studiot

So what is your definition of information?

Well I'm all ears since I could do with a proper definition of Time. But lighten up as well. Poul was renouned for getting his science right, as he did in the book I mentioned. The story was obviously a fairy tale, but IMHO he wrote some cracking ones.

If you are also experimenting with radar/microwaves please, please remove any rings, watches with metal straps or any complete circles of metal. I know of at least one engineer who lost a finger becuase of this. go well

All this is really science fiction. In that respect Poul Andersons's book 'Tau Zero' is as good as any, and better than most.

Every isolated thermodynamic system................ The problem with applying this to the Universe is that we have no proof that the universe is an isolated system (or that it is not, we just don't know) in the thermodynamic sense.

Since you ask so nicely English is made up of words. Since words are imaginary and you declare (again so nicely) that anything imaginary doesn't exist, English doesn't exist.

Really Sam, I'm disappointed. I thought your counterarguments would be better than this. Discussion like this is just an insulting waste of time. I didn't say anything of the sort. Of course it is easy to change what someone said to attempt to falsify their assertion. If you wish to dispense with English, the official language of this forum, there is nothing more we can discuss. Nouns are, of course, a very precisely defined part of English. Since post#5, I have been offering the suggestion that misunderstanding and/or miscommunication has arisen because some folks mistakenly identify the meaning of the English word 'real' with the requirement that only concrete noun represent reality. This is of course not true but since you eschew English itself how can we discuss whether anything is 'real' or not?

Second thoughts.

No not at all. Phase methods were popular before precise timing became possible. Think names like Loran, Decca, Tellurometer Interference methods were also used, think Geodimeter. and the NPL one whose name I can't remember. But we need proper specification from the OP.

There is at least one other way, that I referred to in post#4 than time of flight measurements. These do indeed work around corners and obstacles, but introduce different issues. I was waiting for a better description of the problem from the OP.

I meant to ask if you were just asking questions. I don't understand this. Who hasn't answered what? I answered this in post#25 with two examples. You cannot seriously expect me to list a measurement method for every possible non material noun? Whether there are any observers for any phenomena does not alter their reality. This is a statement not a question, but I think I agree with it if by something physical you mean the same as I mean when I say a noun describing something material. I offered a counterexample to those who believe that real and material are synonmous. They are not. Nouns can be material or non material. The opposite of real is imaginary. A 25 foot spider is material and imaginary. A 55 week summer holiday is non material and imaginary. I'm sure you can think of plenty more examples.

You may find that masers more generally make your question obsolete. Look particularly at the part entitled 21st century developments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maser

I'm sorry, Sam, I still don't understand your point or points, in relation to either my post or the thread topic. Sensei, the question was about reality, not faulty perception of reality. If I miscount the number of £100 notes in my wallet and find there are only 24 instead of 25 it does not alter the reality to be found in my wallet by any competent mugger. I have noted that there are nouns that refer to material objects and other nouns that refer to to non material objects. I offered the proposition that one type is as real as the other, with the proof to be founf in post#22

Yes the book is unclear and you have correctly deduced that for a non spinning spherical Earth the weight would be the same at the poles and the equator. For a more complete derivation you need to think in three dimensions. Firstly the geometry. In fig1 any point of the has latitude [math]\lambda [/math] on the surface of a sphere of radius R. If we take horizontal (East-West) sections as shown by the dashed line through the point on the surface we generate a smaller circle of radius [math]{R_\lambda }[/math]. This has centre [math]{C_\lambda }[/math], as shown in fig4 beneath. It is important to remember that the centripetal/centrifugal action takes place in this plane and is not directed towards the cente of the Earth. This is shown in fig3 In fig2 we see that the acceelation due to gravity is directed towards the centre of the Earth. This acceleration is the same everywhere on the surface of a rotating or non rotating spherical Earth. The accelerations are vector quantities and combine vectorially so the component of the acceleration due to the rotation is [math]{\omega ^2}{R_\lambda }\cos \lambda [/math] ie [math]{\omega ^2}\left( {R\cos \lambda } \right)\cos \lambda [/math] Now the object of mass m is resting on the Earth's surface, but it is not in absolute equilibrium since it is spinning with the Earth. We can reduce it to euqilibrium by introducing the fictious centrifugal force which acts outwards and opposes the force due to gravity or the weight of the mass. This is shown in fig 6. This centrifugal force reduces the weight of the mass by the equation shown at the bottom. So the apparent weight as measured by any device that does not balance weights eg a spring balance will be lower than that measured by a weight balance eg a beam balance since the weights in the beam balance are affected the same as the mass.

Sam, I can't make out if you are agree or disagreeing with me? I can tell by looking at a stone or star shape if it is round or pointed. I can say an apple is round, but a banana is stick shaped. I said that science devises methods of measuring the roundness or angularity or other shapes, where the assessment is more vague in common English. Furthermore I said that If the object exists, its shape exists. I can prove that by tracing round the outside and removing the object from the universe (ie destroying it) But I still have the shape. Again maths provides us with ways of measuring. It is not usual to describe a circle by the emthod of envelopes, but it can be done. Such dual methods provides useful alternatives in some situations.

Does this help? http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=310

I am not sure what method you want to use. If you are measuring the time interval between sending and receiving a signal than yes the longer the time interval the more accurately you can measure it (within reason) So a slower signal would give more accurate distance reading if you knew both signal speeds to the same accuracy. If, however you want to use the wave properties to measure distance then speed is immaterial. What counts is the wavelength. the shorter the wavelength the finer the resolution of your measurement.

You guys are arguing with your instincts, not your intellects. In ordinary English we can identify non material nouns ie separate out some quality from an object eg roundness or hardness. In science or maths we can be more specific about these and even develop ways of quantifying these non material nouns. Reality includes both material and non material nouns. Neither type is more real than the other. In fact as soon as you have a single material noun, that you can declare to be 'real', I can find a non material property it possesses which must therefore be as real as the object itself.

Shouldn't that be [math]\frac{{{\partial ^2}E}}{{\partial {x^2}}} = \frac{1}{{{c^2}}}\frac{{{\partial ^2}E}}{{\partial {t^2}}}[/math] I do not quite understand the point you are trying to make, but are you trying to suggest that your sequence of maths leads to the paradox that the j unit vector is the same as the k unit vector (equation 5)? You cannot perform a one dimensional analysis. EM waves require three dimensions because the E part is orthognal to the B part and both are orthogonal to the direction of propagation. Would you like me to work through the derivation with you and explain each step?

Since you have invoked the dreaded 007, to quote him And yet in another thread you were adamant that your eye was the only true origin and continued quite a lively discussion about this assertion. You cannot have it both ways. I doubt that you have any idea what I was alluding to when you made the above response, Yet you did not ask But in IMHO the real issue is as 007 says, you do not listen to any one else. A discussion involves exchange of ideas: I have acknowledged your good ones, but you have steadfastly refused to listen to any of mine or from anyone else. If you could do this there is a real danger that you might learn something new and of possible value.

People are afraid of quantum mechanics because it is given some sort of mystic significance and the student is told "It is different" It is not different at all. Quantum mechancis simply picks out certain values as allowable and discards the rest. This arises quite naturally from normal continuous mathematics. Consider the function f(X) : X2 -1 X can vary from minus infinity to plus infinity. That is it can take on any value at all and the function is continuous. Whatever the value of X I can calculate the value of the function. Now let me state f(X) = 0 ie X2-1 =0, then there are only two values of X that satisfy these conditions. So from a very simple continuous function I have moved to a quantised version.

Fred, I find your idea of a frame of reference far to limited and constraining. Why should it be constrained to someone's eye? What if I wished to consider the mechanics inside a solid body? Where would I place my eye? I say this because there are 'preferred frames of reference' in such circumstances (ajb has already referred to these). The OP has perfect, I agree with ajb preferred is a better word - nothing is perfect. In the example I just gave we call these preferred axes 'Principal Axes', and the (preferred) frame of reference is defined by these.

Let us look at English, which offers the classification Concrete Nouns such as , well concrete Abstract Nouns such as symmetry. The first is what one might identify with 'Real' in the OP but is far from fundamental in Physics, although it has a place. The second is non real, but is certainly fundamental in Physics. But I agree with swansont, a bear can overclassify.

+1 Cool links, Mike

I'll just leave this little tantrum for the mods to sort out go well