Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Is it really 3,432 different possibilities?
That number seems so high.
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.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.
Here's a strange question.
At what produced temperature would it take to evaporate snow completely away?
How fast are rocks thrown upwards by a volcanic eruption?
^^^^ I know nothing about yourself, but I think I love you.
I've talked with a couple of people now and we've concluded that the brownian motion would not produce the correct behaviour.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.
Well, from what I gather (and do correct me if I'm wrong, I'm a gamer, not a player):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.)
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.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="]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.
No!And what is this "space" composed of that carries them along? Are we now discussing ether theory?
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?Justatruthseeker said:I know you are not going to insist nothing affects something are you????
The classic straw man argument!Justatruthseeker said: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.
Another strawman.Justatruthseeker said: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.
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!
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"?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?
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?????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.
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.This is borne out by empirical observation, since the Universe becomes more homogenous and isotropic the further out we look!
Another strawman.
I beg to differ.Electromagnetic phenomena cannot even explain how stable orbits can form, let alone produce a stable, static Universe.
As you like to say - strawman.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!
Do you ever make a post without mentioning fairie dust?
'Ether'?Then it is an ether????? I.e., composed of something???? You really should make up your mind.
'Ether theories'?Justatruthseeker said:And if it is an ether, then there is no reason at all to dismiss ether theories.
Yep .. what do rulers have to do with it?Justatruthseeker said: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"?
That is not what I said.Justatruthseeker said: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?????
You are groping about, seemingly only capable of constructing more straw-men!SelfSim said:The fact is; distant galaxies in the past are not closer together for two reasons:
Glad you agree.Justatruthseeker said:I agree, it is a strawman,SelfSim said:Another straw man.Justatruthseeker said: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.
You don't seem to understand what is currently claimed (or written here). How can you understand claims about the past?Justatruthseeker said:... 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 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?Justatruthseeker said:I beg to differ.SelfSim said:Electromagnetic phenomena cannot even explain how stable orbits can form, let alone produce a stable, static Universe.
Charged Particle in a Magnetic Field
It's used every day in particle physics. Just not in Fairie Dust theories.
Then you should have no problems producing the quantified expressions describing such a Universe. Where are they?Justatruthseeker said: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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?