-
Posts
3218 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Mike Smith Cosmos
-
. . That rather raises a different issue! Or set of issues . Does ' everything ' ...Have to be predictable ? ....eg living things or something else ... Other entities ..? Even other purely ' material phenomenon invisible to us ' but if we want a correct scientific view of things , we surely must take these things into account if we want a ' whole ' scientific view of things ? True most animals are predictable by their instincts , but even then because of complexity issues , individual animals , would not always be predictable . Humans can be pretty unpredictable , sometimes, ... And both animals and humans are considered science based ...and perhaps there is a whole raft of other things yet unidentified , going about their existence in an other unpredictable way ! Yet these things might need to be recognised for us to understand ,( scientifically or as necessary for a complete and correct view , scientific view ) how the universe works . That is . If all these wooly issues are not a conflict in terms? Mike
-
Yes , but the early scientists , 1700,s 1800,s and early 1900's did go for using more standard classical means of motion of particles before we all got tied up in quantum theory and relativity. I appreciate one has to move on to understand quantum and relativistic effects. Because circular motion is difficult , to conduct experiments with as ( a ) it's moving in a complete cycle , so effects can cancel . And it's extremely difficult to make measurements on a small scale ( unless you are traveling round with the instruments, like on an astronauts test centrifuge ,( b) or for that matter measure over small or discrete , small, sections of travel . (C ) we do not naturally go round in circles , whereas we do move strait forward. , in strait lines ( unless we have had a drink ,that is ) . ------------------------ I am not sure ,I understand fully what your second point is . Namely " or they are analyzing it from the object's frame, which requires a pseuoforce force in order to "balance", because in the electrons's frame, it's in linear motion. You can do one or the other, but you can't mix the two. I personally dislike the latter method, because invariably people misapply it. It only works for a object moving in a circular path.." .?? ------------------------- Mike
-
No , I certainly would not want to infer, or want to suggest that . My motive for my pushing this idea of ..(Observation and hypothesis should lead,). is to a very specific end . I am worried that there might well be a whole raft of maths that has yet remained undiscovered. Maths , we would be hard to recognise as maths . Similarly ,that there might well be a whole other raft of a view of reality ,that has yet remained , unnoticed, not thought about, not speculated upon, and thus no serious observation or hypothesis has as yet not been formed. Because of fear of thinking and speaking about something that sounds ' far fetched' So if it was compulsory ,that we have to use maths , as is, to model reality, for it to be considered science , If we as yet, and maybe never develop the new necessary maths . Then we may be inclined to ignore certain observations , and / or dismiss certain speculations and the following hypothesis , as it does not have a ' current maths ' model . So I am not saying ALL research should not use maths, far from it. But I am suggesting we should allow scientists to observe obscure patterns, hunches, and sometime ideas that sound conflicting with the current model of the cosmos. And to make hypothesis sometimes where as yet, and maybe never( because it is not possible to develop a mathematical model ) . To make hypothesis that can be checked by another method ( say , because it WORKS , or for some other reason ) Mike
-
The great Seas and Rivers of the Supercontinents.
Mike Smith Cosmos replied to Mike Smith Cosmos's topic in Earth Science
...AGE OF A CHUNK OF CLIFF .. It's always difficult to imagine when one stands against a cliff of the same deposition , say sandstone or chalk cliffs , what time period did it take to deposit such a cliff. I have asked various geologists, but I usually get a ' it depends ' type answer , which is never very satisfying . There are usually comments like " well most of it has been worn away! " Or there could have been a flash flood ! However ,I am getting near to a rough guide of .... 50 to 100 million years per cliff . ..... Meaning that a cliff that is 50 meters high is likely to have taken 50- 100 million years to lay down . Sort of one geological period ( say the ..Cretaceous . .( white cliffs ) . So when you look at the cliff close up , say the cliff is 50 meters high . Then the whole cliff might have taken 50 million years to deposit the particles, sand ,shells or whatever. So One meter will represent 1,000,000 ( one million years ) .that 1 meter thick chunk in front of your eyes took 1 million years to deposit . Is that right ? Bempton cliffs . Yorkshire . U.k. Mike 50,million years from top of cliff to bottom . -
I appreciate that , believe me. But what I am saying there is a good case, when we are trying to search out new ideas , because we have a crop of mysteries outstanding. THEN it is wise to let Observation and Hypothesis lead at the frontiers . As was the case with Livingston I presume. . No doubt the cumbersome , ridged, heavy boats got snarled up in the rapids and swamps. ( like a unsuitable ridged mathematical approach ) . Whereas the light ,flexible, craft, could be easily ' portaged ' across or around the swamps and rapids to make it to lake Victoria and the discovery of source of the Nile later. ( like the loose, flexible , lightweight , Observation and Hypothesis approach ) Later to meet up with Stanley I presume with his exploits on the Congo river. Africa navigated. Mike
-
Well I can not really agree with that . Prof Lee Smolin of the Perimeter Institute in Canada. Came up with an Hypothesis that the universe is constantly changing ( increasing and decreasing . Going through a sort of ' natural selection process' from galaxies, to solar systems to black holes. Constant change and adaption . I am sure his hypothesis has led others in to producing more refined hypothesis , including all sorts of later computer models of exactly what happens where . But it was led by him , with his original proposition and Hypothesis with more global models and reasoning . Mike
-
I think it is just right here is where we are getting potentially. .Derailed . Yes the hypothesis might well be vague in its description of " increase " or "decrease" . But this could be a major hypothesis in its own right. Previously we may have adamantly thought something was a fixed constant . Now a hypothesis comes along and proposes 'NO ' . This characteristic is a variable , things are changing all the time , things are adapting to changing circumstances. Now all we are saying ' hypothesising ' is that things are not fixed , but increasing and decreasing over time ! Now , you guys , go and do your sums and tell us the detail! Surely that is hypothesis leading . .? Mike
-
But surely the weak force is the " electroweak " force so it is already tied into ' electro '.Is the strong force in quarks not related to charge ? I see in some tables of the standard model, there are + and - all over the place . Can all this not be at the root of this centripetal - centrifugal dance , that Bohr suggested ,was going on in the atom. .? I know the issues get complicated when more than one electron is present. But does the hydrogen atom not lead , in this analysis ? Mike
-
.. .Yes . how about Observations . Then the observations can give rise to a hypothesis , ( leading ,in front ) . Then you guys go away and calculate, and model even greater things, having been lead by the " Observation and Hypothesis " from the Gold mine to the ' Trough ' . Then you produce the precise model on which to build a new technology / product ,whatever? I am sure ' bridges are built this way ' ? Mike
-
Strange was also indicating that " electromagnetic " might be ( All there is ) , is this a common belief ? There appears to be a focusing in on " electromagnetism " . Swansont was saying that , electrostatics was the original centripetal force to do with early theories of atoms, ( which I sort of knew ) and I have just quoted from Wikipedia , that Bohr thought this was balanced with centrifugal force in the atom . ( post 17 on this thread ) . So maybe , just maybe I am in good company . ( I know that is no merit ,as he could have been my grandfather, that would still not make it right) ( he was not my grandfather ) . Mike
-
.. Why can they ( the Analogies , observations and Hypothesis ) not " lead in front " as the name of the thread infers ? . In other words " indicate " to blind maths , the way to go and calculate ,or contort , or whatever it is you guys do. , ( tongue in cheek ) Go on, say it " Yes they can " . Cough splutter ! Mike
-
.. What is the matter with a physical object as a model, a visual picture as a model, a lingual description as a model ? I appreciate none of these is as ridged and precise as maths, but maybe a characteristic that is sought out of the model is not precision but paradigm change ,to move forward ? I am not sure there is a mathematical expression for " Paradigm change. " , is there ? Mike
-
? Here is a Wikipedia reference to it. but describing the Centrifugal force. . http://www.3rd1000.com/chem101/chem104i.htm Note the mention of his view of centrifugal force in this context . Quote " The Bohr model of an atom postulated a structure in which a single electron moved in a circular orbit around the central nucleus, much as a satellite orbits the earth or the planets orbit the sun. Satellites may circle the earth at any distance outside the atmosphere; their orbits may have any radius. As a satellite travels in its orbit there is a balance between the inward force of gravitation, mm'g/r2, and the outward or CENTRIFUGAL force of the moving satellite, mv2/r. In these equations m is the mass of the satellite, m' is the mass of the central earth, r is the radius of the orbit, and v is the velocity of the satellite in its orbit. The forces are equal in a stable orbit; mm'g/r2 = mv2/r gives by rearrangement v2r = m'g. Since the mass of the earth m'and the gravitational constant g are both constants, a satellite can assume an orbital radius if and only if it possesses the appropriate velocity. Acceleration of the satellite must therefore increase both its velocity and its orbital radius so it moves outward, while deceleration will move it inwards. Astronauts use this procedure, decelerating their capsules or shuttles by firing rockets to move inward until they reenter atmosphere. " Unquote [in the atomic orbit version , the inward force centripetal is electrostatic force between electron and nucleus , not gravity] Mike
-
.This juncture is the ' fork in the road' or ' the division in the river tributary ,up stream ' . Going up the Nile , looking for its source , was going to lead Livingstone to Lake Victoria Or a dead end. If figuratively the one leading to the dead end was solely maths ( in its present state of understanding ) , and the one leading to Lake Victoria was figuratively the tributary like some modest amount of maths conjoined with a high percentage of Analogy taken from a direct view of nature with ALL her mysterious, yet undiscovered features . Then success , we would have gained access to waters ,unimaginable , analogous to Lake Victoria in all her depth ,opportunity and glory. Wa hey ! Mike Analogies + Maths . . Maths ONLY Q.E.D. .....WA hey !
-
Sorry imfamatal . Also sorry you were right about need for two bodies , in centrifugal force , issue , for Newton's third law. This does not remove the idea of two forces alone , one against the other , outside Newton's third law though , does it . Like one team pulling on a rope ( tug of war ) that way , and another team pulling the other way . If one dominates with its pull force ( they win ) . If they both are equal ( it is balanced and they stay still in a balanced condition. Or have I got that wrong too. I know swansont says it's not true for all atomic orbits and lines but I saw an old text book , where centripetal was the attractive charge between electron and nucleus , and centrifugal was speed in orbit of the electron. Balanced into orbit. I know this is pre quantum . But it did give a right answer for some simple orbits . Mike
-
A) But we do not consider there is any ' they '. Or a particular 'you ' , when we go on the internet . There is no one individual sitting there , saying , " oh there is mike smith asking another question " Or really any individual logging I have been at it . So why could there not already exist a very widespread , very sophisticated internet universe wide Internet , already set up , by some long since pre existing intelligent master race . And that system is sufficiently designed to give us information that we ask for in the way or protocol that we request. ( significant events left right and center as requested. ) . Why not , if we can imagine it , it could be done. But just like our internet , it will not give us , unless we ask for it ( except adverts that is ) . So the men in white coats do not need to visit me , unless they want to know how this ' serendipity universal wide internet ' , performs. Then I could show them . Although I have only ever done this once , with another person present. And it made us both Jump. He was a friend , so he never called up the men in white coats. B) I did it today , while waiting by the side of the road , for a friend to pick me up ,in between Art Groups. It worked . I am still a free man ! I can't think of any time , much that it has failed. Each time I think it will fail , then it does not. See maybe SETI is listening on E-M signals at hydrogen frequency , and a number of other frequencies , when really , the system is already linked up ,in a strait forward question and answer system . We just need to specify how we want the information. A bit like transfer of money ( do you want it by cheque, bank transfer, cash or personal delivery . ) Even with today's technology , some systems will automatically work out a protocol that will work. In days gone by you had to set baud rate , goodness knows what , handshaking to get comms to work. Even now there are intelligent systems . What will it be like in 200 years . We would not recognise it, it would be so transparent. Maybe like the way I am trying . Mike
-
Firstly , as I said previously , at the core of this supposed communications , is , it must be possible for it to be interpreted by anyone ,including the operator , as AMBIGUOUS . In other words the experience CAN be interpreted as pure random happening , coincident or no coincidence . This for Impact avoidance for all concerned. As regards the method of protocol and indications of which of the three alternatives. Then :- Having settled into an alone situation , then The statement is made . (" Bla de bla de bla de bla ....... ...." An event of significance occurs , within the next five minutes . either to the right , establishing the statement is correct. Or to the left , establishing the statement is wrong . Or to the centre, establishing the statement is neither right nor wrong , both a bit right and a bit wrong. Remembering the whole thing can be interpreted as ambiguous , and one walks away unscathed. Or one accepts the indication as a useful contribution for consideration, in the same way one might interpret a colleagues views on your subject as their opinion. Nobody is hurt by this exercise . Far from it ,I have experienced such Serendipity events , in the spirit that was expected . A useful contribution to ones thoughts. Remember, I can walk away from this as an ambiguous experience , or a useful input . ------------------ -------- Now you could put all sorts of interpretations on this exercise , ranging from ' talking to yourself ' to ' tapping into some serendipity mechanism , to gaining access to some sort of universal super wi-fi established by some ' Higher life form ' ? Well it's very easy to say , " load of gobble-de- goop " , or is there the seed of something interesting? Mike
-
Yes. But I have to be careful . I do not want you to categorise me as a crank ! That could be easily done . I have gone about this quite logically , reasoned out , no spooks , no fear, The objective measure ,as to wether the communication has taken place is the Serendipity event that has taken place . No event no communications . Excuse me I need to look up apophenia ....... Link :- http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia O.k. Patterns , ( like looking in tea leaves ) . No I have a simple code . Right . Wrong . Neither . Mike ( ps need to go . Full day ART .tomorrow , catch you tomorrow . Bye )
-
.A) There is nothing wrong with listening . SETI does it . Short Wave listeners , used to do it for the thrill. Radio Amateurs did it for the Technical Challenge , among other reasons. NASA is spending a reasonable budget looking for life( could be advanced Civilisation . So my little noticing Serendipity , well now I agree it is different , but is still a challenge . I have not said I accept Roger Penrose Microtubules . I am open on that one . If I was going to communicate , I would just use my voice ( transmission ) all-be-it into the air . As regards the other direction , that is where the possible Serendipity comes in . It would be a ' fortunate coincidence if there was some way to ' encode ' a reply . So encode it . That is what Morse , did he encoded a morse code , it worked for a 100 years . Various encoding goes on in Computer communication . ASCII ( American Standard Code for Information Interchange. ) etc . I have made a very simple Code for Serendipity Communication CSC . B) As I said I find it difficult to get my head round the strange looking aliens that are portrayed .they look like something out of a 1920's movie If anything , I think they would look just like us, pretty well , for 'no shock' reasons . Mike
-
A) Communication. . I was and I suppose still am a Radio Amateur . In days gone by we used to tune in very carefully between all the signals , the atmospherics, the static, the interference. We would listen , perhaps for morse code or a voice signal so faint. Listening for your call sign G4Hxx. You had to tease the tuning to lock in . Nowerdays it's all computer controlled. With the communications I am talking about here , it's a matter of ' possibly ' teasing out serendipity from random chance , that is , if you are looking . If you are not looking , then one will only see coincidence , and shrug it off , which is easy to do. But what if one makes a serious attempt? B) With the 'government supposedly covering up UFO 's . I can not get my head around that one . However there is some pretty fancy pictures of a Canadian official talking about these things . Mike
-
Visible or invisible is not a big issue , what is an issue having thought about this very thoroughly. At this stage with any possible early communication. I believe Ambiguity is essential . Otherwise cultural impact would be devastating to our fragile civilisation. So I believe , if I am right , there will be a serious case of Serendipity, surrounding any communication from a higher intelligence . In this way you would not readily know if the communication was a complete random fluke or a fortunate coincidence of the serendipitous variety . If you were to say , I have seen a little green man , You would probably get shot by some fanatic , and/ or the impact suddenly of " we are not alone" the economy would collapse in a matter of weeks , then a spiral of violence , and goodness knows what . I think any higher intelligence would know this and introduce communication ambiguously , certainly to begin with. If you want to know where I am at , with all this . I take note of any Serendipity, quite fun really , because I can pass it all off as Fortunate Coincidence or think , " now that is interesting ". Link to Serendipity :- http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serendipity Mike