elfmotat

Indeed. The toughest part of this problem seems to be determining the submerged volume as a function of the angle, and the point through which the buoyant force acts.

That makes no sense. Planck time isn't measured at all, it is a defined unit.

So work in units where half a Planck time = 1.

How about half a Planck time? That's smaller.

This is just absurd. I haven't once tried to "prove you wrong," for the reasons I explained. You're pulling stuff from an orifice and proclaiming it as truth with no reasoning or evidence. That's anti-science. I've tried to be as clear on this as possible. If you don't understand what I'm trying to tell you (or make no effort to), then I don't see how this conversation can be productive. If I've used any jargon that you don't understand then look up the word, or ask for clarification. Just because some quantities are quantized it does not mean that every quantity must be quantized. Multiple people have pointed this out, and you've ignored it every time. I have no idea how Pamela Anderson relates to this topic. You've told me what you're saying, and I'm telling you that your claims are unfounded. Did you even bother to try to understand my point in my previous post? That's not the way science works. It's clear enough to be recognized as being clearly flawed, at least. Repeating the same lines over and over does not make what you say true. You're making unfounded claims. We've had four pages of this now, and not once have you exercised any reflection on your position. You don't even care about what we're telling you. It's counter-productive and a waste of our time.

I think you're just getting further confused. Let's say all the information about a system is contained in some time-dependent object, and call it the "state" Ψ(t). If time is discrete, then t1 → t2 → t3 → ..., and there are no values of t between tn-1 and tn. Which means the state of the system changes discretely: Ψ(t1) → Ψ(t2) → Ψ(t3) → ... The consequences of models like this have been worked out, and they fail for the reasons myself and others have mentioned. Quantum spacetime models are a bit different, where the coordinates of spacetime are assumed to be non-commutative: [xμ,xν] ≠ 0. Short answer is we don't know whether or not such models apply to our universe. Most models deal with the Planck scale, which is well beyond what we're currently (or likely ever to be) capable of probing directly. All known data is consistent with the notion that spacetime is continuous at the present. I'll mention one more thing: you've asked us to "prove you wrong" several times in this thread. That's not the way it works. You don't get to assume something is true just because you can't disprove it. That is, by definition, the exact opposite of science. You're the one making claims. The burden of proof is on you, not the other way around.

Are you Al Michaels?

What does this have to do with anything being discrete? Do you know what a function is? Do you know what calculus is? Do you know what the real numbers are? How can you say that these are anything discrete?

Did you intentionally ignore the part where I said, "all known experimental data confirms the predictions about the behavior of spacetime as modeled by general relativity"? Quantum gravity has absolutely nothing to do with ether. What is a "container?" Not all math is unitary, and not all math is discrete. You're making stuff up that is trivially false.

Are you serious? I thought I made my points rather clearly. All known models with discretized spacetime suffer from the same problem: lack of Lorentz invariance. That's a good reason to suspect that there's a problem with the idea. With regard to your other claims, you simply asserted things with no evidence or reasoning behind them. It's not my job to prove a negative. I'm not the one making stuff up, you are. It's your job to show that your claims are accurate. How can you know what exists? Spacetime? Define "exists." All known experimental data confirms the predictions about the behavior of spacetime as modeled by general relativity. As far as I'm concerned, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

You're making claims. I'm pointing out why they're flawed. Are you making up nonsense just to make up nonsense?

Okay, sorry I misread you. What you say is true.

This is just nonsense philosophy. Quantum field theory is a relativistic theory, and it's been around for a while. A baseless assertion. It may be true, it may not be true, but you have no right to claim it's true just because it tickles you philosophically. Except not everything in math is about discrete quantities. Have you ever heard of calculus? What? Why?

Yes they do. No. That's simply wrong. Photons do not couple directly to the electromagnetic field because electromagnetism is linear. I.e. there are no direct self-interactions. Photons do not "collide." At most, a photon can fluctuate into an electron+positron pair and interact with other photons, or some higher order version of that.

I said that spacetime probably isn't discrete, not that quantum mechanics is wrong. Just because some things are quantized doesn't mean everything needs to be, and indeed not everything in quantum mechanics is discrete.

I never said any such thing.

AFAIK every known model of discrete spacetime violates Lorentz invariance. So there's good reason to think that what you say is not true.

I'm not sure what you mean by "only have one function, so touches the curve described by the function." Could you explain?

This is just semantics.

The thread is directly under yours in the relativity section at the moment: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/29821-does-time-have-a-speed/ Whether or not time has a "speed" is essentially a question about definitions. What exactly do you mean? By any sensible definition, i.e. rate of time with respect to something else, the closest analogue I can think of would be the rate at which one clock in arbitrary motion in an arbitrary spacetime "ticks" relative to some other clock.

If you oscillate a charge at frequency [math]\nu[/math], then the EM waves you produce will also have frequency [math]\nu[/math]. Classically this isn't necessarily proportional to anything of particular interest. Semi-classically (i.e. semi-quantum mechanically) the charge will produce photons of frequency [math]\nu[/math] with energy [math]E = h \nu[/math], where [math]h[/math] is Planck's constant.

Solve the Schrodinger equation for whatever potential you're considering to get [math]\psi (\mathbf{r},t)[/math]. The allowed energy values [math]E[/math] are those which satisfy the equation: [math]\hat{H} \psi ( \mathbf{r},t)=E \psi ( \mathbf{r},t)[/math] where [math]\hat{H}[/math] is the Hamiltonian operator.

No, you're making up nonsense. Kinetic energy and gravitational energy are not the same, and gravitational energy has absolutely nothing to do with the gamma factor in special relativity. Equations don't make sense just because they're dimensionally consistent.