Laws of Physics
-
_Maxxx_ wrote:
Losing knowledge over time certainly has happened in the past
How can you be so certain? If the knowledge was "lost" then it is not likely anyone would know it...
_Maxxx_ wrote:
so assuming all written works were destroyed and nobody wrote anything down then the knowledge would get lost
Yeah, its not like our societies do not have a history of burning Great Libraries to the ground, or laying wasteland to entire civilizations burning any document they pocess :rolleyes: Oh and its a good thing people are born able to read. Otherwise, they might look at the documents and misunderstand them :rolleyes:
_Maxxx_ wrote:
But I think it would take more than 100 years
No it really only takes one generation. Think about the days of apprenticeship. If there is a collapse we would essentially have to return to that. However, certain technologies require more than apprenticeship. They were not built by one man teaching his son. They were built by teams of scientists far smarter than the average man. And they were far smarter because they had "working" technology to study and build upon. Moreover, if the technology essentially becomes "dead" and worthless why would anyone research it. Sure the people that had it would be devoted to "turning the lights back on". Those that grew up with the lights off would just say "Yeah, crazy gramps is at it again. I wish he would just help us with the harvest."
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
_Maxxx_ wrote:
Losing knowledge over time certainly has happened in the past
How can you be so certain? If the knowledge was "lost" then it is not likely anyone would know it...
We know that certain things existed from archeological records, but we don't know how to make it or what it means. For example, we know of Greek Fire from the writings of Theophanes and other contemporary accounts, but we don't know what its formula was. Another well known example is Linear A and Linear B, languages that we know exist and have examples of, but don't know how to translate or what the examples mean. I could go on. So we do know, for a fact, that knowledge has been lost in the past, so it's not unlikely that it could happen again in the future.
-
So I have been watching Revolution (its "OK"). Anyway *Spoiler* In the show there nano-bots everywhere (they got released by the DOD and replicated to be everywhere quite quickly) and they essentially absorb electricity. This means no devices work (well unless you make a pure mechanical engine). Fore example, even your car will not run because the tiny electrical spark will be absorbed. Anyway, in the show only 15 years have passed since the "event". This got me thinking. If say 100 years had passed those that new anything about it would die off. Then time would just go by and any future science would do its researching and analysis thinking that physics behaved in such a manner. In other words electricity would not exist. Interesting concept. It could go either way. Maybe in fact electricity does not exist but only exists because teeny tiny bots are propagating the electrons from a source. We just have not ability to understand it. Or maybe there is some other physical behavior we should see in the world but it is not occurring because some device is preventing it so we all think the F(x) is raltional to B(y) but really it is B(x). [EDIT] Everyone seems to be commenting on the show, which was really not my intention. What about the idea that certain laws of Physics only exist because we are suppressed or benefited by tech we simply do not understand? (that was the discussion I was going for :rolleyes: )
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
So THAT'S the rationale behind the show. Meh. It's like the old anecdote of the acid that will eat through anything: if it eat's through anything, how do you contain it? So these nanites absorb all electricity ... but what about from each other? What about the bioelectric currents that exist in ALL organisms? And then there's the Second Law - no matter how efficiently it's absorbed, what do those nanites do with all the waste heat? They have to dissapate it somehow, and that's gonna make them hot. So if there is a volt/ampere threshold below which the nanites don't operate, then lots of common everyday stuff might still be able to function. But then, absorbing all the high volt/amp stuff would drive the heat dissapation problem up exponentialy - do they only operate in the water or the high altitudes, or high latitudes during winter? Because without cooling, they wouldn't last long. And if you reverse it, if the nanites ONLY function at low volt/amp levels, then the first thing to go would be living organisms, not electric powerplants. Something has to give. Either way, I'm not buying the premise. Nice to know I can strike that off of my list of shows to Netflix.
-
Diesel engines are beautifully simple: they squash fuel, which gets it hot, so it explodes. Once they are up to working temperature, all they need is fuel and off they go - much more efficient than a gas / petrol engine, and (until recently) a lot less complex as well. My old Mitsubishi Shogun had mechanical fuel injection, and the only electricity it actually needed was to warm the cylinders at the start, and a solenoid to shut off the fuel to stop it running - both could be replaced with electricity-free versions very easily. Take a test drive in a modern Diesel powered Ford and I think you will be pleasantly surprised - they are very nice engines these days (just not as many horsies as a gas / petrol of the same CC can be - a lot more torque though)
This message is manufactured from fully recyclable noughts and ones. To recycle this message, please separate into two tidy piles, and take them to your nearest local recycling centre. Please note that in some areas noughts are always replaced with zeros by law, and many facilities cannot recycle zeroes - in this case, please bury them in your back garden and water frequently.
OriginalGriff wrote:
My old Mitsubishi Shogun had mechanical fuel injection, and the only electricity it actually needed was to warm the cylinders at the start, and a solenoid to shut off the fuel to stop it running - both could be replaced with electricity-free versions very easily
Some of the larger diesels use compressed air to spin the engine to get it started. Not sure how the system works since I don't have one that large, but yes, if you spin a diesel long enough, you can even forgo the preheat/glowplug requirement.
OriginalGriff wrote:
Take a test drive in a modern Diesel powered Ford..
Better yet.. go take a test drive in a modern diesel (TDI) Volkswagen.. I'm finding it pretty hard not to spin the tires from a standing takeoff in mine, and I get 36 MPG buzzing around town (50+ hwy). If you don't like VW, there's a bunch of automakers introducing small diesel passenger cars for the 2014 model year. The Jetta's far from non-electric though.. but my 30 year old Mercedes diesel don't need no electrons for nuttin.. can be push started, all mechanical injection and throttle control, vacuum to shut it down. Kind of a pain sometimes, like when you turn off the ignition and the engine keeps running.
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
My old Mitsubishi Shogun had mechanical fuel injection, and the only electricity it actually needed was to warm the cylinders at the start, and a solenoid to shut off the fuel to stop it running - both could be replaced with electricity-free versions very easily
Some of the larger diesels use compressed air to spin the engine to get it started. Not sure how the system works since I don't have one that large, but yes, if you spin a diesel long enough, you can even forgo the preheat/glowplug requirement.
OriginalGriff wrote:
Take a test drive in a modern Diesel powered Ford..
Better yet.. go take a test drive in a modern diesel (TDI) Volkswagen.. I'm finding it pretty hard not to spin the tires from a standing takeoff in mine, and I get 36 MPG buzzing around town (50+ hwy). If you don't like VW, there's a bunch of automakers introducing small diesel passenger cars for the 2014 model year. The Jetta's far from non-electric though.. but my 30 year old Mercedes diesel don't need no electrons for nuttin.. can be push started, all mechanical injection and throttle control, vacuum to shut it down. Kind of a pain sometimes, like when you turn off the ignition and the engine keeps running.
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
patbob wrote:
Not sure how the system works since I don't have one that large
If you compress something, it gets hot. Forcing the engine to spin will compress air in the cylinders, heating it (and them) up to the point where spontaneous combustion starts, and the reaction is self sustaining.
This message is manufactured from fully recyclable noughts and ones. To recycle this message, please separate into two tidy piles, and take them to your nearest local recycling centre. Please note that in some areas noughts are always replaced with zeros by law, and many facilities cannot recycle zeroes - in this case, please bury them in your back garden and water frequently.
-
I haven't been watching it, but "OK" is a relative term: the premise would appear to be flawed. A diesel engine does not "need" a spark, or any other form of ignition. All you need to to heat the cylinders, and the fuel combusts under compression. Indeed, early petrol engines used a "glow plug" - a rod sticking into the engine that was externally heated with a fire - to combust petrol. A steam engine also needs no electricity. It would not be impossible to run an engine - you'd just have to go back a few stages to more primitive ones, then improve down a different technology branch. (Christiaan Huygens designed a water pump that worked on gunpowder in the 17th Century!)
This message is manufactured from fully recyclable noughts and ones. To recycle this message, please separate into two tidy piles, and take them to your nearest local recycling centre. Please note that in some areas noughts are always replaced with zeros by law, and many facilities cannot recycle zeroes - in this case, please bury them in your back garden and water frequently.
It is possible that reality is an engineered illusion. However, it is very hard to change physics without ruining the cosmos. Stop electricity, the flow of electrons, and you will also stop the electron transport chain that our cells need to respire! It just so happens that an apparent fluke of physics puts a resonance of the carbon nucleus at just the right energy to allow stars to manufacture significant amounts of carbon, otherwise life would not exist as we know it. Tweek physics in the early universe, even slightly, and you may inadvertently shift that resonance and prevent life from occurring. Physics seems just right, at least for life as we know it. Then again, tweak physics and maybe life would be silicon based, so maybe the final outcome remains essentially unchanged.
-
I haven't been watching it, but "OK" is a relative term: the premise would appear to be flawed. A diesel engine does not "need" a spark, or any other form of ignition. All you need to to heat the cylinders, and the fuel combusts under compression. Indeed, early petrol engines used a "glow plug" - a rod sticking into the engine that was externally heated with a fire - to combust petrol. A steam engine also needs no electricity. It would not be impossible to run an engine - you'd just have to go back a few stages to more primitive ones, then improve down a different technology branch. (Christiaan Huygens designed a water pump that worked on gunpowder in the 17th Century!)
This message is manufactured from fully recyclable noughts and ones. To recycle this message, please separate into two tidy piles, and take them to your nearest local recycling centre. Please note that in some areas noughts are always replaced with zeros by law, and many facilities cannot recycle zeroes - in this case, please bury them in your back garden and water frequently.
OriginalGriff wrote:
A diesel engine does not "need" a spark, or any other form of ignition.
True that, but if the conditions in the show actually hit us, my diesel truck wouldn't start. 1. It has a "glow plug" in it. Turn the ignition on, a "Wait" light lights up, electricity is fed into the plug, sensors detect when it is hot enough, turns the light off. 2. I turn the key further, an electric motor starts cranking the engine and hopefully the engine starts right off. 3. Electric sensors on my dash tell me what is going on. 4. I kind of like listening to the radio. 5. My clock is off because I haven't reset it, but now I'll have to get a new watch anyway because all my current clocks are battery or electrically driven. 6. I've gotten used to listening to my radio. 3 on is superfluous, but I hate to think about the retrofitting and time/manual work needed to get my truck started without batteries. Oh, yea. I've got diesel tanks to fill. Where do I get it? HOW do I get it?
-
So I have been watching Revolution (its "OK"). Anyway *Spoiler* In the show there nano-bots everywhere (they got released by the DOD and replicated to be everywhere quite quickly) and they essentially absorb electricity. This means no devices work (well unless you make a pure mechanical engine). Fore example, even your car will not run because the tiny electrical spark will be absorbed. Anyway, in the show only 15 years have passed since the "event". This got me thinking. If say 100 years had passed those that new anything about it would die off. Then time would just go by and any future science would do its researching and analysis thinking that physics behaved in such a manner. In other words electricity would not exist. Interesting concept. It could go either way. Maybe in fact electricity does not exist but only exists because teeny tiny bots are propagating the electrons from a source. We just have not ability to understand it. Or maybe there is some other physical behavior we should see in the world but it is not occurring because some device is preventing it so we all think the F(x) is raltional to B(y) but really it is B(x). [EDIT] Everyone seems to be commenting on the show, which was really not my intention. What about the idea that certain laws of Physics only exist because we are suppressed or benefited by tech we simply do not understand? (that was the discussion I was going for :rolleyes: )
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
What about the idea that certain laws of Physics only exist because we are suppressed or benefited by tech we simply do not understand?
Uhhh, you kind of lost me there. How would getting any people suppressed affect the laws of Physics? I don't know of anything that can affect the laws of Physics. (We have a long history of misunderstanding them and we still have a long ways to go to understanding all of them. They exist and don't change whether we will or not.) Even the show doesn't posit the suppression of the laws of Physics, it just came up with an idea that is within the realm of possibility even if we currently don't have the tech to produce the effect. All you have to do is short electrical connections to remove electrical capabilities and our current world is severely dependent on it. That's basically what the nanobots are doing, providing a 0 ohm resistance pathway. (IE a short) That part is totally possible and well known. Using electricity to transmit information! Preposterous! (In 1250)
-
So THAT'S the rationale behind the show. Meh. It's like the old anecdote of the acid that will eat through anything: if it eat's through anything, how do you contain it? So these nanites absorb all electricity ... but what about from each other? What about the bioelectric currents that exist in ALL organisms? And then there's the Second Law - no matter how efficiently it's absorbed, what do those nanites do with all the waste heat? They have to dissapate it somehow, and that's gonna make them hot. So if there is a volt/ampere threshold below which the nanites don't operate, then lots of common everyday stuff might still be able to function. But then, absorbing all the high volt/amp stuff would drive the heat dissapation problem up exponentialy - do they only operate in the water or the high altitudes, or high latitudes during winter? Because without cooling, they wouldn't last long. And if you reverse it, if the nanites ONLY function at low volt/amp levels, then the first thing to go would be living organisms, not electric powerplants. Something has to give. Either way, I'm not buying the premise. Nice to know I can strike that off of my list of shows to Netflix.
Michael Waters wrote:
So these nanites absorb all electricity ... but what about from each other? What about the bioelectric currents that exist in ALL organisms?
And then there's the Second Law - no matter how efficiently it's absorbed, what do those nanites do with all the waste heat? They have to dissapate it somehow, and that's gonna make them hot.
So if there is a volt/ampere threshold below which the nanites don't operate, then lots of common everyday stuff might still be able to function. But then, absorbing all the high volt/amp stuff would drive the heat dissapation problem up exponentialy - do they only operate in the water or the high altitudes, or high latitudes during winter? Because without cooling, they wouldn't last long. And if you reverse it, if the nanites ONLY function at low volt/amp levels, then the first thing to go would be living organisms, not electric powerplants.Its a TV show dude. If you are going to argue these points you may want to box up that set of yours because you are in for a dissapointment. :rolleyes:
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
What about the idea that certain laws of Physics only exist because we are suppressed or benefited by tech we simply do not understand?
Uhhh, you kind of lost me there. How would getting any people suppressed affect the laws of Physics? I don't know of anything that can affect the laws of Physics. (We have a long history of misunderstanding them and we still have a long ways to go to understanding all of them. They exist and don't change whether we will or not.) Even the show doesn't posit the suppression of the laws of Physics, it just came up with an idea that is within the realm of possibility even if we currently don't have the tech to produce the effect. All you have to do is short electrical connections to remove electrical capabilities and our current world is severely dependent on it. That's basically what the nanobots are doing, providing a 0 ohm resistance pathway. (IE a short) That part is totally possible and well known. Using electricity to transmit information! Preposterous! (In 1250)
KP Lee wrote:
Uhhh, you kind of lost me there. How would getting any people suppressed affect the laws of Physics? I don't know of anything that can affect the laws of Physics.
I am not referring to supressing of "people" but that of technology. Automated tech could be running around behind the scenese of what we believe are "Laws of Physics". For example, the law of gravity may only exist because there are added properties to elements that we do not yet understand.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Michael Waters wrote:
So these nanites absorb all electricity ... but what about from each other? What about the bioelectric currents that exist in ALL organisms?
And then there's the Second Law - no matter how efficiently it's absorbed, what do those nanites do with all the waste heat? They have to dissapate it somehow, and that's gonna make them hot.
So if there is a volt/ampere threshold below which the nanites don't operate, then lots of common everyday stuff might still be able to function. But then, absorbing all the high volt/amp stuff would drive the heat dissapation problem up exponentialy - do they only operate in the water or the high altitudes, or high latitudes during winter? Because without cooling, they wouldn't last long. And if you reverse it, if the nanites ONLY function at low volt/amp levels, then the first thing to go would be living organisms, not electric powerplants.Its a TV show dude. If you are going to argue these points you may want to box up that set of yours because you are in for a dissapointment. :rolleyes:
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Rather, I'm disappointed in the writing. It's an interesting premise: all electrical power is rendered non-functional, resulting in the collapse of our technological society. Great. Leave it at that. Don't evern TRY to explain it. Don't make it a "meddling in powers wew don't understand" meme; it works as a post-apocalyptic show just as well. Mixing the two and making it into a morality play is just ... lazy. Take the re-imaged BSG. There were any number of incongruities in the science in that show, but it was okay, because they didn't even try to justify them. Rather, the sci-fi settng was so much window dressing for the story, which was an exodus story set in space, combined with the "we brought it in our oursleves" message. The "science" was there to help the story along, not to define it. The list goes on: "Defiance", "Serenity", "Heroes", even "Lost". "Star Trek" and to a lesser extent "Doctor Who" always played fast-n-loose with this concept, but then, they were episodic shows, not serials, so each individual writer had much more freedom to remake the setting to suit his story. But they were all at there best when the sci-fi part of the story was in the background, rather than the forground. Maybe "Revolution" started out that way, and is otherwise worthy of viewing, but as soon as they have to try to EXPLAIN it, they miss the point. Good sci-fi is hard to find.
-
Rather, I'm disappointed in the writing. It's an interesting premise: all electrical power is rendered non-functional, resulting in the collapse of our technological society. Great. Leave it at that. Don't evern TRY to explain it. Don't make it a "meddling in powers wew don't understand" meme; it works as a post-apocalyptic show just as well. Mixing the two and making it into a morality play is just ... lazy. Take the re-imaged BSG. There were any number of incongruities in the science in that show, but it was okay, because they didn't even try to justify them. Rather, the sci-fi settng was so much window dressing for the story, which was an exodus story set in space, combined with the "we brought it in our oursleves" message. The "science" was there to help the story along, not to define it. The list goes on: "Defiance", "Serenity", "Heroes", even "Lost". "Star Trek" and to a lesser extent "Doctor Who" always played fast-n-loose with this concept, but then, they were episodic shows, not serials, so each individual writer had much more freedom to remake the setting to suit his story. But they were all at there best when the sci-fi part of the story was in the background, rather than the forground. Maybe "Revolution" started out that way, and is otherwise worthy of viewing, but as soon as they have to try to EXPLAIN it, they miss the point. Good sci-fi is hard to find.
Michael Waters wrote:
Don't make it a "meddling in powers wew don't understand" meme; it works as a post-apocalyptic show just as well. Mixing the two and making it into a morality play is just ... lazy.
So far they have not really been playing on that. Really I think they put that in place to appease those that are asking "But how did it happen". At least that is my impression so far.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Michael Waters wrote:
Don't make it a "meddling in powers wew don't understand" meme; it works as a post-apocalyptic show just as well. Mixing the two and making it into a morality play is just ... lazy.
So far they have not really been playing on that. Really I think they put that in place to appease those that are asking "But how did it happen". At least that is my impression so far.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Just blame it on the NSA; its more believable.
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Revolution (its "OK")
I gave up as soon as it became obvious it was Lost meets Jericho.
Chill _Maxxx_
CodeStash - Online Snippet Management | My blog | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easierYou and the other writers below your message are correct in your assessment. And, now there is this "Under the Dome" program that seems somewhat interesting. They both remind me of the Lost in Space series from back in the 60s. The family Robinson were going to Alpha Centauri then return home. Something along the way blew up (technology problem caused by stupidity) and the family became “lost”. The only cool thing about it was the futuristic technology (even though some of the people using it were bumbling) and the cute teenage girl. The story was constantly about survival. Some new monster, super human, or fluke of nature each week. But, they never got back to earth on normal terms. And, they never would get back to earth, as long as the writers could milk it and keep it going. I don’t think they ever made it back to earth as expected. I think I gave up watching before that because it all was the same. In other words, it just drones on. Tonight (Monday) is the last episode of “Under the Dome”. I have put up with it since the start back in June or July. If it doesn’t end with the disappearance of the dome, I will write it off (and hopefully, it will ride off into the sunset.) But, CBS has renewed it for next season. But, if it disappoints and doesn’t conclude, I will get the book.
-
You have been watching too much TV lately, haven't you?.. ;P... There are a lot physics we don't understand, mainly at the subatomic level, where our instruments are not good enough or happen things that don't go accord to our models and theories, that's why some people look for unification theories that are valid for any level from macro to micro (or nano), even the mere existence of the universe is big mistery because with out current knowledge we can't know for certain what happened on the Zero day much less before that.
CEO at: - Rafaga Systems - Para Facturas - Modern Components for the moment...
Physics according to Hollywood and physics in the normal world are two different entities. Just like software, we can alter virtual worlds to be as we like. If it sells, then that's all that counts.
-
You and the other writers below your message are correct in your assessment. And, now there is this "Under the Dome" program that seems somewhat interesting. They both remind me of the Lost in Space series from back in the 60s. The family Robinson were going to Alpha Centauri then return home. Something along the way blew up (technology problem caused by stupidity) and the family became “lost”. The only cool thing about it was the futuristic technology (even though some of the people using it were bumbling) and the cute teenage girl. The story was constantly about survival. Some new monster, super human, or fluke of nature each week. But, they never got back to earth on normal terms. And, they never would get back to earth, as long as the writers could milk it and keep it going. I don’t think they ever made it back to earth as expected. I think I gave up watching before that because it all was the same. In other words, it just drones on. Tonight (Monday) is the last episode of “Under the Dome”. I have put up with it since the start back in June or July. If it doesn’t end with the disappearance of the dome, I will write it off (and hopefully, it will ride off into the sunset.) But, CBS has renewed it for next season. But, if it disappoints and doesn’t conclude, I will get the book.
Let me know if the dome disappears or not. I've read the book and I'm curious as to whether or not I should even bother with this.
Chill _Maxxx_
CodeStash - Online Snippet Management | My blog | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier
