studiot

I think (from practical experience) that one of the big difficulties is that some members only read the last few posts, as opposed to all the ones new since they last looked. Consequently they often don't see many of the responses. Once again I should like to bring up that hoary old chestnut that failure to number the posts makes referral almost impossible and encourages lazy activity. Also every time I try to post a link to some other thread or post I get that ridiculous little window opening and I have to stop what I am doing and remember to cancel that option. It interrupts my flow of thought and discourages me from bothering. Computers ought to be made to stop and wait for humans, not the other way round.

I think Swansont gave a good answer pointing out that light has a frequency. It's not a big deal.

I picked the arch because it is a particularly good example of your comment about a particular arrangement of component pieces. Arching action shows what is called 'emergent behaviour'. That is the arch behaviour only appears at a critical point when all the components are assembled. Before that the arch ahs no strength whatsoever and has to rely on something else to support it. As to taking photographs there are Roman arches that if you could have taken your photograph when they were constructed and come back every 100 years your could have taken another photo showing much the same for the last 2000 years, so you would have some 20 photos Now you say your method involves deducing from these photographs how the arch system works. That is to deduce the necessary arrangement of component pieces. So I am asking you to do just that. I am also challenging you to show where any energy is involved.

Strictly a photon has one frequency, and cannot change it. Of course, you can have different photons of different frequencies. I'm pretty sure someone else had this discussion recently with swansont in another thread.

Perhaps the photon has had more whisky than the electron? Seriously though, I think you second sentence could give the wrong impression.

In which case you should be able to offer a proper case for why the arch stands up. I agree that it is But the point is that your #TOE should be able to explain this in a proper scientific manner , and even calculate some facts and figures about the arch. But all you said was hand waving waffle. What energy is involved in a standing arch? I seriously recommend you work on some simple examples before you tackle the Universe. If I want to use a complicated formula I often work out a simple already known example to check it out before applying it to something difficult and important.

Are you going to be immediately rude to someone who was following your stated order of deduction? This was that you start with observation. Then move on to a deduction. Then you made what I thought was a sensible statement of how the deduction might proceed so I quoted it and asked two questions.

So please explain these two system behaviours, you must have seen before. 1) Why does an arch not fall down? (So the system is the arch and the bahaviour is that of self support) 2) Muscles can only pull, they cannot push. So how do the bodies of humans and animals create pushes?

Still the full frontal attack on others rather than listen to what they are saying and attempt to engage with them. One thing I did not say was that there is or there is not such thing as negative mass. I did ask you (not Washington State University) a practical question. And I have received no answer in this thread, as required by the rules here. Perhaps you did not understand it, so here is a simple diagram. A ball of negative mass is pushed with a pushrod that has a cup shaped end as shown. What happens if the rod is (a) positive mass (b) negative mass ? Please do not offer that claptrap about it accelerating towards the rod. This is plainly impossible unless the rod penetrates the mass. Some verifiable mathematics would be even better.

@Sci101 This increasingly heated exchange as to why leaves are green (sometimes but look at a leaf in the autumn) is completely off topic. I would, however appreciate a response to my answer to the topic of this thread. (looking over it I apologise for my spelling mistakes.)

It is clear that that OP doesn't want to take up my offer of a rough guide to tensors. So I apologise for possibly taking the thread a wee bit off topic with my 'elasticity=stretchyness' comment. That was completely additional to my reply about patches. So I will make one more comment for completeness. After that those who wish to take it further should perhaps do so in another thread. The whole point about patches is that you have at least two coordinate systems= frames. The usual method is one of linearisation ie the patch is a linear approximation to a more complicated system. The linearisation is implicit (= hidden in) the transformation tensor. But it can also be done the other way round so the patch is the nonlinear system set in a linear original frame and the equations of compatibility then made explicit. Examples of this are the Smith Chart and charts for radio navigation systems such as Decca and Loran. Then the 'stretchyness' occurs as non uniform intervals between the marking or divisions of the transformed coordinate axes. But it was only the tiniest weeniest bit off topic since my examples are plots of fields, but just from another point of view.

Could someone explain to me how this topic got 5 gold stars?

Perhaps my comments about small frames and 'stretchy' frames got mixed up. I think we have covered (not in the strict analytical maths sense) small frames = patches. (gosh isn't it difficult to choose words without special emanings ) Surely you can have stetchy frames in non-remannian geometry or the Pocincare disk ?

To get back on topic an leave the leaves alone. The blue colour is caused by scattering from water (note not elements) that is deeper than 50 metres. Here are some facts. As sunlight penetrates seawater, By 1 metre depth most of the red is lost to absorbtion by the water. By 10 metres depth all the red and most of the yellow and about 50% of the green is lost. By 100 metres depth all the red yeloow and 95% of the green is lost, leaving only blue light. As any light penetrates water it is scattered. The only light going back upwards (by scattering) from the deep is blue light so that is what emerges and is seen form space. There are exceptions. The resence of phytoplankton scatters some green light upwards Some Algae scatter red light upwards giving the famous colour blooms. But remembering that light travelling upwards is subject to the same absorbtion regime, the red and green light only reappears if the water is shallow enough.

@icarus2 I know it's more attractive to respond only to the guy with the flashy colour pictures, but I am still waiting for a proper response with mathematics to my last posts. May I remind you that the rules of this forum require this?

I don't want to pre-emp what Marcus has to say, but if he means what I think he means then the correct term is 'patches' not small frames. And yes that would correspond to his comment about local since patches are locally flat and thus locally SR can be e.mployed. But then that begs the question How small is local or when is the extent too large?

Small frames. Interesting thought about frames - care to expand a bit? How about elastic (as in stretchy) frames?

It would be perfectly possible, perhaps even desirable at the outset, to discuss your idea in general terms before moving on to fine detail. You particularly mention use for jet fighters. What particular new features would your innovation bring? Would these be compatible with the extreme requiremets of jet engine fighters? Don't forget these meet have a much wider range of operating conditions (eg high altitude, low pressure) than ordinary jets. This rules out many conventionally known solutions. Do you know that jet engines are tested agains bird strike by firing forzen chickens at them with a cannon? Would your engine withstand the impact?

But it is not itself moving as a whole. Moving in this case means translating (as a whole) not that different parts of it are in motion relative to each other. Inerterial frames are abstract objects. It is a matter of opinion whether you count them as part of the universe or not.

Janus said most of it, but U238 is fissionable by means of (fast) neutrons. Does this help or do you want to expand on what you were thinking of?

This is ill founded. The universe is not 'in motion' nor yet 'at rest'. Where do you think the universe might be going to or have come from, or alternatively staying put at?

Whether time has a beginning or not black holes come and go. So what was in 'our universe' before this black hole? And no I'm not discussing any sort of universe, infinite or otherwise. I was discussing the inescapable circularlity of the logic of your proposition. Something you seem remarkably keen to avoid. I can posit a pot of gold at the bottom of my garden, buried by the faries who live there. But however hard I dig I just can't seem to find it.

Not all waves follow the inverse square law. In particular waves on ropes don't. How about answering my previous comment ?

This is not something you can set aside - for now or any time. For instance it is not like a discussion about the temperature field in my house where for that purpose it is immaterial whether I use coal fires, electric or gas heaters or whatever. There I can posit a heat source go on to discuss the resultant temperature distribution. The problem, as I have already indicated is that you are offereing a circular argument. Mass is a disturbance in the field. But the field is created by mass, which is a disturbance in the field which is created by ....Oh my my head hurts in fact in the words of the song I'm so dizzy My head is spinning. (Perhaps that is why swansont says spin is not energy )

Of course it matters. Why is it there? And why is the black hole not part of it? What, by the way is the black hole a hole in? At least be realistic.