Ask a physicist anything. (8)

[Elendur]

Now it's here, still not uploaded to the proper source but I'll take what I can get at the moment:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7839677/

So here's an extra nudge to you Justa:
Why does it work?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Never been in debt then? My bank account currently contains negative money.

But you ALWAYS take away what exists, you NEVER take away negative money from positive money and end up with more money than you started. Now do you?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes. That's the point.


You assert. Now provide an actual instance of this being the case.

Just type 1 + -1 = into Google, or would that be too difficult for you????

Well there's nothing ambiguous about it: Something is either science or it is not, and the requirements to be classed as science are very clear. I bet you don't even know what they are.

Sure, it starts and ends with experimental evidence, got any????

Movement of electrons. Next.

And yet those electrons merely wiggle back and forth in AC and drift at centimeters per minute, while the electrical force travels at c "outside" the wires. So we can say the movement of electrons might start the process, but they are definitely NOT the current itself. As I said, you understand electricity not at all, and just showed it.

And what about that positive current which behaves just like that negative, is that from electrons too?????

"A flow of positive charges gives the same electric current, and has the same effect in a circuit, as an equal flow of negative charges in the opposite direction. Since current can be the flow of either positive or negative charges, or both, a convention for the direction of current which is independent of the type of charge carriers is needed. The direction of conventional current is arbitrarily defined to be the same as the direction of the flow of positive charges."

So your convention of charge carriers is outdated and not in line with knowledge.

Again, provide examples or it's just "blah blah blah"

I have, but you will just ignore them this time like you did the other 20 times, so why bother to ask, since you will just ignore them again????

Heliosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The IBEX results are truly remarkable! What we are seeing in these maps does not match with any of the previous theoretical models of this region."

[1206.3173] Anomalously Weak Solar Convection
"Convective velocities are 20-100 times weaker than current theoretical estimates. This suggests the prevalence of a different paradigm of turbulence from that predicted by existing models, prompting the question: what mechanism transports the heat flux of a solar luminosity outwards?"

Just admit your solar theories are one and all delegated to file 13.

Who is doing so and again.. provide an example.

Provide an example where you treat plasma in space other than a "gas"????? You won't find one, will you? You will continue to treat it as such, as an electrically neutral gas, and then wonder why you need a force that seems to be missing. Well duh, because you keep ignoring that plasma responds strongly to EM fields.

That's why ""The IBEX results are truly remarkable! What we are seeing in these maps does not match with any of the previous theoretical models of this region....

....Initial interpretations suggest that "the interstellar environment has far more influence on structuring the heliosphere than anyone previously believed""http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliosphere#cite_note-44

But you "still believe" that the interstellar environment has no effect, because you are still living in denial of reality.

Do WHAT in the lab/space?

Treating that plasma like solids, liquids or gasses. If you can't do that in the lab with plasma, what makes you think it's ok to do so in space????? Besides the fact you don't want to admit to plasma interactions in space???

You claimed there is no such thing as a negative number in reality. Negative charges. Financial debt. Such things are what negative numbers were invented to represent. Fail.

Then all you need to do is make a video, subtract two apples from two apples, and show me 4 apples. Certainly this should be easy with those imaginary negative apples that don't exist????? The only place negative numbers are valid are in imagination land.

As for temperature, that's why they call it absolute zero, because any temperature above that is actually a positive, not a negative, despite our arbitrary use of the freezing point of water as a zero point here on earth.


Your attempts at distraction are just that, a minor annoyance from someone attempting to sell us all Fairie Dust.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Now it's here, still not uploaded to the proper source but I'll take what I can get at the moment:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7839677/

So here's an extra nudge to you Justa:
Why does it work?

I'll read it and get back to you. But if you subtract a non-existent nothing from something, or something you call a negative when it is *not*, then we are back to square one.

*For example*: Any temperature above "absolute zero" is in reality a positive temperature, not a negative, regardless of our arbitrary zero point at the freezing of water, and our convention of calling it such. It is a "convention" to call the freezing point of water as zero, not the reality. The reality is the lowest point any particle "at rest" could obtain.

Absolute zero is zero. Anything above that is positive. Simple deduction anyone should be able to understand.

Likewise the lowest energy is the lowest any particle could obtain "at rest", so any so-called negatives above that are in actuality positive energies, are they not?

 

[Elendur]

I'll read it and get back to you. But if you subtract a non-existent nothing from something, or something you call a negative when it is *not*, then we are back to square one.

How about

?

*For example*: Any temperature above "absolute zero" is in reality a positive temperature, not a negative, regardless of our arbitrary zero point at the freezing of water, and our convention of calling it such. It is a "convention" to call the freezing point of water as zero, not the reality. The reality is the lowest point any particle "at rest" could obtain.

In a shallow sense you're entirely correct here.

In a deeper one you fail to realize that it's still entirely depending on the definitions when describing anything in general.

Absolute zero is zero. Anything above that is positive. Simple deduction anyone should be able to understand.

Likewise the lowest energy is the lowest any particle could obtain "at rest", so any so-called negatives above that are in actuality positive energies, are they not?

Depends on the definitions used.

You don't seem to realize that definitions impose nothing upon reality. They're tools to make sure people know what they're talking about.

Example:
If I define "blue squiggles" as "hubbles", what are "blue squiggles"?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

How about

?

How about the sqr rt of 0 then??? Since you want to use an imaginary number that does not exist to start with? There is no such thing in real life of a -1 apple, -1 rock, -1 anything.

In a shallow sense you're entirely correct here.

Nothing shallow to it, we both know I am correct, so why your next attempt at futility???

In a deeper one you fail to realize that it's still entirely depending on the definitions when describing anything in general.

Hence your definitions are not realistic values of the universe, where the absolute zero point is the zero point, and not the freezing point of water. Where your definitions of "gas" utterly fail to bring about the correct hypothesis as would "plasma". It's your basic "conceptions" of the universe where you have gone wrong. Leading you to incorrect definitions of the basic state of 99% of the universe.

It is those definitions that led to mainstream's incorrect "conceptions" of how the universe behaves, thinking of it as "gas" and not the "plasma" that it is.

Depends on the definitions used.

Depends if the "correct" definition is used.

You don't seem to realize that definitions impose nothing upon reality.

Contradiction of your earlier statement "it's still entirely depending on the definitions"

They're tools to make sure people know what they're talking about.

Example:
If I define "blue squiggles" as "hubbles", what are "blue squiggles"?

Definitions impose reality. Out of squiggles land into reality: "gas" is not the same thing as "plasma". Nor do they even behave similarly. So why ignore those EM force effects and resort to Fairie Dust instead?

It's your entire lexicon that is composed of primarily 95% missing words needed to describe the reality...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2013/02/18/saying-is-believing/

 

[Elendur]

How about the sqr rt of 0 then???

That's 0.

Since you want to use an imaginary number that does not exist to start with? There is no such thing in real life of a -1 apple, -1 rock, -1 anything.

And not pi anything.

Nothing shallow to it, we both know I am correct, so why your next attempt at futility???

You were, and still are, shallow in your understanding.

Hence your definitions are not realistic values of the universe, where the absolute zero point is the zero point, and not the freezing point of water. Where your definitions of "gas" utterly fail to bring about the correct hypothesis as would "plasma". It's your basic "conceptions" of the universe where you have gone wrong. Leading you to incorrect definitions of the basic state of 99% of the universe.

It is those definitions that led to mainstream's incorrect "conceptions" of how the universe behaves, thinking of it as "gas" and not the "plasma" that it is.

Depends if the "correct" definition is used.

Definitions impose reality. Out of squiggles land into reality: "gas" is not the same thing as "plasma". Nor do they even behave similarly. So why ignore those EM force effects and resort to Fairie Dust instead?

It's your entire lexicon that is composed of primarily 95% missing words needed to describe the reality...

Saying is Believing | thunderbolts.info

You're so wrong about how definitions work it's not even funny.
Definitions do not affect reality. Period.


You know what, lets just skip the whole discussion about definitions, since you're obviously not going to change your mind (and yes, the three implicit insults are here for my entertainment).
Please explain how on earth I arrive at the correct results with the examples given in my essay.

Despite using

as a fundamental property of every calculation.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That's 0.

And so the sq rt of any non existent negative number is also zero, since that number is imaginary in the first place and never existed in reality.

And not pi anything.

And neither are the other negatives.

You were, and still are, shallow in your understanding.

And yet we both know my understanding is the correct one, to which you had no choice but to admit.

You're so wrong about how definitions work it's not even funny.
Definitions do not affect reality. Period.

Definitions define reality. Doubt that? Define anything without one single definition?????????

You know what, lets just skip the whole discussion about definitions, since you're obviously not going to change your mind (and yes, the three implicit insults are here for my entertainment).
Please explain how on earth I arrive at the correct results with the examples given in my essay.

Despite using

as a fundamental property of every calculation.

Skip the definitions because you also know you have no ground to stand on once we define things properly????? Like calling plasma, plasma, instead of gas????? Like defining absolute zero as true zero, and not some arbitrary point????

Correct results in which land of imagination and Fairie Dust? The one in which every single mainstream theory has come crashing down over the last 20 years????

The one that got you convection on the sun 100 orders off from reality???

The one that falsified every single solar heliospheric model they had?????

The one that showed the folly of ignoring galactic electric and magnetic fields in theory????

I'd say it was probably about as correct as GR. Which just so happens to be incorrect by 95% outside of the solar system when describing a plasma universe.


So yah, in your tiny limited world view where plasma isn't plasma, but a gas, it probably does look correct. Until you of course apply it to plasma "the universe" and find it doesn't work at all....

 

[Elendur]

And so the sq rt of any non existent negative number is also zero, since that number is imaginary in the first place and never existed in reality.


And neither are the other negatives.

And yet we both know my understanding is the correct one, to which you had no choice but to admit.


Definitions define reality. Doubt that? Define anything without one single definition?????????


Skip the definitions because you also know you have no ground to stand on once we define things properly????? Like calling plasma, plasma, instead of gas????? Like defining absolute zero as true zero, and not some arbitrary point????

Correct results in which land of imagination and Fairie Dust? The one in which every single mainstream theory has come crashing down over the last 20 years????

The one that got you convection on the sun 100 orders off from reality???

The one that falsified every single solar heliospheric model they had?????

The one that showed the folly of ignoring galactic electric and magnetic fields in theory????

I'd say it was probably about as correct as GR. Which just so happens to be incorrect by 95% outside of the solar system when describing a plasma universe.


So yah, in your tiny limited world view where plasma isn't plasma, but a gas, it probably does look correct. Until you of course apply it to plasma "the universe" and find it doesn't work at all....

If you'd read my essay you'd notice that it's not about plasma (or physics) at all. Read it:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7839677/

 

[Zippy the Wonderslug]

Hey everyone.

So I found this little beauty online the other week.Chandelier Projects Spooky Shadow Forest onto Walls «TwistedSifter

After rifling the internet for a few days, I finally found it available for sale, but it was listed at $4,200.

I know that they used a 3D printer.

Anyway, is it possible to make this a home, DIY project?

If so, could someone shoot me a few ideas and materials to purchase to get such a thing started?

I would really love to give this a try.

 

[Elendur]

Hey everyone.

So I found this little beauty online the other week.Chandelier Projects Spooky Shadow Forest onto Walls «TwistedSifter

After rifling the internet for a few days, I finally found it available for sale, but it was listed at $4,200.

I know that they used a 3D printer.

Anyway, is it possible to make this a home, DIY project?

If so, could someone shoot me a few ideas and materials to purchase to get such a thing started?

I would really love to give this a try.

When looking at this I imagine it being possible, but it would be easiest through the help of computers (since it requires quite a bit of precision). With a 3D printer it should take no more than a few hours to make (not including design) and I don't see how it would be possible to do within a reasonable time frame without.

Something you could do is to make this out of wood, it'll be a bit heavy and it will take a lot of trial and error, but it would probably be the cheapest solution (free if done thrifty).

If you can get your hands on a digital 3D model you could try to compare shapes and mimic it by carving.

Maybe you could take steel wiring and twin them together for width, they would be easier to correct mistakes with. Also, the barbs would probably be easier to construct. But it would be heavy.

I think there are companies which print designs you send in, so you could probably make your own design through free software and send it in for a fee. I haven't used any of those softwares myself, but Blender is a silly powerful program (you could probably use something easier, but I don't know of any). Quick googling yielded this, but most likely if you decide to contact a company, they could give you some directions in what software you could use.

Hope I didn't spout a whole lot of nonsense
A late merry christmas! (23:40 here, so totally valid still)

 

[Justatruthseeker]

When looking at this I imagine it being possible, but it would be easiest through the help of computers (since it requires quite a bit of precision). With a 3D printer it should take no more than a few hours to make (not including design) and I don't see how it would be possible to do within a reasonable time frame without.

Something you could do is to make this out of wood, it'll be a bit heavy and it will take a lot of trial and error, but it would probably be the cheapest solution (free if done thrifty).

If you can get your hands on a digital 3D model you could try to compare shapes and mimic it by carving.

Maybe you could take steel wiring and twin them together for width, they would be easier to correct mistakes with. Also, the barbs would probably be easier to construct. But it would be heavy.

I think there are companies which print designs you send in, so you could probably make your own design through free software and send it in for a fee. I haven't used any of those softwares myself, but Blender is a silly powerful program (you could probably use something easier, but I don't know of any). Quick googling yielded this, but most likely if you decide to contact a company, they could give you some directions in what software you could use.

Hope I didn't spout a whole lot of nonsense
A late merry christmas! (23:40 here, so totally valid still)

Yes, even UPS is getting into the 3D printing market. Before long any UPS store should have a 3D printer available for use.

3D Printing Services

 

[Cactus Jack]

I am looking for a 3D map showing the past historical route of Earth and this System as well as the inferred/prospective route, in correlation to the surrounding galaxy.

So far my search has accomplished nothing.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I am looking for a 3D map showing the past historical route of Earth and this System as well as the inferred/prospective route, in correlation to the surrounding galaxy.

So far my search has accomplished nothing.

And never will, since astronomers from the far past declared in their records that the planets did not move on the courses we observe today. And so arose our mythologies of gods (planets) battling in the heavens (space) and casting fire and lightning amongst them. Eye witness accounts from an unscientific people, explained in language they understood. Such is why Venus is described as a comet in past histories, even though it holds no resemblance to one today. We (modern astronomy) simply assumes all is as it has always been, despite every single past astronomer declaring the exact opposite.

 

[Zippy the Wonderslug]

That chandelier looks perfectly symmetrical on the left and right sides, so it really would be half the job to program.

If it's also symmetrical from front to back as well, then I guess you would only need to program just one quarter of it and then duplicate that on the other three sides.

Can anyone see some math that might have been used to create this?

Like tangents, cosines, etc., in the patterns?

Anyway, two more questions.

There are 7 solid balls and 7 striped balls.

What is the total number of permutations when mixing them up together in a row?

Believe it or not, it's an answer I would very much like.

And yes, I'm a dork.

Last question, but this one is simply out of curiosity.

What would the world be like if water never was given the ability to evaporate?

 

[essentialsaltes]

There are 7 solid balls and 7 striped balls.

No 8 ball?

What is the total number of permutations when mixing them up together in a row?

If the solid balls are all indistinguishable, and the striped balls likewise, then...

If a set of N items contains A identical items, B identical items, and C identical items etc.., then the total number of different permutations of N objects is
N!/A!⋅B!⋅C!...!

i.e. 14!/(7! * 7!) = 3432

What would the world be like if water never was given the ability to evaporate?

If it could still condense, then after all (or virtually all) of the water vapor had rained out of the sky, it would remain liquid (or ice) and the air would be very dry. No more clouds or rain. Rivers would ultimately drain all the water into their seas or lakes, and more or less stop.

Sweating (or panting) could no longer reduce your temperature. Creatures that cool themselves in that manner couldn't or wouldn't evolve. Steam engines won't work. You can't steam your vegetables. Lots of food would probably not cook right - your cake will have just as much water in it as your batter.

 

[Elendur]

That chandelier looks perfectly symmetrical on the left and right sides, so it really would be half the job to program.

If it's also symmetrical from front to back as well, then I guess you would only need to program just one quarter of it and then duplicate that on the other three sides.

Can anyone see some math that might have been used to create this?

Like tangents, cosines, etc., in the patterns?
...

I'd say that it's possible to simulate this through a fractal (-ish) smoothed Brownian motion.

Simulate a main branch and smooth it, while thickening the base (though this might not be needed when thinking that the base is closer to the light source).
Then simulate the branching points through some distribution you like the look of and iterate until you find a look you like (EDIT: Just read this at home, I'm keeping it xD ).
Then take your favourites and fit them to your liking.

There might also be some fractals available online which give good results.

I don't know how good this would turn out, but it should (read might) give the look a natural rugged look.

I looked a bit at tree branch generation, but those were mainly regarding straight branches (the few that weren't seemed a whole lot more difficult).

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What would the world be like if water never was given the ability to evaporate?

There wouldn't be any water, since if it could not evaporate then no heat would be present, it would all be ice. If heat could simply not cause evaporation, but was still present, then there would be no ice, as most heat loss is through evaporation, and there would be no cooling below radiation levels.

 

[Zippy the Wonderslug]

No 8 ball?



If the solid balls are all indistinguishable, and the striped balls likewise, then...

If a set of N items contains A identical items, B identical items, and C identical items etc.., then the total number of different permutations of N objects is
N!/A!⋅B!⋅C!...!

i.e. 14!/(7! * 7!) = 3432

Yes, the balls are all indistinguishable except for it's type, the numbers on them have no meaning.

This would mean that two or even all seven balls of the same kind, if arranged differently, yet still be in the same place, wouldn't be an added permutation on this.

And yeah, it's about pool.

It's an online game where the eight ball is always in the same position but everything around it is random.

Is it really 3,432 different possibilities?

That number seems so high.

I'll never understand math.

 

[Zippy the Wonderslug]

Heya Elendur.

"There might also be some fractals available online which give good results."

Do you have any of these equations or where I could plug them into?

Since Justatruthseeker here showed that UPS can now deliver a custom, 3D product, I was wondering how to get started.

I'm fairly good at problem solving once I'm shown the way.

So do I use Blender, begin with a fractal equation, and go from there?

Oh, and sorry for the late response on this.