studiot

I can see one way in which information might require physical substance. That would be in the correct and proper application of Shannon's definition to say a box of chocolates.

I'm sorry I missed this reply of yours before. This is a very busy thread. I do like this reply, +1 to reduce your red mark score. Yes your database contains the information you originally put in. But it also constains the logical connections between the stuff in your database that enable you to use it efficiently. And yes your database requires physical objects to hold it. Now here is a question. Before you assembled your database, all the input data existed somewhere else. Since the data existed the logical connections must have also existed, even if they were not accessible because the data was widely separated. No additional physical entities were required for these logical connections to exist before your database, they just did. So how are you accounting for this? @Steveupson To answer the underlined question consider this The position information available via spactime is a particular type of position, mathematically available because spacetime is a metric space (that means it has a distance function). Pure topological space do not have a distance function yet allow the specification of topological position. For example The yolk is inside the egg. The pips are inside the orange. Manchester City are first in the football league table. The number 3 is third in the following ordered set listing {27, 1, 3, 59}. Also I don't know if you realise that even completely empty space has other physical properties than distance. For example it has an electrical impedance of 377 ohms. As a matter of fact this is independent of distance or position.

80% seems high to me. Here is my 'comfort zone' desktop humidity meter. A camper van you say? One thing to realise is that you don't need to raise the temperature very far to dramatically change the conditons for comfort or against mould. a half to one and a half degress c is plenty. That is ebcause the actual temp and humidity is not static but always fluctuating slightly. As the temp drop some mositure condenses out and gives the mould spores a change to germinate and grow. When the temp rises back the moisture re-evaporates, but the damage is done. This is a self reinforcing cyclic process. You can get very low wattage heaters to run all the time in your enclosed space to maintaint the temp this much above ambient. That will keep the mould away at reasonable cost.

+1 Here is something to think about. What if a theory is wrong? For example There is over 2000 years of information about the four Element theory of the Ancient Greeks, though that theory is now known to be wrong. How does this affect the physical embodiment of either the theory or the history of the theory or the informatuion that asserts the theory is right or wrong. In fact is there any limit to the information that could be stated about said theory? For example In the year 2525, if Man is still alive the Theory will be 2500 yerars old. In the year 3535...... the theory will be 3510 year old In the year 4545...... and so on for ever.

I feel this thread is wandering further and further off topic, which was about information. The rightness or wrongness of a particular physics theory is irrelevant to this.

I owe you an apology. A silly error crept in there. A 1hp motor is 3/4 of a kilowatt silly me. The rest is correct.

If I stood at the field gate and said to the farmer "do you see the silhouette", he would rightly think I'd had too much cider. Did you see the recent lunar eclipse? What did you see?

Mine is perfect

See my post above.

Always? When we see the black sheepdog, What light do our eyes receive from the dog? Yet we correctly 'see' a dog, not an absence of light (can you see an abscence of light?) I think counterexamples can be constructed for any simplified definition.

I see no inconsistency. There are many terms where one word can mean the whole or part of something. For instance sheep can refer to one sheep or the whole flock. But if you are looking at a field of sheep, you need the context to distinguish which is meant. Baa Baa Baa

Conversion / connection / some other word. I suppose different people have used different words for much the same thing. Here is a simple example. A 3/4 hp (750 watt) motor runs at full power for 4 hours. How much energy does it ouput? (ignoring efficiency considerations) Well power x time gives energy So in units the output is (3/4 kilowats-hours) x 4 = 3 kilowatt-hours of energy on your meter or 3 units of energy. In dimensions we have Power x time = energy (ML2T-3 ) x (T) = MLT-2 Would you call that converting power to energy usage?

Hopefully it was helpful. It is important to get this because this thread is posted in relativity and when you move to spacetime, you need the conversion. Spacetime is not three spatial axes plus one time axis. It is four equivalent axes, so the added time part must be 'converted' to a spatial axis. At the risk of introducing one more difficulty, the easiest way is to use the imaginary number [math]i = \sqrt { - 1} [/math] Because the pythagorean theorem about distance distance in ordinary space [math]{\rm{distance}} = \sqrt {{x^2} + {y^2} + {z^2}} [/math] becomes [math]{\rm{Interval = }}\sqrt {{x^2} + {y^2} + {z^2} + {{\left( {ict} \right)}^2}} [/math] When the (ict) bit is squared the necessary negative sign appears naturally due to the square root of minus 1 In ordinary space the distance is the same in all coordinate systems (frames). That is it is invariant. The becomes the interval is the same in all coordinate systems (frames). That is it is invariant for spacetime.

The only thing I did wrong was to write the equation E = mc2 with a capital M, sorry. Yes you have got it (how did you get on with the link?) @sensei No I don't care what nonsense Wiki says. Units are things like kilogrammes, metres, miles centuries etc. Dimensions are not specific to particular units. In particular the constant of conversion is never included in the dimensions but must be included in any comparative statement of units. For example there are 1609.34 metres in one mile. Both miles and metres have the dimension L So the constant of conversion (=1609.34) is miles divided by metres which is L/L and therefore dimensionless But the point I'm making in answer to geordie is that the constant of conversion, which provides the connection he was seeking, between space and time, is a speed. In particular it is the speed of light, c

The equation is just a simple high school quadratic with some unusual numbers in the coefficients. The solution could be obtained using the usual formula. I did this because I wanted to be sure no one had ever bothered to actually obtain the solution for real. Please remember also that the phrase "There exists" Has quite a different meaning in Mathematics and Physics. You can often even prove the mathematical existence of something (mathematical), without actually finding it. But in Physics youhave to find it before you can claim its existence for definite. The recent search for the Higgs Boson is a famous case in point.

Interesting yes, consistent with other areas of Physics , again yes. The dimensions of energy are M L2 T-2 ; of mass are M; of c are L T-1 So if you substitute these into E = Mc2 (can you do this) what do you see? http://www.schoolphysics.co.uk/age16-19/General/text/Dimensions_/index.html

You misunderstand me. I chose that equation not because it is 'wrong'. It really is a simple straightforward equation with a simple straightforward solution. I just don't think anyone has ever bothered to calculate that solution. There are untold numbers of such equations, that no one has bothered with or needed a solution for. Are you claiming there is zero information in their solution, because the solution has yet to be worked out?

I find I have to press the page refresh button in the browser and wait and wait and wait for superfast MathJax to load. This is another example of modern programming where presentation takes precedence over product. And thank you for bumping this thread. I have just posted an equation in Tex or whatever and I still haven't found out how to stop it being being rendered excruciatingly small.

They have the biophysical structure (brain) the imagination has happened in. Physically presented. You will remember on the imaginary picture meaning that it is saved in reality. Physically presented. You can recall and even visualize it on a picture we call art for example. Then is it existing now? So far as I am aware the equation [math]\frac{\pi }{{67}}{x^2} + \frac{x}{{113e}} - 989827 = 0[/math] Has never been explicitly solved, although it has solutions. The numbers that are the solution express information, but your reply seems to suggest that if it were to be solved that information would somehow achieve physical embodiment, although there would be no difference in the information itself whether the equations was solved or not.

The best model we currenly have is the Rikitake Dynamo. This is compatible with fractal/chaos theory. https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=aBF3WvKnA-qXgAbI76LADA&q=Rikitake+dynamo&oq=Rikitake+dynamo&gs_l=psy-ab.3...11840.15506.0.16087.15.15.0.0.0.0.149.1265.10j5.15.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.7.727...0j46j0i131k1j0i46k1j0i10k1.0.R2P1_uSh1Wo Books Fractals in Geology and Geophysics Turcotte Cambridge University Press p279 ff

What about imaginary situations, for instance We could calculate all sorts of things about imaginary universes where the charge on the electron was different from that observed in our universe. We could go further we could do this for many imaginary universes where that charge only varies slightly and for others where that variation is great. Thus we could develop a scale of universes where things were hardly different from our own up to ones where everything was totally different. We would have lots of first order information about these imaginary universes and second order information about the differences between them.

Thank you Sensei. +1

Have you tried looking it up in a more reliable place? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saline_water For instance the maximum amount of salt you can dissolve in 1 litre of room temperature water is a little over 260 grams and you wanted to add 342. The salinity of the open ocean is about 36 parts per thousand or 36 grams per litre. I haven't looked up the dead sea, Have you? Yes you are right I should have said 32.4 grams per 100 grams of solution. Sorry, I confused o/o and o/oo

I think you will find that salinity is expressed in (grams of solute per kilogram of solution) x 100 when expressed as a precentage. So 32.4% salinity is 32.4 grams of salt per 1000g of soution.

Well I have no idea about the downvotes, but I can spot several inconsistencies in your explanation which stand out. I do rather tend to read the prospectus rather than rushing to the voting booth. Yes I think there is a lot of truth in that. But I don't see how this follows since there is much logic used in the development of any mathematical analysis. (By development I don't mean the initial creation of the mathematical theory, I am referring to it's use in the case concerned.)