-
Posts
25528 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
133
Everything posted by Strange
-
Yes, we can measure distances and times. And we can measure how those measurements change under the effects of relative speed or the presence of mass-energy. Nothing in that implies that lengths (of space or of time) have any material properties. The "proof" of this is that any attempt to measure such properties fails. What properties does this "aether" have? How do we measure those properties to test your claim? It is an illustration of something that has been shown to be false by experiment. What is the point? What is it an illustration of? What measurements could be made to test this? Can you quantify, using your model, exactly how large this heating effect would be? Can you point to any evidence that this happens? You are going to get a lot more specific that this vague waffle. We need a model. We need testable predictions. This is, after all, a science forum.
-
Lattice geometry of Graphene- Split from Today I Learned
Strange replied to michel123456's topic in Classical Physics
-
! Moderator Note I will make that official: no one is to discuss the flat earth idea in this thread. This seems to be the core part of your idea, as far as I can tell. If so, it seems to be based on the idea that the "fabric" has material properties. It doesn't; it is purely geometry. (As Einstein pointed out when he used the term "ether in his Leyden speech that you reference.) How can length or width have concentration or density? I am not aware that "uniformity of spacetime" appears as a postulate anywhere. Can you provide a reference to support this?
-
Why just make stuff up? Spacetime is not "gamma"; it is a 4 dimensional geometric structure (the clue is in the name). So the rest of that point is irrelevant as it is premised on a false statement. But apparently they don't. Or, if you insist, they create the "medium" and carry it with them (the alternating electric and magnetic fields). You can keep insisting "they need a medium" but there is no reason behind that. No scientific need. No evidence for such a medium. And any proposed medium is (a) contradicted by evidence and (b) must have physically impossible and contradictory properties. So the science says "no medium". That trumps your emotional desire for a medium. Not really. Rules are there for a reason. If you want to discuss your own crackpot ideas, then start your on thread. As simple as that. A mythical substance that only exists in your imagination does not cast doubt on a theory supported by evidence. Science beats magic. Sorry.
-
Remember, we are talking about microwaving food, not proper cooking!
-
Impressive Science Word has been banned for not knowing how to use a dictionary. Or something.
-
So "the people" are never allowed to change their minds? Either because there is more information now? Or because the population has changed (stistcically, it is likely that more leavers than retainers will have died, and more retainers than leavers will have entered voting age)? Or because the vote is extended to all those affected (EU27 nationals in the UK, UK residents in the EU27)? But, more importantly, it will not be asking the same question. So saying you will vote based on the previous result doesn't make much sense. Referendum 1: Do you want to eat out? YES / NO Referendum 2: What do you want to eat? INDIAN / CHINESE How do you vote in referendum 2 to "honour" the result of 1? Admittedly, Referendum 2 might have the option "Actually, I don't fancy either of those. I might just stay home". So you could say that you wouldn't choose that because you want to support the people you disagreed with before. That's up to you. It just seems irrational to me. You should still vote for what you want or think is best, not for what other people want. It would be more logical to abstain in that case. That is effectively the "I'll go with whatever everyone else wants" vote. Maybe you doubt that because you never saw the targeted advertising, because it wasn't targeted at you. The ads were very cleverly targeted so people who were concerned about immigration would see lies about how being in the EU meant that more illegal immigrants came into the country. Or how Turkey would join the EU soon. People who were concerned about animal welfare would see lies about how the EU was bad for that and so on. The vote was so close that it would only have need a small percentage of people to be "nudged" for the effects to be significant. Remember, before the campaign started, most people didn't really care that much. They might get a bit annoyed when they saw another (dishonest) Daily Mail headline about the evils of the EU, but it wasn't something that would influence their votes in a general election, for example. Surveys before the referendum showed that "membership of the EU" was really, really low down the list of most people's concerns. Now, of course, it seems that everyone has been radicalised and is strongly pro or anti (and probably believe they always have been). Anyway, I have given up caring. It is pretty clear now that the PM wants the UK to leave with no deal. It will have some pretty bad effects for me, personally, (eg. losing my source of income) but I will just have to work through that. I suspect that there will be a lot of people in the UK, especially the poorer areas, who will be much worse off.
-
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigotry No.
-
Theresa May has just announced Plan B ! Very exciting. It is, in a nutshell: carry on as if nothing had happened. Ignore the fact that she has lost a vote by the largest margin in, like, forever. No change. It's her deal or no deal. Although I think Brexit is a bad idea and there are no benefits to leaving, if you want to leave, then just agree the deal: it is only temporary; a way to buy some time to negotiate the future relationship and a deal. (It probably won't be enough time, given that it has taken 2 years to come up with an agreement that says "lets maintain the status quo for a couple more years".) I assumed it was a Mafia reference.
-
could matter be converted into light?
Strange replied to TheThing's topic in Modern and Theoretical Physics
You could have stopped there! -
Brexit as an honour killing.
-
Does closing up a balloon make areas of the surface rotate? No. So, as well as using magic to inflate the Earth like a balloon, you need more magic to make the bits rotate?
-
And I don't think the Bible uses a decimal numbering system. Chapter and verse, more likely. Wouldn't it be more relevant to find out how the original (Aramaic?) text was numbered? If it was. As the text has been so heavily edited, with the content selected, deleted and moved around, I don't know how well the current structure and numbering would match the earliest texts.
-
Unfortunately, I'm not sure how much the public has learned. For example, I saw the results of a survey where 26% of the people asked thought that "no deal" means maintaining the status quo. If a significant proportion are going to vote for the most damaging option because they think it will leave thing as they are, then I'm not sure another vote will be any more meaningful. But that isn't the argument being made. Let's say you agree with some friends that you are going to go out for a meal. So you follow one friend who takes you to a restaurant which is filthy but really expensive. You remember seeing news stories about people getting food poisoning there regularly. Do you: a) Ask you friends if that is really where you want to eat, or would they prefer that nice place next door? Or b) Say, "well we decided to go out to eat, so we have to eat this disgusting place, whether we want to or not." After all, it would be betraying the original decision if we voted on where to eat now we have seen the options. We should never have had the first one. They are a really bad idea. And if you are going to have one for a major constitutional change, then there should be a requirement for a 65% (or whatever) majority to change things. That doesn't make much sense. In a general election would you vote for the party that won last time, even if you voted against them "to honour the first result"? You should vote for what you think is right. That ship has sailed. We have lost any credibility or honour we had. People's trust in politicians (never high) has been destroyed. I think having the referendum was a monumentally stupid idea. I don't think a second one would make things any better. But with neither the government nor parliament able to make any sort of decision, it may be the only option.
-
The medium is space-time. Why do you think that these are confused? The photon is the quantum of electromagnetic radiation. You can either use the classical description, in terms of continuous waves, or the quantum description. They describe the same thing: electromagnetic radiation. (Which does not need a medium.) Probably best not to bring that into someone else's thread. If you want to start a thread on "aether" then do so.
-
No. In fact, as an idealisation, it is infinite in all four dimensions. Then it wouldn't be Minkowski space. Once you introduce expansion you are into the territory of GR and pseudo-Riemannian manifolds. And within the observable universe we see objects moving away at more than the speed of light so there is no essential limit. The universe could well be infinite.
-
Lattice geometry of Graphene- Split from Today I Learned
Strange replied to michel123456's topic in Classical Physics
Those use a mixture of hexagons and pentagons -
Lattice geometry of Graphene- Split from Today I Learned
Strange replied to michel123456's topic in Classical Physics
Ah. I see the ambiguity now. Hexagons can only tile a flat surface, is what I meant. -
Or water running uphill
-
Lattice geometry of Graphene- Split from Today I Learned
Strange replied to michel123456's topic in Classical Physics
Yes, you can only tile a flat surface with hexagons. For curved surfaces you either need a mixture of different, possibly irregular, polygons or you can use triangles -
Even when the numbers (and the operations on them) are cherry-picked to produce the desired results! Or, as often happens, something close to the desired results - and then they claim that is is "near enough" (or just hope no one notices).
-
"But it must be right, because it makes sense to me" (someone said almost exactly that in another thread just now)
-
Excellent suggestion. I have just modified the title of the thread that prompted me to start this discussion: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/117764-how-hall-effect-magnetic-sensors-works/ (but left it open). (Maybe I should now mark this thread as SOLVED!)
-
Sorry, didn't mean to sound as if I was dismissing your opinion. (But you are wrong )
-
right and left amygdala
Strange replied to Hans de Vries's topic in Anatomy, Physiology and Neuroscience
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdala#Hemispheric_specializations