Ask a physicist anything. (8)

[essentialsaltes]

Is it really 3,432 different possibilities?

If I understand you correctly, and I think I do, then yes.

That number seems so high.

Those 7!'s in the denominator actually reduce it quite a lot. If the numbers on the balls mattered (i.e. you had 14 different items) then it would be 14!, which is 87,178,291,200

 

[Elendur]

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.

I'm thinking that a 3d brownian motion for each branch would be good, applied to a PDE, in a spherical domain, which will ease the travel out from the center.
Then thinning the branch proportionally to the length of the branch.
And perhaps additional thinning for the further branches, which could be simulated through a 2d random variable (angle and length).

The simulation should be able to be done with matlab, yielding position, thickness and direction of each branch point.

It should then be possible to translate that into a 3d program. Hopefully.

This actually sounds like a lot of fun. I don't have any link or anything, but I'll check with a professor at my college and see whether he knows anything.
I don't promise any results, but I hope for them

Linking for me to find later:
Chandelier Projects Spooky Shadow Forest onto Walls «TwistedSifter

 

[Zippy the Wonderslug]

^^^^ I know nothing about yourself, but I think I love you.

I'm subscribed to this thread, mostly because each and everyone in here is so completely awesome to me.

I hope you will post back after talking with your professor about such a possible project.

 

[Zippy the Wonderslug]

Here's a strange question.

At what produced temperature would it take to evaporate snow completely away?

Instead of using plow trucks and tons of salt to clear off the winter roads and sidewalks, even if it were to not be cost effective, is this something that could be possible with more modern equipment?

Water left behind, that could in turn be potentially frozen, wouldn't be acceptable.

In short, the snow basically needs to be fully nuked, without of course, the sad side effects of a global explosion.

Sorry for being weird on this thought but I'm a bit curious.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Here's a strange question.

At what produced temperature would it take to evaporate snow completely away?

Hard to say. Depends a lot on how much snow, and what the humidity of the air is, and how long you're willing to wait.

If you can raise the snow to just above freezing, it will melt. And some of the liquid water will evaporate normally into the air. But depending on the humidity, only so much water will evaporate before it reaches equilibrium, and there will still be water left (which you want all gone). As you raise the temperature, the air will be able to hold more and more water (and if the wind is blowing, new drier air will come by, and be able to accept more water vapor). If you waited long enough, the air would slowly take all the water away.

As the temperature rises, it would take less and less time to evaporate everything and have the air carry it away.

If that's not good enough, then if you raise the water to the boiling point, it will all go away. But that would be awfully warm.

 

[Strathos]

How fast are rocks thrown upwards by a volcanic eruption?

 

[essentialsaltes]

How fast are rocks thrown upwards by a volcanic eruption?

It probably varies considerably depending on the energy of the explosion, but just as an example, this study of the Arenal volcano:

"During the initial explosive phase of the eruption of Arenal volcano small projectiles were thrown a maximum distance of 5 km. Considering the effect of atmospheric drag these projectiles must have had initial velocities of at least 600 m/sec"

600 m/s = 1340 miles per hour, almost twice the speed of sound.

 

[Elendur]

^^^^ I know nothing about yourself, but I think I love you.

Thank you. But it's easy being nice since your questions are the most interesting ones I read on this forum.

I'm subscribed to this thread, mostly because each and everyone in here is so completely awesome to me.

I hope you will post back after talking with your professor about such a possible project.

I've talked with a couple of people now and we've concluded that the brownian motion would not produce the correct behaviour.

I have another hypothetical model though, which I'll see whether it works out after I've constructed the framework. I have a good idea of what I'm aiming for, but it'll be the first time I'm doing a recursive function in matlab.

It'll be fun, I'll keep you up to date.

 

[Chesterton]

Since math folks are around, I'd like to re-ask a previously unanswered question: If you play casino craps, is it advantageous to make the free-odds bet or not? (I'll explain if someone needs me too.)

 

[Elendur]

Since math folks are around, I'd like to re-ask a previously unanswered question: If you play casino craps, is it advantageous to make the free-odds bet or not? (I'll explain if someone needs me too.)

Well, from what I gather (and do correct me if I'm wrong, I'm a gamer, not a player):
The free odds bet removes the disadvantage which the casinos put in place such that they can go with a profit. Which makes the expected outcome of that specific bet exactly the amount you bet.

This is advantageous for you since that will not give a stable long term win for the house. I.e. your opponent.

Of course, this will still be negative due to the baseline betting you're doing, which still will prompt an expected loss of money.

So, if you play the craps, and I've understood it correctly, you should milk that lessening of the house advantage as much as possible.

 

[AlephBet]

I would be interested to know what you think of these posts concerning wave function collapse applied to symmetry in an orthogonal linear matrix. Compared to evolution, involution is the missing aspect of the three properties of light (wave/particle/Sprit (consciousness)). I used several biblical symbols to show how the Bible engages this from the very beginning of involution into the Mater / Mother.

Genesis 1

In the beginning (TIME), Elohim created the heavens (Space) and Earth (matter)... Fiat Lux (energy).

40
41

Applied to the comments in the two thread linked above, note that the Father is named by Hebrew root as Abba, or Aleph Bet. Links and chains of information make Word, or the form information takes (in formed). We then read in Genesis 1 that we are IN the image of God. The image is male/female.

Move on the John 1 and the Hologram of information is then shown as Word, placed into the womb of the Mother (Matrix) with light shined on the information. Presently, quantum mechanics shows a digital universe. God named it as Aleph Bet writing Word into a catalyst (Aleph Mem / Strong Water). The catalyst is the formless void (waters above and below). Dirac then shows us why this parallel water is the event horizon forming the veil we call reality in an image (hologram).

John 1 New International Version (NIV)

The Word Became Flesh

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Word from DNA become flesh. I would say this is an accurate description of the link below (Proof of Design / DNA). Examine that post too in relation. What do you say to this in relation to the orthogonal linear matrix we observe around us?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So I have a question for physicists.





Kinetic energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In physics, the kinetic energy of an object is the energy that it possesses due to its motion. It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes. The same amount of work is done by the body in decelerating from its current speed to a state of rest." emph. mine.





[FONT=&quot]So why are they trying to imply by expansion, that instead, everything is increasing in KE, continuously; since everything is increasing in acceleration, i.e. its speed is changing? If that's the case the laws of physics aren't the same as they were yesterday and our light year gets shorter with each passing tick of time, which is never of the same duration; as our rulers continue to shrink and our clocks continue to slow as KE continuously increases. We are not discussing mere velocity, where the KE can remain constant - per observations, but increasing acceleration, i.e., changes in speed, by which the KE must continuously increase as well.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]So tell me, how much has our clock changed from that initial state of rest before it began exponential acceleration that still continues to increase to this day as claimed?
[/FONT]

 

[SelfSim]

So I have a question for physicists.
Kinetic energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In physics, the kinetic energy of an object is the energy that it possesses due to its motion. It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes. The same amount of work is done by the body in decelerating from its current speed to a state of rest." emph. mine.

[FONT=&quot]So why are they trying to imply by expansion, that instead, everything is increasing in KE, continuously; since everything is increasing in acceleration, i.e. its speed is changing? If that's the case the laws of physics aren't the same as they were yesterday and our light year gets shorter with each passing tick of time, which is never of the same duration; as our rulers continue to shrink and our clocks continue to slow as KE continuously increases. We are not discussing mere velocity, where the KE can remain constant - per observations, but increasing acceleration, i.e., changes in speed, by which the KE must continuously increase as well.[/FONT]

Distant galaxies, free of gravitational influences from other galaxies, are being carried along with the Hubble flow, and are thus not moving through space, despite spatial expansion. They are in effect, moving with the expansion and no work is being performed.

Hence the KE energy of these galaxies, in their own frame of reference, is zero.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Distant galaxies, free of gravitational influences from other galaxies, are being carried along with the Hubble flow, and are thus not moving through space, despite spatial expansion. They are in effect, moving with the expansion and no work is being performed.

Hence the KE energy of these galaxies, in their own frame of reference, is zero.

And what is this "space" composed of that carries them along? Are we now discussing ether theory?

I know you are not going to insist nothing affects something are you????

And by the way - distant galaxies are "in the past" and therefore closer together and still under gravitational influence. You all keep talking as if we are seeing the present or the future, when in reality we are seeing galaxies from the light observed from billions of years ago, near the start of the event.

Although we do both agree gravity has "nothing" to do with it, just not as you imply is all, because it's dominated by electromagnetic phenomenon.

 

[SelfSim]

And what is this "space" composed of that carries them along? Are we now discussing ether theory?

No!
***** Strawman alert!! ******

I know you are not going to insist nothing affects something are you????

I think one would have to have rocks in one's head to suggest that space is 'nothing', as this would be in denial of the plethora of empirical evidence. Eg: How does 'nothing' result in the gravitational bending of light, (or lensing), to the geodetic and frame dragging effects, which have also been confirmed by experiment?

And by the way - distant galaxies are "in the past" and therefore closer together and still under gravitational influence. You all keep talking as if we are seeing the present or the future, when in reality we are seeing galaxies from the light observed from billions of years ago, near the start of the event.

The classic straw man argument!

What I'd like to know is; how can someone so lacking in scientific technical knowledge, (who is supposedly asking a question of others who do know), think there are somehow qualified to critique others on what they are supposedly thinking? I mean, just how screwed up can your thinking get?

The fact is; distant galaxies in the past are not closer together for two reasons:
Firstly there a fewer galaxies in existence the further out we look into the past and; secondly, and more importantly, space has expanded.

This is borne out by empirical observation, since the Universe becomes more homogenous and isotropic the further out we look!

Although we do both agree gravity has "nothing" to do with it, just not as you imply is all, because it's dominated by electromagnetic phenomenon.

Another strawman.

Electromagnetic phenomena cannot even explain how stable orbits can form, let alone produce a stable, static Universe. It was recognized nearly a century ago that even a pathetically weak force like gravity would cause the Universe to collapse if it was static. Electromagnetic forces, many magnitudes stronger then gravity operating at cosmological scales, (as you would have us believe), would bring on the demise even faster!

The fact is the Universe is non-static and space is expanding.

Get over it, and get on with it!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No!
***** Strawman alert!! ******

I think one would have to have rocks in one's head to suggest that space is 'nothing', as this would be in denial of the plethora of empirical evidence. Eg: How does 'nothing' result in the gravitational bending of light, (or lensing), to the geodetic and frame dragging effects, which have also been confirmed by experiment?

The classic straw man argument!

Then it is an ether????? I.e., composed of something???? You really should make up your mind.

And if it is an ether, then there is no reason at all to dismiss ether theories.

What I'd like to know is; how can someone so lacking in scientific technical knowledge, (who is supposedly asking a question of others who do know), think there are somehow qualified to critique others on what they are supposedly thinking? I mean, just how screwed up can your thinking get?

You mean like someone telling me rulers shrink with acceleration, then insist the rulers magically measure the same distance as they did before they shrunk? That kind of someone "so lacking in scientific technical knowledge"?

The fact is; distant galaxies in the past are not closer together for two reasons:
Firstly there a fewer galaxies in existence the further out we look into the past and; secondly, and more importantly, space has expanded.

And yet here you are, claiming galaxies were further apart in the past, then they are in the present????? Since the further into the past we look, the further apart they are, but the closer we get to the present, the closer they are, but still everything is expanding apart and has been since the beginning?????

This is borne out by empirical observation, since the Universe becomes more homogenous and isotropic the further out we look!
Another strawman.

I agree, it is a strawman, since the big bang predicted the exact opposite, it only changed when technology advanced enough to detect that homogeneous and isotropic state. You forget, I was raised on those theories. Unlike you, I know what was once claimed.

Electromagnetic phenomena cannot even explain how stable orbits can form, let alone produce a stable, static Universe.

I beg to differ.

Charged Particle in a Magnetic Field

It's used every day in particle physics. Just not in Fairie Dust theories.

It was recognized nearly a century ago that even a pathetically weak force like gravity would cause the Universe to collapse if it was static. Electromagnetic forces, many magnitudes stronger then gravity operating at cosmological scales, (as you would have us believe), would bring on the demise even faster!

The fact is the Universe is non-static and space is expanding.

Get over it, and get on with it!

As you like to say - strawman.

The electric force has a long range attraction and a short range repulsion. I have no problem with a non-collapsing universe - only you do in your limited attraction only theory. Nor with galaxies being further apart in the past than they are in the present - without total collapse of the system.

You know, that same force that keeps the electron from crashing into the proton and also keeps the electron from flying off into space.

You know, that laboratory demonstrated attraction and repulsion that you ignore in your strawman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43AeuDvWc0k

I'm not the one proposing Fairie Dust to ignore it.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm not the one proposing Fairie Dust to ignore it.

Do you ever make a post without mentioning fairie dust?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Do you ever make a post without mentioning fairie dust?

Do you ever make a post without including it? Stop proposing it as an answer, and I'll stop mentioning it.

 

[AlephBet]

I had a question (#811).

 

[SelfSim]

Then it is an ether????? I.e., composed of something???? You really should make up your mind.

'Ether'?
Now, what's that, exactly?
I was referring to spacetime.

And if it is an ether, then there is no reason at all to dismiss ether theories.

'Ether theories'?
What are they?

You mean like someone telling me rulers shrink with acceleration, then insist the rulers magically measure the same distance as they did before they shrunk? That kind of someone "so lacking in scientific technical knowledge"?

Yep .. what do rulers have to do with it?

And yet here you are, claiming galaxies were further apart in the past, then they are in the present????? Since the further into the past we look, the further apart they are, but the closer we get to the present, the closer they are, but still everything is expanding apart and has been since the beginning?????

That is not what I said.
I said ...

The fact is; distant galaxies in the past are not closer together for two reasons:

You are groping about, seemingly only capable of constructing more straw-men!

Although we do both agree gravity has "nothing" to do with it, just not as you imply is all, because it's dominated by electromagnetic phenomenon.

Another straw man.

I agree, it is a strawman,

Glad you agree.

... the big bang predicted the exact opposite, it only changed when technology advanced enough to detect that homogeneous and isotropic state. You forget, I was raised on those theories. Unlike you, I know what was once claimed.

You don't seem to understand what is currently claimed (or written here). How can you understand claims about the past?

Electromagnetic phenomena cannot even explain how stable orbits can form, let alone produce a stable, static Universe.

I beg to differ.

Charged Particle in a Magnetic Field

It's used every day in particle physics. Just not in Fairie Dust theories.

You seem confused about the distinctions between 'planets' and 'charged particles in a Magnetic Field'. Anyway, I covered charged particles in magnetic fields some time ago in the Scott's Blunder about Birkeland Currents thread. Weren't you paying attention then either?

As you like to say - strawman.

The electric force has a long range attraction and a short range repulsion. I have no problem with a non-collapsing universe - only you do in your limited attraction only theory. Nor with galaxies being further apart in the past than they are in the present - without total collapse of the system.

You know, that same force that keeps the electron from crashing into the proton and also keeps the electron from flying off into space.

You know, that laboratory demonstrated attraction and repulsion that you ignore in your straw man.
... {snipped link} ...
I'm not the one proposing Fairie Dust to ignore it.

Then you should have no problems producing the quantified expressions describing such a Universe. Where are they?
Peratt couldn't manage it for his universe ... it'll be interesting to see how you can!