|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
19th November 2012, 08:34 PM | #721 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
Over the last few weeks, I have spent some time with particle physics and QFT, so the discussion here has been of interest and the knowledgeable people here have provided some interesting and helpful perspectives. The Higgs mechanism is quite a discovery when one considers the abstract nature of the QFT mathematics that predicts its existence. Its a real challenge for a layman to grasp it all. Thanks to all for helping. Even Farside's home-spun pseudo-physics has resulted in some good responses that have been helpful.
|
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ |
|
20th November 2012, 09:14 AM | #722 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
|
Well, that's the main reason to respond to posters like Farsight. It's very rare that physics crackpots get convinced or learn anything - take Michael Mozina, for example - because they aren't posting here with any intention of learning, and if they were they would have understood the problems with their ideas long before. Instead, they're posting out of some combination of arrogant pride, Dunning-Kruger, and trollish "I'm going to see what kind of response I can get". But the responses they generate are sometimes educational, entertaining, or useful in organizing the thoughts of those that formulate them.
|
21st November 2012, 08:01 AM | #723 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,774
|
Indeed. I certainly didn't post because I expected Farsight to learn anything. But it can be an interesting subject even if you don't understand all the details of the physics. This is something that's been studied for over 50 years, with roots going back much further than that. Just looking at the history of how things were discovered and who did what first can be quite interesting., even before you throw in a bit of learning about what it all actually means and why it could be important. I've never understood why so many people seem to be desperate to live in their own fantasy world. Reality is so much more fascinating. It might be fun to pretend that you're a big fish, but what's so bad about being a small fish when there's such a big world out there to explore?
|
21st November 2012, 06:05 PM | #724 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
No I didn't. You can't just set c to 1 without making provision elsewhere. It's the conversion factor between distance and time, and frequency is the reciprocal of time. Try reading this. Space is like the guitar string. When its length is x it vibrates with a first harmonic frequency of 1/x, not x. That's why the n is there in λ = 4π / n c^1½. The 4π is there because you're sweeping a sphere. The c^1½ is there because youre doing it like a moebius strip. You're going round the equator at c and over the pole at ½c. And there's only one size sphere where you can get the spherical harmonic. The c^½ and the 3π is something on top of that, and it's a bit more complicated. But hey, since you don't understand [i]the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content[/url], you aren't going to understand quantum harmonics. Next!
|
21st November 2012, 06:24 PM | #725 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,504
|
|
21st November 2012, 06:26 PM | #726 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
|
21st November 2012, 06:30 PM | #727 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
|
Oh dear. This looks frustratingly close to what we are trying to tell you. Just assume my distances are in light seconds and my times are in seconds. Is your formula still valid? If so why does it give a completely different answer? If not why does it care about some dead dudes in Paris slightly misestimating the size of the Earth?
Almost everything else you just said is gibberish. |
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz |
|
21st November 2012, 06:59 PM | #728 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Oh, I missed this one. If I've missed any others do flag them up.
It's because for every action there is a reaction. A force is only there if there's an interaction. I can't exert a force on you without you exerting a force on me. Vector momentum is just another way of saying that. But total momentum of zero just doesn't distinguish between two cannonballs sitting there going nowhere and two cannonballs flying apart at 2000m/s. Why can't people see that momentum is the time-based measure of energy-momentum interaction whilst kinetic energy is the distance-based measure of action? A cannonball coming at you at 1000m/s takes some stopping. You exert a force for a time and while you do the cannonball pushes you back a distance. You exert a force on it, and it exerts a force on you. But there's no such thing as negative distance, so kinetic energy isn't negative. There's no such thing as a negative time either, but people blather on about negative momentum, and fail to recognise that the sign is abusive term for direction. So far so good. You try catching a piece. Exert a force for a time. Is that a zero time? No. It's a non-zero time, so the momentum of that piece isn't zero. Now I catch a piece on the other side of the bomb. And whaddya know, I didn't exert a force for zero time either. So the momentum of that piece isn't zero. But wait a minute, that's OK, force is a vector quantity too. You exerted a force, and I exerted a negative force? Did I suck or did I blow? Or was that the other way round? And if I can exert a negative force for a distance, is the result negative kinetic energy? Hey look at that cannonball! It's got negative kinetic energy! Don't think so. It's like what I said. For every action there is a reaction. A force is an interaction. I can't exert a force on you without you exerting a force on me. Vector momentum is just another way of saying that. So the total always adds up to zero. But I still exerted a force on you and pushed you along for a hundred metres. And force x distance = energy, and distance is a scalar, and KE= ½mv² because there's an integral in it. That's a different value. You get two different values when you look at the same thing in two different ways. How long is it? How wide is it? Momentum is just one aspect of energy-momentum, and kinetic energy is another. And mass is another. Divide energy by c for momentum. Divide again by c for mass. But it's all just energy-momentum, like a cube coming at you, and you can see three faces. Sheesh, look at the time. Bedtime. |
21st November 2012, 07:09 PM | #729 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,504
|
I see one you've missed. You haven't responded to the criticism of your missing units in equations.
|
21st November 2012, 07:15 PM | #730 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Oh dear edd. I give physics, you just sneer. You know, there was a time when I thought you had some sincerity. Not any more. Not when your response is gibberish! That's no counteragument, now is it? In order to bring this home, I will look out for what you say, and I will carefully offer a counterargument that isn't gibberish. In addition I will provide surgical evidence and logic and references. And when you then exclaim "gibberish!", everybody will see that my surgical evidence took your gibberish apart.
|
21st November 2012, 07:16 PM | #731 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
|
Being in your time zone I do agree it is bedtime. But first you do not see a teensy inconsistency above given energy is scalar?
Maybe a vector displacement rather than scalar distance combined with a vector dot product might make a touch more sense. That bit at least is straightforwardly corrected anyway. |
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz |
|
21st November 2012, 08:26 PM | #732 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
|
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ |
|
21st November 2012, 08:38 PM | #733 |
Intellectual Gladiator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
|
Oh my... there are so many errors in this one post it reads like a failing exam in my high school physics class.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Farsight, when discussing impulse (what you call force x time) you need to remember that an impulse is equal to a change in momentum; so if the object loses momentum, the impulse is negative (because the force acting on the object is in the opposite direction of the motion). It has nothing to do with the concept of "negative time"! You make a similar mistake with work and kinetic energy. According to the work-energy theorem, assuming no transfer of potential energy, the work done on an object is equal to the change in kinetic energy of the object. Therefore, if an object slows down (loses KE), then there is negative work done on it (i.e. energy is transferred away from the object); this is due to the fact that the work is defined as the scalar product of force and displacement, and if the force acting is in the opposite direction of the displacement then the work comes out negative. And, for the record, because displacement is a vector, it can be a negative quantity depending upon how it is oriented.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
1. Go to the library. 2. Get a book on basic physics. 3. Read the book, and work the problems. 4. Realize your errors. |
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher "We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness |
|
21st November 2012, 08:45 PM | #734 |
Intellectual Gladiator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
|
|
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher "We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness |
|
21st November 2012, 09:44 PM | #735 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
I have yet to see anyone "see" these things you think "everyone will see".
You keep bragging about this record-breaking score you're racking up on an imaginary scoreboard, and the huge imaginary crowds you think are cheering for you, in this match you're refereeing yourself. |
22nd November 2012, 12:10 AM | #736 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 509
|
|
22nd November 2012, 04:00 AM | #737 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
22nd November 2012, 04:20 AM | #738 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
|
I think it's a reasonably accurate description of what you wrote, and in some cases I think it's a sufficient counter. If I visit http://snarxiv.org/ and take an abstract from it:
Quote:
edit to add: I accept however that my arxiv vs snarxiv score is sometimes less than perfect. |
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz |
|
22nd November 2012, 05:17 AM | #739 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
22nd November 2012, 09:33 AM | #740 |
Intellectual Gladiator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
|
|
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher "We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness |
|
22nd November 2012, 10:59 AM | #741 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
It's instructive to review this discussion from its beginning (edited for clarity and continuity):
Quote:
The first convoluted response: Some dialog: The hammers fall: More dialog: A commitment to vanquish the opposition: I am now anticipating a powerful response including some "surgical evidence." |
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ |
|
22nd November 2012, 02:09 PM | #742 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
That's why I said But wait a minute, that's OK, force is a vector quantity too. You missed the hint of sarcasm. People say momentum is something very different to energy instead of referring to energy-momentum. They point to the fact that momentum is a vector quantity whilst energy is a scalar. When you then refer them to force x time and force x distance, for momentum they take force as a vector quantity but for energy they don't. it's like I said to Robo, conservation of momentum is there because for every action there is a reaction. A force is only there if there's an interaction, and if I exert force x time on you, you exert a force x time on me. Kinetic energy isn't generally conserved because collisions aren't generally elastic. Some of it gets converted into heat etc. Which is a form of kinetic energy as it happens, but not kinetic energy of the overall body.
You can't use displacement for energy because that's a vector quantity whilst distance is a scalar. You can have a negative displacement. You can't have a negative distance. |
22nd November 2012, 02:59 PM | #743 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
No there aren't.
I'm doing it really well. Momentum is conserved. In a collision between two bodies, the bodies exert the same force on each other for the same time. Body A doesn't exert a greater force on B than B exerts on A. And body A doesn't exert that force for a greater time than body B. One force we call the action, the other we call the reaction, and they are the two halves of an interaction. Simple. Yeah yeah, we all know about The usual expression is Like I said to edd, energy (rather than the transfer of energy) shouldn't be associated with displacement, because that can be negative whilst distance can't. I don't misunderstand the basics. I'm the one here who really undertands them. I know that, I pointed it out. And I also know that impulse is change in momentum, and has the same units as momentum. And do note that if a cannonball is just sitting there in front of you, it's got no momentum. But after you push it, now it does. And guess what, its momentum changed from zero! You're saying nothing Mattus. I'm not making mistakes. And if the cannonball is just sitting there in front of you, it's got no kinetic energy. But after you push it, now it does. And guess what, it's kinetic energy changed from zero! Let's run that little exercise again shall we? But with a twist. Here's the cannonball just sitting there in front of you. Now try reducing its kinetic energy. I've said displacement is a vector on plenty of previous occasions. LOL, in your dreams Mattus. Yawn. And the change in kinetic energy of the cannonball that was sitting there in front of you, the one you pushed, is the kinetic energy. Geddoutofit Mattus. You've got nothing. next! |
22nd November 2012, 03:18 PM | #744 |
Intellectual Gladiator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
|
Farsight,
As I pointed out before, work (a transfer of energy) is defined as the scalar product of force and displacement (technically, work is the scalar product of force integrated over displacement). A scalar product is a mathematical operation performed on two vectors which yields a scalar result. One would expect that a self-described expert on these topics would know what is a scalar product, wouldn't you? One would further expect that such an expert would also then realize the role that displacement (a vector) plays in work (a scalar), right? But no, not you, Farsight. In your arrogance, you continue to ignore your basic mistakes on these and other points, yet you expect those of us trained (and those of us who teach the topic) in physics to bow to your self-declared superior knowledge? Give me a break. I was willing to give you a fair shake, but now it is patently obvious to me that you have no idea what you're talking about, whether it be the Higgs mechanism or basic high school physics. Worse yet, you are not interested in learning anything - your loss, because there is much to learn here. If I were handing out grades to posters on this thread, you would get an 'F'. Congratulations. |
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher "We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness |
|
22nd November 2012, 03:25 PM | #745 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
|
|
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz |
|
22nd November 2012, 03:32 PM | #746 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
|
22nd November 2012, 04:14 PM | #747 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Originally Posted by Mister Earl
First off look at what I said to sol in post 677 about the Watt balance. I included this quote: "by fixing the Planck constant, the definition of the kilogram would depend only on the definitions of the second and the meter". The dimensionality of energy is kg·m²/s², so if we're going to be defining the kilogram using the second and the metre, you need to understand how they're defined. The second is defined using the NIST caesium fountain clock. There's a reference to that on wikipedia: "Since 1967, the second has been defined to be the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom..." In the NIST caesium fountain clock, lasers and a microwave cavity are employed to cause hyperfine transitions, which are electron “spin flips”. These emit microwaves - light in the wider sense. The story goes that there’s a peak frequency which is found and measured by the detector. But note that frequency is measured in Hertz, which is defined as cycles per second, and the second isn't defined yet. When you haven't defined the second, you can't talk in terms of frequency! What's really happening here is that we count light waves coming at us in a wavetrain. When we get to 9,192,631,770 we say that's a second. Then the frequency is 9,192,631,770 Hertz by definition. Note that we used the motion of light to do this. You might challenge that and refer to the hyperfine transition, but that's an electromagnetic thing, so again that's light in the wider sense. Now take a look at the definition of the metre: Since 1983, it has been defined as "the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second." So we define the metre using the motion of light. Along with the second, which we also defined using the motion of light. Note that regardless of how fast light actually moves, this means that you always measure the motion of light to be 299,792,458 m/s. Because you use the motion of light to define the second and the metre, which you then use to measure the motion of light. Also note that frequency is the inverse of time, so wavelengths and frequencies are all based upon the motion of light. The units are derived from it. We quote c, the speed of light, in terms of the units derived from light moving through space. Are you happy with this? This is what lies at the heart of it. You have to understand this to understand the rest. And if you don't, well, it is off-topic, so nevermind. |
22nd November 2012, 04:22 PM | #748 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
|
22nd November 2012, 04:24 PM | #749 |
Intellectual Gladiator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
|
|
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher "We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness |
|
22nd November 2012, 04:25 PM | #750 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
22nd November 2012, 04:28 PM | #751 |
Intellectual Gladiator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
|
|
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher "We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness |
|
22nd November 2012, 04:29 PM | #752 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Yep. Seen any -511KeV electrons recently? Nope. You've seen me talking about binding energy, which is said to be negative energy. But all it really is, is less positive energy. You can't exert a force for a negative distance. When you push you might think you exert a positive force → whereas when you pull you exert a negative force ←. But just turn yourself around and now your push ← is like your pull was. It isn't really negative force. You can't reduce the kinetic energy of that motionless cannonball. Like I said, people get confused about direction and sign. Just as they get confused about positive and negative charges and positive and negative energy, like Zig did here.
Pay attention and maybe you'll get to understand this. See my post 747. Do you you understand what I said, and do you agree with it? |
22nd November 2012, 04:34 PM | #753 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
List of basic school-level physics Farsight doesn't understand:
Any more? |
22nd November 2012, 04:39 PM | #754 |
Intellectual Gladiator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
|
From another thread, Farsight also seems to think that the potential energy associated with gravitational fields is positive. I see that he is also extending this misunderstanding to the concept of binding energy as well.
The hits just keep on coming. |
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher "We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness |
|
22nd November 2012, 04:41 PM | #755 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
|
Scalar multiples of vectors (along with the associated basics you might expect for scalars and vectors of course) are typically in the mathematics GCSE syllabus at the higher end at least - GCSEs being exams taken at the age of ~16 in England and Wales by everyone, covering a wide range of abilities (so not everyone getting what is technically a pass at GCSE will be expected to know what a scalar product is, but those getting the better grades should).
Farsight says he has A-level mathematics and has tutored up to A-level mathematics, which is taught between the ages of 16 and 18, and only generally speaking to those that have done well at the GCSE level. A-level will certainly cover the vector product and harder problems, but probably not generally vector calculus (no grad, div, or curl), at least to any great extent. Then he has his CS degree. On the other hand, we have the posts here. [shrug] |
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz |
|
22nd November 2012, 04:42 PM | #756 |
Intellectual Gladiator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
|
I'm starting to think his supposed A-level performance in math is composed largely of two other letters: BS
|
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher "We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness |
|
22nd November 2012, 04:44 PM | #757 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
|
Perpetual Student's "so-called review" mostly consisted of quotations from what you and others had written in this thread. By following the links, anyone can verify that Perpetual Student's quotations were accurate. edd's "grumblings" have been spot on. You have not formulated any coherent response. ben m's calculation involved inches per minute, not miles per hour. Not that it matters, but your inability to get even irrelevant details right illustrates your larger problems. Snipping a bunch of related nonsense: phunk explained your mistake four days ago. Most tellingly, you still have not acknowledged your sub-high-school-level misunderstanding of units. Although we acknowledge your mastery of the Gish gallop, we aren't going to let you forget the hilarity of your numerological crackpottery. |
22nd November 2012, 04:46 PM | #758 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
|
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ |
|
22nd November 2012, 04:47 PM | #759 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
|
Wait, rewind. I misread the syllabuses I was looking at. A scalar product of two vectors should be an A-level topic (but a pretty basic one in it). GCSE may only cover the product of a scalar and a vector. Sorry. Still... most of the [shrug] is still there.
|
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz |
|
22nd November 2012, 04:51 PM | #760 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|