in life forms until mainly the Pre Cambrian to Cambrian border ( there must be another name for this - like pc-c boundry ). Then they got their teeth,( and started eating each other) shells, spines and appeared in the fossil explosion. ( Also its probably because its white ) And it was such a surprise to me , the other day that these pervasive trilobites, that seem to span many of the periods in the geological column,got hold of miniature Calcite crystals in arrays to see with. By the way thanks for your succinct , geological comments for my U3A group. You are now the great GURU. The great Professor up in Glasgow or somewhere We need a Big Picture of you , 6 feet High, to bring out at the beginning of our meetings. !

Perhaps there is something special that happens in circular motion ? When I was a little boy I was given this hoop thing . It had a groove on the inside of the hoop that you could place a ping pong table tennis ball in. If you learned to swirl just right you could get the ball whirling around inside the hoop. When it was up and running it would take the least amount of effort to keep the thing going. Whirl, Whirl Whirl. The ball would somehow (to my little brain then) not fall out when It curved around the upper half or the hoop. Or you could turn it sideways and it ' just kept on a going'. It fascinated me then as it was so counter intuitive . Like you fell out of your cot if your big sister turned it upside down. Water poured all over mothers table cloth if you knocked over your glass. If your bike hit a tree and went upside down, you fell off and hurt yourself. Here was something " Just because it was going in a circle it appeared to have Special rules that defied Gravity. Boy ! was I hooked . and have been ever since. I still find it fascinating to be aware of Satellites zooming overhead without rockets ,cruising indefinitely in the orbits. As with the planets, Stars, Galaxies and whatever. Maybe there is something special about the way matter responds to being held in a CIRCLE.

You could start a RIOT by what you have said here. ! All be it, that it is the statement I expected . Its putting all your eggs in one basket.:- IF you are wrong on the point that science MUST emanate out of maths. IF and only IF some future ,( particular aspect of science,) progress in understanding HAS TO come from a different route, say :- Observation or otherwise, followed by conceptual modeling , followed by experiment or further observations. Then one could restrict progress in understanding if one was to doggedly stick to maths and maths alone. Prof. Lee Smolin of Perimeter Institute has just released his latest book TIME REBORN . Not one Maths formula . True it is the result of many scientists and many years work, but none-the-less surely this demonstrates NEW SCIENCE needs NEW METHODS. No? Maybe subjects like TIME need a conceptual change not more maths.

What you appear to be saying is :- MATHS is BEDROCK or if not There is no way to get at BEDROCK . Why must there be no way to the ultimate answers of Physics ? or The Universe ? and Everything? You are saying to me

I think I know whats going on here. You are all repeating the same things about " there is no such thing as Centrifugal Force" because consider whats this centripetal doing........and I am repeating here the same thing YES there is a Centifugal force because feel it ..... and the Underlying Questions are not being addressed WHY DOES SOMETHING WANT TO CONTINUE IN A STRAIT LINE AND REACTS WHEN YOU PUSH IT INTO A CIRCLE? WHY SHOULD NOT EVERYTHING WANT TO NATURALLY WANT TO MOVE IN A CIRCULAR MANNER , AFTER ALL MANY THINGS IN THE UNIVERSE ARE CURVY? IS IT INERTIA AND IF SO QUITE WHY DOES THAT WORK OUT ? HIGGS ? WHAT HAPPENS WHEN CIRCULAR MOTION IS INVOKED, SAY TO THE HIGGS FIELD or ANY OTHER FIELD ( GRAVITATIONAL, SPACE, ELECTRIC, MAGNETIC, VIRTUAL PARTICLES , THE GRID [Frank Wilczec] ) are all these fixed and so circular motion is trying to buck the system, is there nothing, do they all follow the thing that is being changed[direction] Is it possible that all or some of these unseen possible influences are causing the difficulty? Certainly with me and I don't thing I am alone. . EUREKA its INERTIA is bound up in the nature of matter. The structure of matter must have a set shape like sliding doors, they like to go in slithery strait lines until otherwise orientated. This is what ROBIN PIKE IS TALKING ABOUT in his theory of the nature of particles as " STRANDS of MOVEMENT " by Robin Pike If necessary move this one post to Speculations !

Right, I have read most of the Link. My whole 'intuition' feels there is something wrong here. The man is in a closed box. He is unaware what is happening outside the box. He is gripping the stout rope. Unbeknown to him there is a very large roller at the end of his rope. The whole platform is turning in a large circle anticlockwise. The large roller is gently persuaded to move with the platform turning. It gets faster and faster. The roller is free apart from the ridges. What happens to the roller , (black ) ? the Rope. ? The Man holding the rope. ?

I am not quite sure what you are asking me ? My fault not yours ?

WHY did NOBODY not tell me about the CALCITE The TRILOBITES have CALCITE EYES Calcium Carbonate must have been made up above . sprinkled out of the sky like baking powder or come down already dissolved in water. The Trilobites got hold of it and developed CALCITE EYES! CALCIUM AGAIN REF: Richard Forty in Book The Oxford Book of Modern Scientific Writing Page 82 2008/2009 Pub Oxford University Press USA Richard Forty was a Contributor among many famous scientists Chap Title 'Trilobite'

You are using a lot of " math Descriptors" . I am asking about the Student in the middle of that horrendous spinning Rope and weight. I know because I have done it. IT pulls with one h... of a force. Look at the scottish highland games . The Mc tavish has to nearly lean over backwards. the wee. This thing is away on me , the noo. Its pulling me nearly over the wee thing , jock, jimmy mac lad ! the noo !

Correct ! But the forces going on down there in the 100 LB weight and the Heavy Chain SWISHING ABOUT are HUMUNGOUS ! I used to take physics students out on a deserted Foot ball field . They had a 8 meter strong rope with a 5 Kgm weight ( suitably padded) . I would get a strong male to swing by cranking up small radius to all 8 metres. . The rest would stand well back . I would shout ( as the student staggered about at the middle. " CAN YOU FEEL THE FORCE " YE-E-E S MR SMITH as he staggered and fell dizzy to the earth. Please Sir can I have a Go ? They loved it AND THEY FELT THE FORCE WHAT FORCE DID THEY FEEL ? Surely he can feel the force of trying to break/ convert inertia from a straight trajectory with all that momenum into a circle with angular momentum . FEEL THE FORCE

What are you trying to do to me ? My calculator is up in the attic with the teddy bears, for when the grandchildren come I spend my days painting Trilobites, and thinking about where all the calcium comes from to make up their calcite eyes. Over here , we work in the MKS ( meters Kilograms seconds system ) [ which incidently just happens to be my initials Mike Keith Smith].Not Feet pounds and Busshels. And I cannot seem to get the Parrafin powered generator going to make the gears in my brain turn in the maths part of my brain. I have difficulty trying to remember where I put the tea caddy. With concepts and pictures I am as bright as a button. Anyway I have had a go. The answer is Approx 3 ( feet per sec) (meters per Second) . My Reasoning and Calculations follow. As far as the outer device . Small one inch link under question, the inner device is just a device for moving ME the small chain and small weight around. ( being 100 times mass ) ME the small mass is effectively being moved around a circle of radius one foot one inch , having a mass of one pound. Which by my crude reconing is ( 2.5 or 2.25 lbs to kiliogram is somewhere like 0.44 to .5 kg per pound) CREEK GROAN !) and as the radius is 1.1 feet and it is approx ( 39 inches = 1 meter , so one inch = 1/39= .0.025641 meters so one foot =12" = 0.3 meters ) CREEK GROAN NOW BY MY RECONING THE FORCES ON THE LINK ARE Centripetal IN Centrifugal out = m x Vsquared/ r m = 1 pound = .44 to .5 kgms v we do not know yet r= 1ft one inch ( just a minute I will look at my foot ) = 1 ( approx 1.1foot x 0.3meters= .0.33m) GROAN CREEK . Caculations below seem to come out APPROX THREE meters per second or 3 feet per second ( apprximations are BAD ( need to go up in the roof among the teddy bears for the granchildren and find my calculator, or slide rule. I need to go and lie down ! Where are the Asprin ? Or go and think about Calcite and Trilobites Eyes ! AHH ! THIS IS BETTER .

Fire away ! Fine by me ! Go ahead.

Is this latter description not similar to my explanation above in my last post . Accept that I did mentioned acceleration. But I did say it was not going anywhere up the radius. I have never been too keen on the acceleration term because nothing seemed to be going anywhere up the radius. I suppose if you think of it relative to the projected strait line trajectory, it would be an acceleration away from that straight line trajectory. I did measure the cenrifugal force , using a sensor in the radius as it was swung in a partial arc. This in my final year project at University Degree.

Yes well that'.s the classical answer and reality " It goes off tangentially at the point of CUT " But the problem is the 'mass or me in the box ' wants( by inertia to go in a strait line all the time," but I am being pulled constantly by the fulcrum and its connecting pieces into a circle ( this is the centripetal force as I understand it. ) .It is succeeding to do that,( pull me out of a strait line ) in some form of acceleration radially ( although I dont move up the radius at all. ) Though the F=ma means there is a force . radially inward ( centripetal) . But surely as I am not going up (in ) the radius there must be a reactive force outward to Balance ( Namely the centrifugal force. ) Is this not the same as pushing , or attempting to push a very large block on a surface . Push is forward Pushing force Resistance is the Frictional Force. If I was left to my own devices, I would be saying " Centrifugal force is the reactive force experienced when we try to move MASS off a strait line trajectory ." And " that this Centrifugal force can have many effects when mass moves in a restrained circle" When I swing a Bucket over my head half full of water, the water stays in the bottom of the bucket, when the bucket is both below , sideways or above my head. When a Satellite moves in Low Earth Orbit . Gravity is the force pulling down radially towards the Earth.( Centripetal Force.) Centrifugal Force is surely the reactive force caused by gravity pulling the satellite away from a strait line into a circle ? ( like the swinger of the bucket of water , pulling (like Gravity on the Satellite) . I really don't understand why we can not accept Centrifugal Force as we accept a lot of other forces. ( Some originating, others reacting.)

EXPLAIN THE ARROW FORCE . .I am oblivious of anything outside my box. All I know is "I am hanging on for grim death". And can feel a force of some sort going from my head to my feet. I know of no universe, or anything else for that matter. What is this force I feel ? I seem to be locked into some form of dizzy motion thats trying to drag me somewhere away from my hand ? It is not fictitious to me !

You have played the part of the " Man of Words " Now I will play the part of " the Visualiser " Are you happy with my interpretation of what you have said in your last quoted post , in this visualisation . . . Is this roughly what you mean . .

Somewhere here in my house I have a copy of Mathmatica by Isaac Newton. I have had a quick look for it. I have the feeling it's propping up the bed.! I am saving it up for reading perhaps over a nuclear winter , or sometime.