fruitvilla

The thing that I don't quite get is where the energy to run these cars comes from? Imagine the energy required to replace petrol. Hydrogen is not the answer really because it either comes from alternative sources or fossil fuels. Hydrogen simply overcomes a storage issue.

Can I recommend Lee Smolin's book? Below is a short review I wrote a while back elsewhere. The thing I took away from this book was the theories we currently have regarding quantum phenomena are not compatible with relativity. These are our two most successful theories ever. We look at our cosmos and we can see we are missing "elements" from our cosmology or our theories are incomplete. I love the Ri lecture series ... I will look at it later, thanks. Einstein's Unfinished Revolution: The search what lies beyond the quantum by Lee Smolin.I really liked this book. It catalogues a whole bunch of interpretations of quantum theory. Broadly he classifies them into realist and anti-realist. The latter being phenomena don't really exist until they are observed/measured. He points out that none of them are in accord with special relativity. And he suggests the basis for his and future theories. He seems to favour causal theories.One that he immediately dismissed was a many worlds version, where the universe is made up of many fully deterministic worlds. But each world is affected the others slightly. Because we don't have access to the other world causes, we can only interpret the effects probabilistically. Apparently the Schrödinger equation can be derived from this interpretation as it can from many other interpretations. I could not help but inwardly smile as I read about this interpretation.Smolin writes gently and kindly about others in his field and about the issues regarding advancement, technical and personal. I can't say I understood it all, but that was more my problem.

I said it sounds [beginning to] like gobbledygook and gave an example of that claiming that everything is vibrations. They throw in famous science quotes for authenticity, and the quantum word. This is beginning to sound like gobbledygook now.

I never said it did not (I suspect it does) ... but if you want to play ... explain how it does. My point, an electron has a rest mass and a negative charge. Convert that mass to energy ... no problem. There is a charge still left over. It is not that simple! I am simply pointing out an electron is believed to be a fundamental particle with mass and charge. Like mass/energy, charge is believed to be conserved. Why do I think it is beginning to sound like gobbledygook? Have I got a Quantum Resonance Magnetic Analyzer for you.

I stand corrected ... but I was in practice referring to your interpretation of other people's models and similarly my interpretations of said models. Energy and (mass, time and distance) by suitable manipulation are interchangeable ... eg E = mc² and E = ½mv² While amperage is not defined in terms of mass and distance, but is related to time. We are able to think amps in terms of energy (power) by defining voltage as an inverse function of amps.

This is what I was trying to say ... "GPS accounts for relativity by electronically adjusting the rates of the satellite clocks, and by building mathematical corrections into the computer chips which solve for the user's location. Without the proper application of relativity, GPS would fail in its navigational functions within about 2 minutes."

Being monistically inclined philosophically, I would like this to be true. The problem is charge does not quite fit into your model. take an electron for example. It has a mass which we can think of as energy. But it still has charge. When we say energy is equivalent to mass we understand it is related by the factor c², and I could go through all the other equivalencies and give the factors. My personal take is to be a little scientifically agnostic about all this.

The dimensions of energy are expressed in mass, distance and time. Energy has the dimensions mass x distance²/ time² So either energy is fundamental or mass, distance and time have to give. And with all due respect to Tesla ... still not easy to comprehend at least for me.

Never claimed there was Yep it is called the Vacuum Energy and results in the Casimir effect. I am not sure about this, but I will take your word for this for the moment. Either way ... the densities will be many orders of magnitude different. This is beginning to sound like gobbledygook now. But all this is fine, we were talking about relativistic effects which are described by continuous equations, while your quantum field theory and quantum phenomena in general are described by discontinuous theories. The two currently are not compatible. If you find all this easy to comprehend you are doing way better than I am. I stand by my claim it is not easy to comprehend. I should preface that by: Not easy for me.

You think curved space is easy to comprehend? OK in the video an elastic fabric is being curved. What is being curved in reality? I think the demo you showed is OK, it shows the behaviours of a curved space. But it does not help with what is being curved.

What do you think I am struggling to comprehend? I am just saying the "two" dimensional demo has to be converted to three dimensions.

Were you successful? My point was the traditional parabolic representation of a plane is or can be misleading. Satellites orbiting around the two poles and the equator sort of thing.

Now try visualizing the gravity well in three dimensions ...

lol Tough question ... The answer is yes and no. If we think in terms of geometry we learnt at school (Euclidean geometry) the answer would be almost, approximately, or sort of. Technically they move in ellipses. For example the Earth is a tiny fraction closer to the Sun in December than in June. So that is the yes part. The no answer is ... if we believe in Einstein's theories then the Earth is moving in a straight line and that it is space that is curved. It is hard for me to comprehend. This is a little mind blowing, yet things like our GPSs use Einstein's theories to get it to work. Euclidean geometry would not work.

Shame it was Millwall ... I would have preferred a stultifying nil-nil draw.

OK found some refences for this ... but nothing official ... thanks

Can't find any reference to either of the rhyming words to archaic terms for glades. Oh well such is life.

The problem with this statement is that even on Earth this is not true for at the planet's surface and in orbit.

What's the simile behind clearing in the woods?

This type of post is why I started this thread ... I let everyone have their little play first What is the nature of choice? Or in this case "CHOICE". Is choice like when I set my car on cruise control and the car 'chooses' to regulate a certain amount of fuel and air into the carburetor to maintain a certain speed? Here is what I consider to be a fact ... the universe is fundamentally chaotic (in the scientific sense). Football teams, managers, fans and people are part of this universe and are also fundamentally chaotic. Our choices are chaotic. So ultimately Villa's results and individual performances are going to be chaotic.

Warming up ... currently -7 °C

But it's 12:00 pm for me ... so perfect You can drink while watching ... but it's a bit early for me

Standard in Canada

There's the non metric ones too But ones with a Robertson head are the best ...