Cool physics page
-
Semiconductors and computers for one. Quantum mechanics is kind of the basis for our entire understanding of matter and thermodynamics.
Mark Wallace wrote:
(OK, maybe not sobered up or grown up, but you get my drift)
Yeah, I think I'm getting your drift. :doh:
This blanket smells like ham
Andy Brummer wrote:
Semiconductors and computers for one.
Semiconductors were Fairchild and Philips, no? And the British military had computers during world war one (for shooting ship-board guns), and developed them yet further during world war two. The PC? I think we can largely thank Clive Sinclair for starting that ball rolling (although that guy in the States, who now runs a cycle-repair shop, is probably the biggest hero of the tale), but an awful lot of companies caught on awfully quickly. What exactly did the universities do? They were busy drumming Classics into all and sundry, back when military and business interests were developing computers and semiconductors, and now they spend all their time drumming "communication skills" and self-promotion into all and sundry -- while business and military interests are still moving the world forward. By the way, we don't understand matter and thermodynamics, so you're probably right about that one.
-
Andy Brummer wrote:
Semiconductors and computers for one.
Semiconductors were Fairchild and Philips, no? And the British military had computers during world war one (for shooting ship-board guns), and developed them yet further during world war two. The PC? I think we can largely thank Clive Sinclair for starting that ball rolling (although that guy in the States, who now runs a cycle-repair shop, is probably the biggest hero of the tale), but an awful lot of companies caught on awfully quickly. What exactly did the universities do? They were busy drumming Classics into all and sundry, back when military and business interests were developing computers and semiconductors, and now they spend all their time drumming "communication skills" and self-promotion into all and sundry -- while business and military interests are still moving the world forward. By the way, we don't understand matter and thermodynamics, so you're probably right about that one.
Mark Wallace wrote:
we don't understand matter and thermodynamics
Just because you don't understand any of it, don't assume the same for the rest of it. Try building any modern electronics without understanding this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band_gap[^]
This blanket smells like ham
-
Mark Wallace wrote:
"No" is right. The radiation that finally reaches our pitifully small target has been bent, distorted, and generally mucked with by God only knows how many influences, so the chance of the star ever having been anywhere near where you point is so small that it's not even worth considering. And its actual position is impossible to calculate.
You're totally right. Nobody has ever tried to poke holes in any of these theories or double check them. It's lies all lies.
This blanket smells like ham
Andy Brummer wrote:
You're totally right. Nobody has ever tried to poke holes in any of these theories or double check them. It's lies all lies.
There is no way to double-check any of it, except with means that suffer from the same identical problems. We just have to work with what we've got, and hope it's close enough. In the case of stars ever having been where we point, a few light years' error don't make a blind bit of difference, given the time and distances involved; and the same goes for most empirical astronomical data. It's when people assume too much from such dodgy evidence that you get daft (but mathematically proven) ideas.
-
Andy Brummer wrote:
You're totally right. Nobody has ever tried to poke holes in any of these theories or double check them. It's lies all lies.
There is no way to double-check any of it, except with means that suffer from the same identical problems. We just have to work with what we've got, and hope it's close enough. In the case of stars ever having been where we point, a few light years' error don't make a blind bit of difference, given the time and distances involved; and the same goes for most empirical astronomical data. It's when people assume too much from such dodgy evidence that you get daft (but mathematically proven) ideas.
See that's the thing, we can't even figure out if the observations even agree unless we try to make sense out of them. You seem to believe that we shouldn't even do that. Either that or only pay attention to the stuff that agrees with your existing ideas of how the world works.
This blanket smells like ham
-
Mark Wallace wrote:
we don't understand matter and thermodynamics
Just because you don't understand any of it, don't assume the same for the rest of it. Try building any modern electronics without understanding this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band_gap[^]
This blanket smells like ham
Andy Brummer wrote:
Try building any modern electronics without understanding this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band\_gap\[^\]
Try taking a degree course in electronics or particle Physics without having to sit -- and pass -- eight useless and unrelated modules. We've had universities for eight-hundred years, and they've added precious little to progress, quality of life, or technology -- and it still seems that they're hell-bent on suppressing the sciences, in most cases. Science departments are always near the bottom of the pecking order.
-
Andy Brummer wrote:
Try building any modern electronics without understanding this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band\_gap\[^\]
Try taking a degree course in electronics or particle Physics without having to sit -- and pass -- eight useless and unrelated modules. We've had universities for eight-hundred years, and they've added precious little to progress, quality of life, or technology -- and it still seems that they're hell-bent on suppressing the sciences, in most cases. Science departments are always near the bottom of the pecking order.
Mark Wallace wrote:
We've had universities for eight-hundred years, and they've added precious little to progress, quality of life, or technology -- and it still seems that they're hell-bent on suppressing the sciences, in most cases. Science departments are always near the bottom of the pecking order.
That's not what we are talking about. You said all the science taught at universities was crap. BTW, I've taken a degree course in Particle Physics and I didn't think any of my education was useless.
This blanket smells like ham
-
See that's the thing, we can't even figure out if the observations even agree unless we try to make sense out of them. You seem to believe that we shouldn't even do that. Either that or only pay attention to the stuff that agrees with your existing ideas of how the world works.
This blanket smells like ham
Andy Brummer wrote:
See that's the thing, we can't even figure out if the observations even agree unless we try to make sense out of them. You seem to believe that we shouldn't even do that. Either that or only pay attention to the stuff that agrees with your existing ideas of how the world works.
I haven't said anything even remotely like that. What I've said is that Hooke's law applies to just about everything, and as soon as someone starts talking about extending a theory -- any theory -- to infinity, as is the case with black hole theory, I start thinking about straitjackets. I have also pointed out that the black hole theory is precisely that -- a theory -- and nothing more. People attempting to use extremely vague and indeterminate "empirical evidence", that can be interpreted in a million different ways, to "prove" such a theory make me want to reach out and tighten the straps.
-
Andy Brummer wrote:
See that's the thing, we can't even figure out if the observations even agree unless we try to make sense out of them. You seem to believe that we shouldn't even do that. Either that or only pay attention to the stuff that agrees with your existing ideas of how the world works.
I haven't said anything even remotely like that. What I've said is that Hooke's law applies to just about everything, and as soon as someone starts talking about extending a theory -- any theory -- to infinity, as is the case with black hole theory, I start thinking about straitjackets. I have also pointed out that the black hole theory is precisely that -- a theory -- and nothing more. People attempting to use extremely vague and indeterminate "empirical evidence", that can be interpreted in a million different ways, to "prove" such a theory make me want to reach out and tighten the straps.
Mark Wallace wrote:
By the way, we don't understand matter and thermodynamics
Yeah, you haven't said anything like that. :rolleyes: There are plenty of mathematical models with valid infinites in them. Take projective geometry for example. Just because it has an "infinity" doesn't mean that it is invalid like your spring example clearly is.
This blanket smells like ham
-
barney_parker wrote:
You're right, we can only see the effects of gravity. Gravity, as far as we are currently able to prove must have a physical source. Therefore it's fair to say we are observing the effect of stars when what we really mean to say it we are seeing the effects of the gravitational pull of stars.
The gravitational pull of stars and other objects. Even dust clouds have mass, and we can't even see them, despite the fact that their gravity (and reflectiveness/refractive potential/etc.) has an effect on the tiny little whimper of electromagnetic radiation (including the visible spectrum) that reaches us.
barney_parker wrote:
and could you explain in a little more detail why there is a difference between looking at a star and looking at a mountain? I may be wrong but in both cases your observing an object through a medium over a distance. The medium and the object may be known better, but the principal is exactly the same....
I have no problem with the principle; it's the reality that's the bug-bear. Try using a telescope to look at a mountain through a piece of glass that has a minor scratch. Then two pieces of glass with a minor scratch each. Then three. Then a few billion of them. And that's only the optical problem; then there's the gravity of bright objects (i.e. stars, radiation sources, and the few things we can actually see -- if it doesn't emit or reflect electromagnetic radiation, we don't even know it's there). And, of course, the gravity of dark objects. We can barely see a few of the rocks in our own solar system, and that's with a huge light source nearby (the Sun, not that town in Nevada), but the cumulative effect of all the rocks we can and can't see is a lot of gravity. Another "old favourite" is that if you point at a star, at night, you're pointing at where it was millions of years ago, no? "No" is right. The radiation that finally reaches our pitifully small target has been bent, distorted, and generally mucked with by God only knows how many influences, so the chance of the star ever having been anywhere near where you point is so small that it's not even worth considering. And its actual position is impossible to calculate. A better analogy would be: Try looking at a mountain through a milkshake that's been crammed full of contact-lenses.
Ah, i see your point, the principal is exactly the same, the prctice is too complicated to truely understand! There are two ways to observe, directly and indirectly. Technically speaking everything is indirect, but what your saying is that unless it's a direct observation it isn't right. Well to a point thats true. If however (and i explain it this way for simplicity of explanation) the universe was centered around our solar system, and there was nothing else, it would be fairly easy (in terms of physics!) to understand the gravitational effects of everything we could observe. If we then added a layer of stars (etc) and studies hard enough, we could work out what the net effect was, and therefore adjust what we are seeing into what is actually there. Add on further layers and the process repeats to infinity. Each step becomes more vague until our understanding increases, but with each layer we also get to improve our theory of the previous layer. In this sense, although we currently don't have a complete understanding, we have an understanding way better than any other know species, and it's getting better every day. The reason science has progressed over religion is that we are happy to revise scientific principals in line with what we observe in the real world. Yes, i do agree that we have trouble seeing some phenomina, but thats not to say we ignore them. One thing that has to be considered is that light cannot change speed. Since this is the case, rather than gaining or loosing speed due to gravity as a massed object would, it gains or looses frequency. We can then measure the frequecy of light and gain an insight into how it's been distored. It's not easy, but if it was we'd already have the answer! In my opinion schools do not provide a good enough level of scientific knowledge to students. For example i was taught just 16 years ago that the universe is made of atoms. At that point it was crealy understood that it was in fact made of sub-atomic particles that can be observed, and definately exist. Since then the theories have become far more detailed, but i am a bit lost because my grounding was on something worked out over 100 years before. I was never taught of particle/wave duality, or any of the many fundamental particles that exist. and they never let me play with a particle accelarator, which lets face it, is a damned shame!
-
Mark Wallace wrote:
We've had universities for eight-hundred years, and they've added precious little to progress, quality of life, or technology -- and it still seems that they're hell-bent on suppressing the sciences, in most cases. Science departments are always near the bottom of the pecking order.
That's not what we are talking about. You said all the science taught at universities was crap. BTW, I've taken a degree course in Particle Physics and I didn't think any of my education was useless.
This blanket smells like ham
To be fair, universities are themselves not about making the world better. What they DO do is set a general level of education that is high enough that the students can then enter the military, or the commercial world and take things further. The fact that commercial progress has moved us forward is due to our capitalist politics. The military push forward in technology is driven by the need to kill everyone who isn't the same as us. Either way there is an incentive to drive us forward. But go and ask those people who drove us forward over the last 100 years. See how many didn't have a degree of some kind. Although there are bound to be a few, there won't be a lot!
-
lol, thanks! :-D
This blanket smells like ham
As ever, this dedbate could go on all day. What exactly do we all mean by "black Hole" If you mean some thing that will send you back in time / to the other side of the universe / to alternate parallel worlds....then no, i doubt they do exist... if you mean a body of immense gravitational pull? yes, i think they probably do... What happens inside them? Not sure, i don't know enough, but i do know that we need things with that kind of pull to keep galaxy together.....so until someone has a better explanation....Black Holes it is!!!
-
To be fair, universities are themselves not about making the world better. What they DO do is set a general level of education that is high enough that the students can then enter the military, or the commercial world and take things further. The fact that commercial progress has moved us forward is due to our capitalist politics. The military push forward in technology is driven by the need to kill everyone who isn't the same as us. Either way there is an incentive to drive us forward. But go and ask those people who drove us forward over the last 100 years. See how many didn't have a degree of some kind. Although there are bound to be a few, there won't be a lot!
I think you wanted to reply to Mark.
This blanket smells like ham
-
As ever, this dedbate could go on all day. What exactly do we all mean by "black Hole" If you mean some thing that will send you back in time / to the other side of the universe / to alternate parallel worlds....then no, i doubt they do exist... if you mean a body of immense gravitational pull? yes, i think they probably do... What happens inside them? Not sure, i don't know enough, but i do know that we need things with that kind of pull to keep galaxy together.....so until someone has a better explanation....Black Holes it is!!!
You probably meant to reply to Mark with this one too.
This blanket smells like ham
-
You probably meant to reply to Mark with this one too.
This blanket smells like ham
no, it was more a continuation of the discussion. I prefer not to branch unless i am branching the conversation...sorry, not aimed at you particularly...
-
no, it was more a continuation of the discussion. I prefer not to branch unless i am branching the conversation...sorry, not aimed at you particularly...
Just FYI, that might be fine if the discussion is active, but the only way Mark would know about the post is if you reply directly to him.
This blanket smells like ham
-
Just FYI, that might be fine if the discussion is active, but the only way Mark would know about the post is if you reply directly to him.
This blanket smells like ham
good point, well made.....i should have checked the dates before posting...