studiot

Nevin_III Sorry you chose not to respond to me. Have fun arguing wih the others.

Since you didn't actually answer my question as to what would happen I will be more specific. If I took hold of your gravimeter and shook it up and down with a vertical displacement of about half a metre at a frequency of say 15 cycles per second?

I didn't say anything about that, as I hadn't got that far. I tend to work through in easy stages (without preconceptions). This was the beginning. But if you don't want my help that's OK with me.

An answer for the OP. Try jumping from a non moving train to the ground. Note how and where you hit the ground. Now try jumping from a moving train, passing the previous impact point. Do you note a difference? So why do you think you land substantially further in the direction of movement of the second train? Now your golf balls are carefully designed to the best of our ability to 'fly' (they have aerodynamic properties) as far as possible. Why do you think your balls go further than you did when jumping off the train?

Indirectly yes. The actual force of gravity felt at any point (as measured by g) varies with distance from the equator, being a minimum at the equator and a maximum at the poles. This is due to the fact that the force experienced is really a combination (vector sum) of gravity and the centripetal force. Furthermore these two do not act in quite the same plane and direction, except at the equator, so the direction of gravity also varies. Sorry no time for diagrams this morning.

Nice opening post. +1 to start you off thinking more deep thoughts. One point, however. You made great play highlighting the difference between nothing, space and so on, but assumed we know what 'the beginning' is. What do you mean by the beginning?

Well the title of this thread quotes Schroedinger's cat, which is a proposition about applying the HUP in the situation described. The so called Copenhagen Interpretation offers the superposition. There does seem to be some misunderstanding about superposition and I am suprised at Bender since the meaning is the same as in Engineeering, where I feel sure he is familiar with it. Another name for it is simultaneous equations.

Who decided upon this representation, human or AI?

How does that involve the uncertainty principle?

What about it means show me a calculation to determine that it is different.

So far all you are offering is a better computer data processing capability, which is of course to be expected given the regular advance in computing capability, "helping scientists" (Their words). There was no evidence of the innovations arising from or being generated by the computers, which were only following instructions. Yes I find it great that a modern computer can calculate the stresses in a bridge for me in 3 minutes. Calculations that used to take me three weeks before or three months when I had to do it all by hand. But I note that with all this sophistication, bridges still sadly fall down, as the recent tragedy at Florida State University shows.

Well I'm completely flummoxed with this so that makes two of us. What about it?

You are now an expert on gene therapy? Here is a quote from your agricultural chemical link, which amply demonstrated you and they do not have the faintest idea what I am talking about.

My neighbour has now been on a gene therapy regime to replace the failing chemotherapy regime she was on. This was only licenced last November and my neighbour has shown a dramatic recovery since. I doubt that an AI doctor, even combined with all the computer engineers at Microsoft, would be able to replace the human ingenuity that lead to this new form of treatment any time soon.

You flatter yourself. Perhaps you should look beyond your own discipline?

Would this also be the aura that surrounds Jedi Knights?

I think the time has come to report this whole thread as a cavalier disregard of the rules of this forum.

Thank you but if true, that site is due to one Gevin Giorbran. Indeed Google throws up lots of references to this quote. Hawking was noted for attempting to popularise (dumb down) Science for the benefit of the wider population. Of course he did not do this in his formal work. Either way, Stuart, you did not answer my question. Do you understand the difference between 'at right angles to' and orthogonal to? This is quite important because, since you want to insisi on using 'at right angles to' I am going to ask you to define an angle in terms of time alone. Angles are a spatial propetry. Orthogonality includes 'at right angles to' but is a more general property that does not require reference back to 2 distances.

Where did I say only one has to be different? Why could there not be many different ones, if there are any at all. But I have yet to see any hard evidence or mathematics to back up such an allegation. And if there are many, then citing one will be sufficient. BTW how many different types quantum number do you think you need to define the quantum state? Surely there are only a handful?

With respect, that's waffle and I'm only asking for the one quantum number that is (allegedly)different.

In order to be helpful, I checked carefully the right and proper definitions and usage of these words from impeccable sources, rather than Wikipedia or youtube. Now we are all agree that teleology is connected with the purpose of a process or action in some way. However it is pretty clear from the OED that there is no purpose whatsoever involved with teleonomy. Which I why noted your original post and later statements to be self contradictory. To be helpful I have included the definition of apparent and deduce that since there is no purpose associated with teleonomy, the use of definition (1) cannot be the definition meant in the more wooly Wikipedia statement. That leaves us with definition (2), which says, as everyone else seems to have understood, that there may be a semblance of purpose but it is illusory. Yet you have stated several times there to be an associated purpose. A final note. I see that teleonomy is restricted to living systems. So examples involving non living systems are void, which is a pity because I can think of many good ones.

Final thought. I have worked through discussing your method. Why did you choose this method? It is not the only way to answer this problem, there are others, one famously due to Galileo. It is worth understanding the other, simpler methods first.

Exactly +1 My question back along was designed to illustrate this. Consider two bunches of particles, identical as far as our quantum theory can specify. One runs around and catches mice The other lies in a soggy smelly heap. What is the (quantum) difference between these two. ie what quantum number is different?

1) Not quite - it is the change in gravitational potential. All all times and positions the toy has some gravitational potential. 2) OK so given the above why does h = 0.45? 3) Yes 4) EK should be conventionally KE, but otherwise yes if you put in the missing square root 5) 0.5mv2 = mgh or v = sqrt(2gh). why did you bother to work out the actual energy and not simple cancel the mass? 6) I think when you recalculate the arithmetic you will find the answer closer to 3m/s

If the second part of your answer was a reason/justification for the first part (lashing out), what would you call lashing out without thinking? The second part arises because 1) You failed to correctly read the definition of a teleonomy argument. I have highlighted the all important word. You have, in your OP, singularly failed to demonstrate that there is any purposefulness at all, it is all assumed. So arguments about what sort of purposefulness are moot. You should, of course, also provide a working definition of purpose to measure discussion against.