studiot

Don't worry in a couple of years (the blink of a cosmic eye) there will be a new study with different figures. This was my earlier point.

Well spotted +1

If you are proposing to define or redefine anything the correct procedure is to clearly define your new object in terms of already known objects, preferabky by way of a mathematical equation. For example here is a definition of the moment of a force about a point. Moment = Magnitude of the force x the perpendicular distance from the point to the line of action. You have not done the equivalent for your new object (and keep avoiding doing so) So we have nothing to put numbers into to test your proposal.

You still have not addressed my question about the difference in measurement between two frames. Note that since relativity, whether newton-galileo or einstinian, use conventional definitions of 'speed' you cannot invoke these. I still expect to see some mathtematics demonstrating and supporting you proposal. So far there has been none whatsoever.

In what way?

When you get to my years and beyond you will have seen them all come and go. I have a large barrel of salt which I take a shovel from to add to every new 'discovery' in cosmology. I have seen the 'subject' turned on its head at least 5 times in my time.

Well I always thought that we already had a perfectly good word for the time rate of flow of energy dE/dt i.e. power.

There was a short but heartening article on tonight's 10 O'Clock local News . The University of Bristol has developed a new class of totally artificial vaccine and has one ready for trial against Covid-19. The explanation given was that they have developed a suitable base molecule to attach fragments of the covid virus to, in order to fool/stimulate the body's defneces into producing the necessary antibodies.

Thank you for replying. No I am not addressing the rate of energy transfer just yet. Since you did not (and have not yet) reply to my first post, I did not want to put too much into the subsequent post. The post was the begining of a development, the next stage of which would be the introduction of Einstinian relativity. However both my posts concentrate on something more fundamental than energy flows. That is the measurement of time (which you need to measure energy flow). Your treatment still mixes up time measurements by source and observer, which are necessarily different unless reduced to a single frame by some pre-agreed frame transformation. MigL was correct in saying that the energy you speak of is not frame invariant. This is because it is a three dimensional viewpoint. Both energy and momentum are invariant when reduced to a single frame or when considered as four dimensional quantities in four dimensional spacetime. So would you like to proceed to the next (relativistic) stage ? I would expect to see some mathematics supporting the hand waving in the discussion.

Please separate your text from the quote when replying to the words of others or you could be accused of changing their words. And what about replying to my earlier point ? Never mind, let us consider your claim that your proposition is based on mainstream Physics. How do you explain the relativistic Transverse Doppler shift? To do Doppler you really require at least two spatial dimensions because the relativistic transverse Doppler only appears then. This clearly distinguishes classical Doppler from relativistic Doppler. So to make a start, consider a light source moving away from a stationary observer, as you originally posted. Let there be two spatial axes, I have labelled x and y. To avoid confusion between v and greek nu I am using u for velocity. In general the velocity u has a radial component ur and a component at right angles to this called the transverse component ut. As shown the emitter is receding at the radial velocity and [math]{u^2} = u_r^2 + u_t^2[/math] Now consider that the source emits light pulses (it does not matter whether we are talking waves or photons in fact it is better if we talk about pulses) such that the frequency is f0, as measured in its frame. So the time between pulses, T0 is given by [math]{f_0} = \frac{1}{{{T_0}}}[/math] as measured by the source. The Observer receives pulses with a frequency [math]f = \frac{1}{T}[/math] as measured by the observer. We seek a connection between f and f0 ; T and T0. So in the time between emitting pulses the source moves a distance urT0 before the next pulse. As a result the observer measures the time between pulses in his system as [math]T = {T_0} + \frac{{{u_r}{T_0}}}{c} = {T_0}\left( {1 + \frac{{{u_r}}}{c}} \right)[/math] This is just classical Doppler. Now consider what happens when ur is = 0 In this case, classically T = T0 Thus there can be no doppler shift ( as expected) However applying relativistic equations predicts that even if ur is zero, the transverse velocity will still introduce a Doppler shift And what do you know ? Such a shift has been experimentally verified https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=WIGMXq_YEcadkgXq6IaoCw&q=experimental+proof+of+transverse+doppler+shift&oq=experimental+proof+of+transverse+doppler+shift&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzIFCCEQoAEyBQghEKABOgIIADoGCAAQFhAeOgUIABDNAjoICCEQFhAdEB46BAghEAo6BAghEBVKEggXEg4xMC00MDNnMjQ0ZzE5M0oNCBgSCTEwLTRnNWczMlC4AViAkAFgspIBaAFwAHgDgAGKBogBqEuSAQ8xMC4yMi40LjIuMy4yLjKYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwiv5JWFt9boAhXGjqQKHWq0AbUQ4dUDCAg&uact=5

It is a shame you chose to thumb you nose at the authorities, rather than answer my comment in your latest thread. After a shaky start I thought we made real progress in a previous thread and actually achieved a worthwhile discussion. I was just penning my thoughts when your thread on Chance was closed and had been hoping we could achieve the same useful result again. It could have been quite a worthwhile discussion, there is much to be be said on the subject.

And your reasoning leading you to this conclusion is................?

No. Here I think we have the novice's attempt to establish a universal time and single frame. The 'second' is different for the emitting source and the receiver because of their relative velocity places them in different intertial frames. You must choose one to measure in and then you will see that the time rate of energy flow difference is compensated for by the difference in their 'seconds'.

This response alone would be enough to put you on most people's ignore list. But thank you for your response (2) which told me something I didn't know. Butthe Wiki article did not explicitly state there are more viruses in the ocean than not, just that there are a lot of them in the ocean. Since many human viruses are carried in the bloodstream, I am not suprised to find there are viruses in the ocean. Have a nice day.

You might like to consider devising an experiment based on the response to streams of alpha, beta and gamma rays to electric/magnetic fields. http://www.passmyexams.co.uk/GCSE/physics/properties-of-radiation-magnetic-field.html

Well the complex plane and a (possibly) sphere are 'objects', but a mapping is not. And the two objects are 2 dimensional objects, not counting the 'point at infinity'. So you appear to be suggesting that 3 (or 4 if you include time) dimensional 'particles' are made of 'a mapping from one two dimensional space to another'. How does that work?

Fine words, do you know what they mean? If so what what sort of Riemann Sphere?

Yeah +1 Ouch my ears. 😬 Most viruses are marine ? please explain further?

I knew there was a special term for this type of device. I looked it up and they are called 'Electrode boilers' Note They are AC only, single or polyphase. They are used for generating steam as well as just heating water and are usually operated well above atmospheric pressure 10bar being typical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrode_boiler You would not use this method to heat a cup of water.

Wa..al thaar ya go! You knew about it all along. I hadn't heard (pun intended) about the shepherd's story, but it makes sense. +1 That must be the explanation for all those piles of old stones knocking about on Salisbury Plain. Now I know why they built Stonehenge. My neolithic reference was actually to what are called 'tally sticks'. These have been found and studied and performed a similar function. And yes, one-one correspondence is an incredibly powerful mathematical tool. Not only does it underlie set theory, both finite and infinite, but it also underlies other parts of maths. For example similarity transformations. And shape in general. It allows you to see that apentagon is not a hexagon, for instance. Shape is a fundamental mathematical notion, that exists quite independently of any number system or measure.

I didn't make any such claim. I said that numbers are not fundamental to Mathematics. We now know plenty of mathematics that the concept of number doesn't come into. Nor did I say that they can be deduced from anything simpler (although in fact there is a route to numbers as well as some set theory from simpler and more fundamental ideas) What do you think humankind did before numbers were invented/discovered ? Here is a number system, adequate for the people that invented it, (though I would guess that most if not all Australian Aboriginals can now use our modern one). One ; Two : Many. But there were simpler systems still. From your attidude I am getting the vibes that you do not wish to know about these. I already referred to these neolithic systems.

+1 You have said that before in this thread and already been told you are not correct, and even given examples. It is evident that you do not wish to address anything that disagrees with your unsupported viewpoint.

I don't see any relevence to anything in your opening assertions about counting here. You offered a link to a particularly elementary introduction to linear algebra specifically stated to be for non mathematicians, quoting results that are not part of the axioms of a linear space. How are the standard axioms of linear algebra and vector spaces circular ?

Excellent question from taeto there. +1 Thank you for replying to my question. However I must disagree with your answer. There is a more fundamental process in Mathematics than counting. As evidenced by relics that archaeologists have discovered this goes at least as far back as the stone age. It was also in use into the 20th century, as evidenced by instructions to land surveyors performing chain surveys. I hinted at this in my first post.

I note your statement could itself be considered 'circular' since it uses a mathematical notion (circular) to describe something 'more fundamental'. What do you think 'the fundamental ideas' of mathematics are? Surely in any system of mathematics you introduce 'fundamental ideas' , often called axioms, and the important thing is that they are consistent with each other. Where is the circularity in that?