studiot

I rather think it did in the examples at the end. question 7.3.1 specifically calculates line width. Saying both emission and absorbtion are processes with a beginning and an end and that they have a 'lifetime' are essentially the same thing. Take emission. Claiming this be instantaneous cannot be true by itself. At what point in the 'lifetime' does this instant occur ? The beginning ? , The end ? What happens during the rest of the time duration of the 'lifetime' ? Here is the conversation I was remembering from Physicshelpforums.com, where there was a similar question asked.

If you plot light-seconds against seconds it is the slope of the plot at any point would be the speed, not the plot itself. This would just be a standard distance v time graph. Having different quantities on different axes can make sense but then the plot must be interpreted in a different way. Usually the important quantity is the product of the two quantities on the axes and so the erea under such a graph give the total of the product quantity. For example Work done = Force x Distance so the work carried out by a force moving its point of application a distance is give by the areas under such a graph. You did the right thing in asking the question though, +1, because you need to get it straightened out before tackling Relativity. Edit here is a further example to illustrate the difference. Think about a surveyor measuring the land for a map. He sets up a grid and measures the horizontal distances along his grid to all the points on his grid. Hopefully you can see that both axes on that grid must be in metres. He then has two choices. 1) He can erect vertical distance axis and measure elevations of the points above his base grid, perhaps plotting contours, perhaps picking out building steps , roofs etc. Again this axis must be in metres. 2) He can take a magnetic field meter or a gravimeter, or a lightmeter and record the readings at points on his base grid. He can then use the readings to plot contour graphs of magnetic field strength or gravitational strength or sunshine falling. The Minkowski world has to be like case (1) because it is a measuring framework for the world in which we operate. Case (2) is a different sort of measurement - it is a 2D version of a force - extension graph for a spring and offers different information. Having length on some axes and time on another would make the reference framework like case (2) not like case (1)

Here are some calculations. https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/University_Physics/Book%3A_University_Physics_(OpenStax)/Book%3A_University_Physics_III_-_Optics_and_Modern_Physics_(OpenStax)/07%3A_Quantum_Mechanics/7.03%3A_The_Heisenberg_Uncertainty_Principle

Thanks, but no thanks.

Is it a distance ? or is it a composite which has the same mechanical dimensions as distance so is measured in the same units as distance ? If you had mixed axes what would be the units of measurement along an arbitrary line using those axes ? [math]\sqrt {{{\left( {{\rm{distance}}} \right)}^2} - {{\left( {{\rm{time}}} \right)}^2}} [/math] What sort of a unit is this ?

Being rude about fellow members whom you can have no possible knowledge of doesn't help your case either. Answer my question please, without trying to put words into my mouth. For your information it had nothing to do with class B or any other amplifiers. It was actually a national certificate electrical power engineering question. Again FYI, just as I already said, harmonics play a very important role in the national power grid because they can play havoc with the grid system if not managed properly.

I doubt it. My company used to destroy hard drives for customers and we used to put three hilti nails straight through the whole works, case and all. No recovery after that and no need to open up the case.

We have a teams meeting/lecture for the next couple of hours, but I will elaborate as soon as I can. Meanwhile there is a good sample calculation the hyperphysics website on a simple uncertainty calculation experiment. I tried tofind it to include in the last post but couldn't. I will try harder there as well.

You seem to have stumbled upon what is called projective geometry. Well done for that. +1 This is one step up from ordinary euclidian geometry and was much studied by the Victorians and part of the school curriculum until about 1930. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=projective+geometry&source=hp&ei=RmOJYZezKKWJjLsPwNmIkAI&iflsig=ALs-wAMAAAAAYYlxVq4nlx8ovc4Tp-ElMP9Zy91-FdD8&oq=projective+geometry&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDIFCAAQgAQyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDIFCAAQgAQyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDIFCAAQgAQyBQgAEIAEOg4ILhCABBCxAxCDARCTAjoLCAAQgAQQsQMQgwE6CAgAEIAEELEDOg4ILhCABBCxAxDHARDRAzoOCC4QgAQQsQMQxwEQowI6CwguEIAEELEDEIMBOhEILhCxAxCDARDHARCvARCTAjoFCC4QgAQ6CAguEIAEELEDOgsILhCABBDHARDRAzoLCC4QgAQQxwEQrwFQAFjIJ2DcKmgAcAB4AIABvgOIAfAVkgEKNS4xMS4xLjAuMpgBAKABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz&ved=0ahUKEwiX7tP4qYn0AhWlBGMBHcAsAiIQ4dUDCAg&uact=5 You should also look for 'The line at infinity' and 'the point at infinity' in geometry. There are further steps up the geometric ladder.

Spectroscopists have been successfully observing and predicting spectral line broadening for more than seventy years using swansont's (Heisenberg's) uncertainty principle. Formulae and explanations for predicting line broadening are available in any half ways decent spectroscopy textbook eg p19ff of Spectroscopy by D H Whiffen. It is worth notibng that uncertainty broadening is not the only broadening mechanism and Whiffen discusses all the differnt ons and methods of combining their effects, when present, to predict a total broadening. I have indicated the relevant paragraph.

Yes this is true. An 'event' refers to a point with unique or particular coodinates in a given frame of reference. This view has merit, not only in this situation but in many others besides. There are established mathematical techniques for handling the situation. Either We can show that the system of interest is 'small enough' to ignore its sizing in the coordiante system. Sadly this is too often taken for granted or not done explicitly. An example would be taking the Earth as a point particle in the solar system for the purpose of calculating obits etc. or We can use the mathematical limiting process to consider a 'control volume' in the coordinate system and tak the (mathematical) limit of the maths as we shrink the control volume to a zero sized point. An example of this would be ordinary density which is a point function that is defined as such a limit.

Expanding planets Expanding Earth ? How is this all mainstream ?

Absorbtion (and emission) is not instantaneous. Both processes take time. That is why spectral lines are slightly 'blurred' or 'spread'. Maybe not intuitive, but why suprising ? If you were to make a 100 trials of the roll of dice, would you expect any difference between rolling 1 die 100 times and rolling 100 dice 1 time ? What difference would you expect if you took outcomes of the 100 trials in different orders ?

Spot on as usual. +1

But isn't this only part of the story ? Surely what matters is what the user of the word aetheist think it means or, if you like, means by it ? If a user uses the word differently from others she has failed to communicate her meaning, before it is even received or interpreted.

I did read your original post and I wondered if you have heard of 'pilot waves' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave_theory These seem to fit for you. However the Wiki article also describes some of the issues they don't solve or where they introduce new ones. But I would suggest you look at more fundamantal philosophy of physics here. In particular you have not addressed Markus Hanke's excellent pictures of his cylinder and the points he made about them. Amore comparable situation in Physics would be the question: Take a single molecule. What state is it in, solid, liquid or gas ? Well it displays some but not all of the properties of each. Can one molecule have a surface tnsion ? Can it 'conduct electricity' ? Does it exert a gaseous pressure ? So when we get down to single particle system we gain simplicity, but loose some properties only appropriate to (sometimes large) aggregates. So waves v particles ? What is a wave ? It conforms to a wave equation, which is a connection between space and time. Similarly particles conform to dynamic equations again linking space and time. Some times these two equation sets predict different outcomes form those observed. Sometimes the observed outcomes conform to one or other equation set, sometimes neither. So you would expect, to be able to deduce properties at specific times, given a knowledge at specific places. Or to be able to deduce properties at specific locations given specific times.

Apologies the last expression should have been, My poor typing again. [math]\frac{{{e^h} - 1}}{h}[/math] when h = 0

Not sure what you have against what I said, but once again, I am the only one prepared to accept anything at all you have said. Which is your loss if you do not want to know what has already been studied in relation to your thoughts. I entirely sympathise with those battling the unfriendly input editor here.

Well I don't know what level of mathematics you are operating at but worries about 0/0 are quite common and Country Boy's answer is the simplest available. It is difficult to know where to begin to answer when you make this obviously false statement. What is 4 times zero ? What is 6 times zero ? What is 4 times 3 ? What is 6 times 2 ? I think that there are a perfectly well defined results for all these multiplications, any many more besides. In fact, as Country Boy indicated for any or each and every b. What else do the first two multiplications, taken together show and what do the second two multiplications taken together show ? This is a unbelievably important result in arithmetic. So to discuss you question of 0/0 without referring to the more fundamental arithmetical operation of multiplication it is necessary to discuss the meaning of [math]\frac{{A}}{{B}}[/math] When A and B are mathematical objects. As an introduction let us consider the value of [math]\frac{{{x^n} - {a^n}}}{{x - a}}[/math] Where x is any rational number, and a is any rational constant and n is a power. Try to calculate the values of the expressions when x = 5 a = 5 n = 2 and x = 5 a = 5 n = 3 I make the first one 10 and the second one 75. Try also to calculate the value of [math]\frac{{{e^h} - h}}{h}[/math] When h = 0. The answer to that one is 1.

What ever colours you choose for line (not live) and neutral you will have the problem that the neutral colour can also be live in lighting and similar circuits.

Tinfoil was invented long before aluminium foil. I think tinplating was once done by pressing thin tinfoil with less thin steel sheet as a protective coating.

Some interesting questions - for many people. If you are bald would you answer to curly ? When I got married, it was conventional for women to take their husband's family name. My wife choose to keep hers , which I fully support. So we are Mr Smith and Mrs Jones. This difference makes some others feel uncomfortable, so unless someone is being akward or a nuisance, I will answer to Mr Jones, to save them that, in say a restaurant that my wife has booked, unless there is a good reason to use the correct term. For my wife there is the benefit that we know immediately a telephone caller who asks for Mrs Smith is one of those bogus scum who plague modern society, since there is no such person in the directory as all bona fide callers know us. I just regard this as getting along with folks and knowing which battles are worth making a fuss about and which are not.

I am not sure how far the moderators will allow you to reiterate your conjectures but I agree that Einstein's relativity (both SR and GR) are not the only solutions to the original observational issue(s). Please state what equations you are talking about. The transformation equations of Lorenz-Fitzgerald are derived in SR as consequences, they are not postulated as basic. Einstein thought long and hard about what physics to abandon and what to continue with in developing SR, As did others both before and after. If you wish to make a different choice, please indicate so that we can discuss the consequences of alternatives. I do agree with exchemist that there is no 'distortion' of space or time. This would imply there exists some sort of underlying absolute space and time to be 'distorted'.

So all this 'kooky science' you have introduced is a preamble and smokescreen to real agenda to gather 'evidence' from unsuspecting members for your cause. In my house, the mobile phone signal cuts out if you stand in the lounge doorway. So does the rover handset to the landline and so does the radio signal for broadcast radio services. This is because the lounge doorway is through a fire compartment wall in the centre of the house. This wall is made from [math]4\frac{1}{2}[/math] inch brickwork, plastered both sides. This is nothing unusual in masonry buildings. Please restate you issue fairly and openly.

I said no such thing. But I did ask you a simple question of Mathematics, which in your 25 lines of self congratulation you have failed to address. I hope you will stoop from your exalted position to to answer it soon as I fear this thread will onterwise beclosed as contributing nothing to Modern and Theoretical Physics. You have made a mathematical claim, Sir. Back it up with Mathematics.