Jump to content

Strange

Moderators
  • Posts

    25528
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    133

Everything posted by Strange

  1. Not exactly an ubiased source there
  2. No need for the kg, either. I just mean that I can divide 27 by 61 (two numbers generated by a random number generator) with no thought as to physical meaning. A lot of mathematics has no physical meaning or application.
  3. You can do arithmetic on any numbers without needing to have (or imagining) any physical relationship. Because it is a wavefront that radiates from the source. Note that it in't the division sign in the inverse square law that causes the light to spread out (divide); the mathematics just describes the result.
  4. This sounds like you are thinking of the inverse square law: the intensity of the light falls off as the square of the distance: twice as far away, the light will be one fourth as bright. This can be understood by thinking of the light from the candle being spread out over the surface of a sphere centred on the source. As the distance increases, the radius of the sphere increases and the surface area of the sphere increases with the square of the radius (A = 4 pi r2) so the light per unit area falls by r2.
  5. Not necessarily. Only if you choose to apply it to something physical. Mathematics is defined as a completely abstract set of relations. Some of it turns out to be useful for describing the physical world. A lot of it is not. I don't know what that means. Do you mean something like the relationship between lux and lumens?
  6. What do you base that on? The poll in that post, where 6 people say they are in favour? Do you think 6 people is the majority of the people on this forum?
  7. They don't have to be anything. They can be just numbers. But we can also choose to say that they relate to something (eg. 1 cake divided by 2 people = half a cake per person; or 1 joule divided by 2 seconds = 0.5 watts). An important point is that when you do assign units to the numbers, they have to match on both sides of the equality.
  8. It is not meaningless: it defines the relationship between numbers. What physical realities do you think those numbers represent? Apples?
  9. And, to confirm that the numbers from that long ago are consistent with a supposed correlation between intelligence and religiosity you would need to have data on the number of people in the general population claiming to be atheist. And do we even know that the clamed correlation existed in that period? For all we know, it could be a modern phenomenon. There doesn't seem to be enough data here to know: - If the correlation exists - How great the correlation is - How "religiosity" is defined and measured - How "atheism" is defined and measured - How "intelligence" is defined and measured - In which countries, cultures and time periods the correlation exists - How many people are atheist in different intelligence ranges in each country at each time period Therefore there is no way of knowing if the claimed 10% is expected, surprisingly high, unexpectedly low or even non-existent. Also important to note that religiosity and atheism are not opposites or even incompatible. How many of the Buddhists are also atheist (not believing in a god)? How many of those categorised as "Jewish" are just culturally Jewish but not at all religious (and the same could be said of other religious labels, to some extent). And so on and so on
  10. It is not a "separation process" and there are no physical realities that accompany the math. That has nothing to do with density or mathematics.
  11. What proportion of the general population (in the countries that those Nobel Prize winners come from) identify as atheists? Because if it significantly less than 10%, then that could be consistent with the claimed correlation. Another potential confounding factor is the fact that most of those studies (according to your last link) were done in the USA. Would the same hold in, for example, India where attitudes to religion or spirituality may be quite different. Also, is the relationship linear? For example, is the correlation between IQs around 100 and religiosity, the same as it is for IQs around 150? And is there a correlation between IQ and Nobel Prize winners? (It seems obvious that there should be but ...)
  12. ! Moderator Note OK. We are done here. Your "equations" are meaningless collections of symbols with no regard to dimensional analysis. How can "G=F=<E" even mean anything. Do not bring this up again. But, as Ghideon says, you seem to have a lot to learn so please feel free to use this forum as a resource by asking questions.
  13. It doesn’t include the effects of Santa Claus appearing either
  14. He didn't come up with the idea of Boltzmann Brains. I think it might have been Arthur Eddington (which would have been about 30 years after Boltzmann died). The first commercial radio broadcasts also did not take place until long after Boltzmann dies so I struggle to see how a scare about alien invasion could have anything to do with it. And if you are thinking of Orson Wells' War of the Worlds dramatization, then that was even longer after Boltzmann's death. (And the stories of panic created by the broadcast seem to be greatly exaggerated, anyway).
  15. Please don't post nonsense if you are not able to answer the question.
  16. Hilarious.
  17. ! Moderator Note You still have not defined the terms in your equations (F, G, e, r and n). And what does "1e/0m" mean? It appears to result in division by zero. ! Moderator Note This makes no mathematical sense, either. How can F be less than E when they have different units? How can momentum be equal to either? ! Moderator Note I will give you one more chance to present (and explain) some coherent mathematics. And then show that it matches observation.
  18. This is your thread for you to present your ideas. If you have none (as seems to be the case) maybe we should ask for this to be closed.
  19. W and Z bosons have mass
  20. ! Moderator Note This a science forum ! Moderator Note What are F, G, e, r and n? How well do these equations match observations?
  21. ! Moderator Note Please support this claim by showing the mathematics of these forces and how well they match observation (eg. that they produce the same results as GR) If your next post does not include this mathematical detail then the thread will be closed.
  22. That is not an assumption, it is the way the mathematics describes the interactions. https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/ Can you provide an example where quantum theory does not correctly describe electronics? There is lots of research into various extensions to quantum theory, many of which require new particles. So I don’t believe this to be true.
  23. An opinion doesn't have much value. If you are not even willing/able to do the schoolboy math of special relativity, I don't think your "opinions" on gravity and energy conservation have much basis. And what is a "gravitational line"?
  24. Strange

    Sea-lioning

    Apropos of absolutely nothing at all (I am definitely not accusing another member of being a troll), this came to mind recently: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sea-lioning
  25. Please show this to be true, in appropriate mathematical detail. They can be and, in fact, they are. It is almost like you don't know what you are talking about. Then show us the mathematical model.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.