Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: Bedlam

Dimensional analysis gives you something with units of energy (plausible candidate) but it doesn't give you physics or useful interpretable meaning.

My take on fungi's question is 'why does this equal energy', and dimensional analysis will tell you 'because it does'.

Because the definition of energy IS that. I think that's what he was after, rather than 'why C and not the speed of an unladen swallow'.

would it make difference if it were an African swallow instead of European swallow?





I gotta chemistry question. is boron an alkili by any chance?

force is equal to mass times acceleration right? so wouldn't that mean really fast fat people are the strongest fighters? like if I get a sumo wrestler and coach him to have explosive bursts of speed shouldn't he dominate in the ufc? that should be my next gig. coaching sumo wrestlers to take over the mma world!

Know ye not that, time compression curves are concentric circles/spheres around mass residing in the time domain along with dark matter
a reply to: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Nochzwei


'Time' is not 'a thing'; therefore time cannot be compressed.

On the contrary time is a physical entity and definitely a thing.

Time imo is not a thing. Is temperature 'a thing''? No.
Time is space. Space expansion rate. Actually 'rate' is also not precise term. Time behaves just as space does. Space stretches, time delays. Space cannot be static. In theory if space is static there will be no time.

Is my way of thinking way too off?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: greenreflections
Why are you bringing 'galaxy' word to no end? I understand you have a lot on your plate answering all kinds of questions but please, I was referring to the period of cosmic expansion before any galaxy could be formed. You must have taken me for some one else.

Let's look at what you wrote once again:

originally posted by: greenreflections
I think that one cannot say space-time has a form. It expands arbitrary. When needed, on demand. When the demand is too much, black hole forms))

I see no reference to inflation here, so I presumed you were talking about the expansion of the universe, especially through the use of present tense "when the demand is too much..." instead of "was" and "black hole forms" instead of "formed". If you're referring to inflation I suggest to not use present tense and actually mention inflation. There are lots of ideas about what happened in inflation and one idea is that black holes formed during that event however one consequence of that idea is that there would be black holes of various sizes as a result. So far observations have suggested there's a shortage of intermediate sized black holes as this idea would predict[/post]

Black holes shortage is because some of them have already merged, no?


cheers)

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Hypothetical:

You can have anything revealed to you in physics. Only one fact (revelation)... any theory or truth still undiscovered that you seek will be revealed...

what do you ask? which mystery do you get revealed above all other mysteries?

im curious!

a reply to: greenreflections

Time is not space, time is a measurement of movement.

Space is area with an extra dimension; or volume potentially without boundary.

Space is the fact that height, width, and depth are possible.

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Hypothetical:

You can have anything revealed to you in physics. Only one fact (revelation)... any theory or truth still undiscovered that you seek will be revealed...

what do you ask? which mystery do you get revealed above all other mysteries?

im curious!

you mean after he has couple of drinks?


cheers

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: greenreflections

Time is not space, time is a measurement of movement.

Space is area with an extra dimension; or volume potentially without boundary.

Space is the fact that height, width, and depth are possible.

alright. I personally have an issue with that statement.

You are looking at space as volume only. And time as human perception as a concept to measure condition (coordinate position in that volume) change, right?

originally posted by: greenreflections


alright. I personally have an issue with that statement.

I look forward to reading the expression of your issue.

You are looking at space as volume only. And time as human perception as a concept to measure condition (coordinate position in that volume) change, right?

Ultimately space as volume only yes (though the definition of volume, implies 3 dimensions 'contained or walled or enclosed', which is why I said "volume potentially without boundary").

I said time is a measurement of movement; which implies human perception, which I did not intend to do, by using the word measurement; I meant to say; Time is movement, and myself thinking that objects move in different ways at different rates wanted to imply that fact of difference, and mistakenly used the term measurement, to imply comparative incremental difference between movement. It would have been enough for me to say, time is movement, which is what I usually say. So if you think I implied that 'time does not actually exist, and it is only a human perception or invention' I did not intend to imply that. Time exists, because movement exists. I guess I should have said, to measure time we measure movement. (there is also, related to time, potentially in regards to universal time, considering the universe as a singularly related system, the concept of entropy; which is to say; as the systems of the universe continue to move, there is continually less chances of the systems remaining as they are now, generally; that is to say something like, the universe something like a machine, as it runs eventually it will break down beyond repair, turn into different machines/systems, but seemingly will eventually break down into dust (then maybe start over again as a perfect machine again). But again, all of that is due to inherent physical presence of material/substance/stuff and its movement, and how different stuffs and different movements make systems.

originally posted by: greenreflections

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Nochzwei


'Time' is not 'a thing'; therefore time cannot be compressed.

On the contrary time is a physical entity and definitely a thing.

Time imo is not a thing. Is temperature 'a thing''? No.
Time is space. Space expansion rate. Actually 'rate' is also not precise term. Time behaves just as space does. Space stretches, time delays. Space cannot be static. In theory if space is static there will be no time.

Is my way of thinking way too off?

You may want to read the thread in my signature to get a better grasp and make sure you see Gordon novel and the ark videos

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
force is equal to mass times acceleration right? so wouldn't that mean really fast fat people are the strongest fighters?

Isn't "really fast fat people" an oxymoron? When a person with twice as much mass tries to duck, they need twice the force to duck as quickly and that's typically not the case for fat people where twice the mass doesn't result in twice the force. Besides if you know the laws of physics you can use them and your speed to take down a larger opponent, for example:

On the other hand, if the opponent of a very massive person fails to duck, the momentum transfer can be quite impressive as shown here when the man who doesn't block or duck the punch gets knocked through the wall:

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Know ye not that, time compression curves are concentric circles/spheres around mass residing in the time domain along with dark matter
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Your first answer was "equation of a circle. look it up". Now you've apparently debunked your own answer by saying it's not "equation of a circle", but a collection of concentric spheres. Saves me a lot of trouble debunking your nonsense answers when you do it for me, thanks. But I still haven't seen the math for these concentric sphere/circle things, because lemme guess, you don't have it and can't make any quantitative predictions?

originally posted by: greenreflections
Black holes shortage is because some of them have already merged, no?

No. If there was a shortage of all but the largest black holes, or if there was a shortage of stellar mass black holes but not intermediate and large, then that explanation might make sense.

But there's no apparent logic in why only the intermediate mass black holes would merge, and not the stellar mass black holes. In fact if lots of black holes were merging, you might expect the opposite of what we observe, instead of a shortage of intermediate black holes, we might expect a surplus of them because so many of the stellar mass black holes had merged.

So unless you can show some special case in a model or simulation why we see the black hole mass distribution we do, I think the relative scarcity of intermediate sized black holes is a problem for the idea that black holes formed during inflation, as the linked source explained. I won't say it's impossible, but you have to come up with something better than that for a convincing explanation. on the other hand, the observed distribution of black holes doesn't seem to be a problem for the idea that black holes formed after inflation.

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Hypothetical:

You can have anything revealed to you in physics. Only one fact (revelation)... any theory or truth still undiscovered that you seek will be revealed...

I might need to think about that some more to confirm this, but I think an answer to the question in the opening post video by Sean Carroll would be nice to have: "What is the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics?", for as Dr Carroll says it's really a question about the fundamental nature of reality for which we don't have an answer. It would be either that or a good explanation for dark matter observations.

I think the nature of dark matter observations will eventually be known, so while I want that too, that would be my #2 wish so my #1 wish would lean more toward the apparently unattainable since I don't know how we will learn the fundamental nature of reality with no experiments yet conceived to distinguish between the alternatives explanations.

#3 on my list would be to have an accurate description of what's at the center of a black hole; is it a condensed version of quark-gluon plasma or some state of matter we can't yet comprehend? I doubt it can really be a singularity as predicted by general relativity, but I'd like to know what it's really like if that's even possible.

Lol no debunking your own answers mate, its still a circle in 2d and sphere in 3d, look up eq of both those entities for the math. stop posting nonsense. quantitative prediction only after establishing the relation between ambient time and gravity/mass for which some empirical data is reqd via expts. I am still waiting for the replication of the ark video, btw
and until you can replicate that video, any debunking from your end is pure nonsense.
a reply to: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Nochzwei
stop posting nonsense.

Yes... Nochzwei, please follow your own advice

The video has been well and truly debunked, I can only assume that you continue out of ignorance or just wanting to troll this thread.

originally posted by: ErosA433

originally posted by: Nochzwei
stop posting nonsense.

Yes... Nochzwei, please follow your own advice

The video has been well and truly debunked, I can only assume that you continue out of ignorance or just wanting to troll this thread.

your saying so definitely does not make it so. go on replicate the video and make good on your flimsy excuses.

a reply to: Nochzwei

provided information regarding the candles, provided reasoning behind the CCD artefacts, provided logical ways in which the scales and dial gauge would change.

all ignored, because you simply don't want to understand any kind of engineering or science other than magic.

you couldn't provide me any kind of prediction in wavelength shift or brightness change for light sources moved in vertical height.

You made the claim of time dilation, you provide the proof... and no... a debunked video is not proof. still waiting for the prediction of light source changes at a depth of 2km... the way you make it sound, lighting a candle on an aircraft should instantly blind everyone... well... guess what? Last time anyone smoked on an aircraft and lit up with a normal cigarette lighter, no one commented about how blindingly bright it was... because... nothing happened unusual.

Since the onus is on you to provide backup to your claim, you should reproduce that video yourself also. unless it is you... in which case... maybe you invested far to much time and money on a box that does absolutely nothing other than produce heat.

originally posted by: [post=20090296]ErosA433 .

Since the onus is on you to provide backup to your claim, you should reproduce that video yourself also. unless it is you... in which case... maybe you invested far to much time and money on a box that does absolutely nothing other than produce heat.

Read my reply to arb about prediction.
I cannot replicate the video except for moving the candle up. I failed with ccd artifact, image distortion, bending of light. thermal expansion, I didn't try as am engineer and know that even if you heat a 1.5 m rod to red hotness, it wont produce any change on the scales

originally posted by: [post=20090296]ErosA433 .

Since the onus is on you to provide backup to your claim, you should reproduce that video yourself also. unless it is you... in which case... maybe you invested far to much time and money on a box that does absolutely nothing other than produce heat.

Read my reply to arb about prediction.
I cannot replicate the video except for moving the candle up. I failed with ccd artifact, image distortion, bending of light. thermal expansion, I didn't try as am engineer and know that even if you heat a 1.5 m rod to red hotness, it wont produce any change on the scales

a reply to: Nochzwei

This is puzzling. Why can't you replicate your own video, Savvy?

originally posted by: Nochzwei
I cannot replicate the video except for moving the candle up. I failed with ccd artifact, image distortion, bending of light. thermal expansion, I didn't try as am engineer and know that even if you heat a 1.5 m rod to red hotness, it wont produce any change on the scales

Where is your video showing your failed replication attempt? Did you find out what camera was used and did you use the same model camera in the same settings and lighting conditions, and with the same wattage/brightness light bulbs in the machine?

I have unfortunately had to fire some engineers hired by my predecessor who turned out to not be very good at their job, but even the least competent of those I fired would have been able to look at the video of the artifact on the car headlights and the machine and deduce that they were similar artifacts and thus not unique to the machine. Something is severely lacking in your cognitive ability if you aren't able to make the same conclusion.

originally posted by: ErosA433
a box that does absolutely nothing other than produce heat.

And a little bit of light and noise, but mostly heat.