Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 39 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 10 of 10 1 2 8 9 10
paul #54975 12/15/15 03:36 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: paul
I would like to see where you found that information
I checked the manhattan project wiki page and the word
quantum doesn't seem to be on the page.

ROFL you are so funny it hurts ... like a gift that keeps on giving laugh

Yep no QM mentioned on page and that means it wasn't involved apparently, I guess that is one up from a global science conspiracy. Now all you need to do is invent some physics that will create the energy smile

Hey I bet if you search Leo Szilard (born Leo Spitz) who owned the patents on the atomic chain reaction and in effect owns the patents on all atomic bombs, it probably doesn't mention the word QM either. His good friend Enrico Fermi who you could also search and who actually built the first nuclear reactor unfortunately you will probably find the word QM because he went on to expand the understanding and is a really important player in modern atomic science.

Nah you wouldn't bother trying to understand things your belief depends on you not understanding how this all ties together.

I did say to Bill G that you would try and invent some unbelievable stupidity. Hey I guess it doesn't involve dinosaurs and a boat so we are on the improve.

Last edited by Orac; 12/15/15 03:53 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
.
Bill S. #54976 12/15/15 03:55 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
I'm going to have to read up on that because before there
was the coined term "fission" what did the scientist think
was going on inside the sun...

obviously they didn't know before the term was coined
because there was no term for what they found was occurring.

and that might be interesting to look into.

so yes there was no fission before the term was coined.
they must not have known what the sun was doing all those
years !!

and I'm going to look up what term was used before the
term "fission" was coined.

ok , I looked for it but couldn't find much more than
the normal fussion stuff and the only places that I could find that recognized fission in the sun was nasa and some answers web site.

I suppose that they don't seem to think that the fission
is really important because the fussion.












3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Orac #54978 12/15/15 04:03 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
well , post a link orac , it would take much less effort
on your part because you already know where to look and
who to look for.

just post a link to some web site where some evidence of
the below can be found , you can leave out the other lip
service unless that's all that you have and you rely on that
as what you purely base your argument on.

Quote:
The development of nuclear weapons was based purely on QM.


shouldn't be too hard for you to find that.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
paul #54979 12/15/15 04:18 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: paul
I'm going to have to read up on that because before there
was the coined term "fission" what did the scientist think
was going on inside the sun...

obviously they didn't know before the term was coined
because there was no term for what they found was occurring.

Oh wow you actually cottoned onto why the atomic weapon page doesn't mention QM.

Okay lets give you the modern answer for what they were playing with which is called the strong nuclear force
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction
Quote:
The binding energy that is partly released on the breakup of a nucleus is related to the residual strong force and is harnessed in nuclear power and fission-type nuclear weapons.

It requires the theory of quantum chromodynamics(QCD) and if QM is wrong you need a new explaination of atomic explosions.

You starting to see why we don't give a rats what all the layman believe and ignore them, and why you are giving me constant humour.

As Bill G correctly stated no QM, no atomic bomb, at least not without inventing some energy from somewhere else.

Last edited by Orac; 12/15/15 04:39 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #54980 12/15/15 04:56 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
not sure why you posted a link to that page for.

Quote:
Before the 1970s, physicists were uncertain about the binding mechanism of the atomic nucleus.


also ,

Quote:
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2015)


nov 2015 , not to long ago was it ... ?

if you want me to agree that bills comment was correct
then someone should post something verifiable.

else ... just more lip service propping up what you have
heard others say.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
paul #54981 12/15/15 09:14 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: paul
if you want me to agree that bills comment was correct then someone should post something verifiable.

else ... just more lip service propping up what you have
heard others say.

I don't need to convert you, believe whatever you want, hell you believe lots of other what I would call unbelievable stuff smile

You asked me for us to explain it and I did, you feigning understanding as a way to save the argument, not my problem. What you should have got is why you look really really silly to any scientist or uni student, when you start with I don't believe in QM. Most will switch off, walk away or treat you like an imbecile. If your religion embodies that sort of belief you better stick to marketing it to the less educated section of population.

Einstein never believed in QM either and science just doesn't care and it is one of the interesting backdrops for science as to how a genius can fail to get it. In his defense the evidence is not as overwhelming as it now is, but still most other scientists of the time did get it. So given all that do you really think science or any of us care what some religious poster on a forum called Paul thinks? What we do instead is get great amusement from you smile

Last edited by Orac; 12/15/15 09:39 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #54982 12/15/15 02:23 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
I really don't know why Paul doesn't believe in QM. I sort of understand his refusal to believe in evolution. That conflicts with his strongly held religious beliefs. But as far as I know the Bible doesn't have anything to say about physics. So there really isn't any biblical reason for him to refuse to accept QM.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Orac #54983 12/15/15 04:38 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
1)
Quote:
I don't need to convert you, believe whatever you want


2)
Quote:
hell you believe lots of other


3)
Quote:
what I would call unbelievable stuff


4)
Quote:
you look really really silly to any scientist or uni student, when you start with I don't believe in QM.


5)
Quote:
If your religion embodies that sort of belief


6)
Quote:
Einstein never believed in QM either


the above points to QM being a belief.

its not a matter of belief for me , and you hit the nail
on the head when you wrote.

Quote:
Paul thinks


that is the exact reason why I think that QM is BS
there really is no reason to think that QM is scientific
it is a belief just like evolution , and science is not about
belief.

I asked for a link to a web site for verification of bill's
claim and neither you or bill were able to post a link , verification of a claim is important in science even if QM
doesn't like verification , same for evolution ... else science is a religion.

so who really looks silly to the readers.








3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Bill #54984 12/15/15 05:04 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
I really don't know why Paul doesn't believe in QM


because QM uses the same fake math that Einstein used.

the math that includes the division of (c/any amount)
is strictly fake , and its intended purpose is to ensure that
all future calculations that have any relation to the speed
of light will enforce its demands that nothing can travel
faster than the speed of light.

which is also BS.

ie ... I claim that nothing can cost more than 1 dollar!!!

heres the math that proves my theory is correct ...

cost = 1 dollar / 1 dollar = 1 dollar
cost = 1 dollar / 100 dollars = 0.01 dollars
cost = 1 dollar / 1,000,000 dollars = 0.000001 dollars
cost = 1 dollar / 100,000,000,000 = 0.00000000001 dollars

the above math shows that my theory is correct and that
nothing can cost more than 1 dollar.

aint I a smart person ?

we believe know that plenty of things cost more than 1 dollar because
inflation has increased all prices.

but we also know believe that nothing can cost more than 1 dollar.

Quote:
I sort of understand his refusal to believe in evolution. That conflicts with his strongly held religious beliefs.


its not my belief in religion that tells me that evolution
is BS it is the fact that there is no proof of evolution.






3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Orac #54985 12/15/15 07:17 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
Originally Posted By: Bill S
first we have to be absolutely sure we are not talking about “nothing”.
So I am not sure how we got back to this "nothing" thing. There isn't a section of spacetime with a "nothing" concept, you want that go outside the universe.


I was trying to make sure we didn’t get back to talking about nothing.

Quote:
LOL no the Higgs is always on in any patch of spacetime it's the one field with a constant value always as you know.


Quote:
If you assume a fully QFT solution there must be a field there which is not "turned on" for the want of better words


I know the Higgs is always on, which is why I wondered how that fitted in with your saying the fields would not be “turned on”.


There never was nothing.
paul #54986 12/15/15 09:07 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Paul
cost = 1 dollar / 1 dollar = 1 dollar

Wrong!
1 dollar / 1 dollar = (1 * dollar) / (1 * dollar) = (1 / 1) * (dollar / dollar) = 1 * 1 = 1

Don't forget to include the units in the calculation, that is elementary algebra.

You had better learn a bit more math before you start running down other peoples math.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Bill #54989 12/16/15 02:22 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
1 dollar / 1 dollar = (1 * dollar) / (1 * dollar) = (1 / 1) * (dollar / dollar) = 1 * 1 = 1


1 what?

1 dollar?

your problem is that you left out the unit that you needed
to find in the equation which is the cost unit.
by writing the equation the correct way as below you can
see that the cost unit is important and is the reason why
the equation was used.


Quote:
cost = 1 dollar / 1 dollar = (1 * dollar) / (1 * dollar) = (1 / 1) * (dollar / dollar) = 1 * 1 = 1


but you left out the cost unit in your answer causing your
answer to be incorrect.

Don't forget to include the units in the calculation, that is elementary.

also don't forget to include the units in the answer you
provide as some may not understand what the 1 is supposed
to represent when determining the cost of something.

that's like going to buy a new car and the man says he will
sell you a new car for 20 , so you pull out a 20 dollar bill
and say sold...


suppose I go back in all the post you have made and used
math , would they all be algebra , or can you divide without
using algebra?

Quote:
cost = 1 dollar / 1 dollar = 1 dollar


what if I would have written it this way

Quote:
cost = 1 dollar / 1 = 1 dollar


then you could say 1 what , it could be a penny you know
that's why its always best to use units when possible
to avoid confusion.


cost as in how much something cost

cost = 1 dollar --- RIGHT ANSWER

not

cost = 1 ----------- WRONG ANSWER



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
paul #54990 12/16/15 04:01 AM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Paul

suppose I go back in all the post you have made and used
math , would they all be algebra , or can you divide without
using algebra?

Quote:

cost = 1 dollar / 1 dollar = 1 dollar


what if I would have written it this way

Quote:

cost = 1 dollar / 1 = 1 dollar


then you could say 1 what , it could be a penny you know
that's why its always best to use units when possible
to avoid confusion.


cost as in how much something cost

cost = 1 dollar --- RIGHT ANSWER

not

cost = 1 ----------- WRONG ANSWER

And you are starting off all wrong again. The cost of something is how much you pay for it. If you are looking for the cost of an individual item then you divide what you pay for it by how many.

If you said:
cost = $1 / 1 = $1 where the 1 is the number of items.
you would be calculating the cost of one item, and the cost would be $1.

cost = $1 / $1 = $1

is meaningless. A more correct use would be for example if I had $1 and I wanted to know how many dime novels I could buy.

So I divide the amount I have by the price of 1 dime novel.
Dime novels are 1 dime per dime novel = (1 * dime) / dime novel.
That is:
Number of Dime Novels(N) = $1 / 1 dime /dime novel
To spread it out.
N = 1 * dollar / 1 * dime / dime novel

Well, a dime is 10 cents or .10 dollar.

so we have
N = 1 * dollar / .10 * dollar / dime novel = 10 dime novel

Notice that with this correct way of making a calculation I wind up with a correct answer, which is the number of novels you can buy for $1. Your way of calculating the cost is meaningless.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Bill #54991 12/16/15 04:17 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
I think were vectoring away from the point that I was
attempting.

you are wanting to change my math that I use in my theory
that states that nothing can cost more than 1 dollar aren't you?

Quote:
(c/any amount)
is strictly fake , and its intended purpose is to ensure that
all future calculations that have any relation to the speed
of light will enforce its demands that nothing can travel
faster than the speed of light.

which is also BS.

ie ... I claim that nothing can cost more than 1 dollar!!!

heres the math that proves my theory is correct ...

cost = 1 dollar / 1 dollar = 1 dollar
cost = 1 dollar / 100 dollars = 0.01 dollars
cost = 1 dollar / 1,000,000 dollars = 0.000001 dollars
cost = 1 dollar / 100,000,000,000 = 0.00000000001 dollars

the above math shows that my theory is correct and that
nothing can cost more than 1 dollar.

aint I a smart person ?


my point is that 1 dollar divided by any number of whole dollars will always be either 1 dollar or less than 1 dollar.

because that is the way I designed my math that supports
my theory , also the answer must always be given in units of dollars.

this can also be written as follows in order to always show that nothing can ever cost a whole dollar.

cost = 1 dollar / ( 1 - any number you can dream up ) = less than 1 dollar.

the above formula will never show a cost of 1 whole dollar
it will always show a cost less than 1 dollar just like the math in Einstein's math and in QM's math.

as in
c = c / ( 1 - any number you can dream up ) = less than c







3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Orac #54992 12/16/15 05:22 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
let me try these in a sensible manner with sensible answers
to your three questions.

Quote:
1.) How does gravity get out of a black hole.


that's pretty much a stupid question but as usual coming from
a believer in QM its the norm.

answer: it was always there because of the mass that accumulated inside the center of the galaxy , it hasn't left
its there because of the mass inside the black hole.

Quote:
2.) Why is the speed of gravity restricted to the speed of light


the bounds of a gravity field is restricted only to
the mass that causes the gravity field.

Quote:
3.) What is opposing the black hole so that the black hole gravity does not go to infinity (What limits the collapse).


there is a constant collapse inside a black hole as long
as the black hole is feeding.

the gravity and pressures inside a black hole squeeze
the atoms inside it together so much that the electrons in
the atoms collapse inwards and these collapses cause energy
to be released from the atoms and this energy builds
up inside the mass until the energy can escape the gravity
of the mass.

light cannot escape the gravity because light has mass.

the excess energy escapes via gamma ray burst.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Orac #54993 12/16/15 07:30 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Thread drift is a wond’rous thing,
It flits from there to here,
It obfuscates
A thread’s dictates
And makes its goals unclear.


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #54994 12/16/15 11:33 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
That's why I wish the forum was still threaded. Then you could see which line came from which reply. That way you could easily tell what a reply was referring to and could keep at least one of the threads on topic.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Bill S. #54998 12/17/15 06:31 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
I was trying to make sure we didn’t get back to talking about nothing.

Cool then we aren't going into classic science babel which I feared.

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
I know the Higgs is always on, which is why I wondered how that fitted in with your saying the fields would not be “turned on”.

Yeah it's getting really tricky with you now because you understand it well enough to catch me out when I simplify too much. I was being lazy with the description and yeah it's wrong at heart. You got me with my loose and fast classical description of energy in the other thread as well.

You are getting to the point you are so concise, I think we will need to switch frameworks to either QM or SR with more controlled descriptors. I don't think you can go much further in classical descriptions without these sorts of problems. You basically have everything except the mathematics sorted now, so you will be able to work with the change of descriptions.

Any statement I now make with classical physics you will now punch a hole in using the advanced facts you now understand. Essentially you have got to the point you must realize the classical description is totally inconsistent.

With you I probably need refinement of the terms Energy, Matter, Measurement and if you push much further reality.

I guess we could just do these as they become a problem so I guess the first up is energy. Have you reached the point you are happy to change energy to an operator (or currency) rather than something "real"? So energy like a US dollar only has meaning and value to the person using,measuring,counting and interacting with it. You could also go down the path of a promissory note between things and the universe which is a bit more GR like (some feel it has classical physics comfort) and it doesn't really matter the frameworks all converge when we get further on.

Last edited by Orac; 12/17/15 07:23 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #55004 12/19/15 11:27 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
Have you reached the point you are happy to change energy to an operator (or currency) rather than something "real"?


I thought I had reached that point until I looked up "operator". One look at the maths, and I was not so sure. smile


There never was nothing.
Page 10 of 10 1 2 8 9 10

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokĀž»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5