Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Beer w/Straw, Dec 15, 2017.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
"If you immediatley know the candle light is fire then the meal was cooked a long time ago"
what is our perverbial picnic Blanket supposed to look like ?
Aardvarks swimming in mothballs herald the arrival of the monkey king.
Hey Write4U, any chance of you responding to post #73?
Can you be a little more specific why a vibration does not produce energy of some sort?
Of course the following is in a different medium, but when I pluck a string on my bass I get a sound. Is that not a form of energy, i.e. a frequency?
Perhaps I am using the term incorrectly.
The subtleties discussed in that paper are far beyond me.
But one thing seems clear, there is maths involved in the equations.
Numbers, equations, computations = Mathematics, no?
I don't need to understand the maths, to know what a mathematical equation looks like.
Well, an Adobe house in New Mexico is made almost entirely of mud. To repair it, they use mud. Apparently the mathematical properties of a specific kind of mud makes it eminently suitable for building a habitat in dry climates.
You accuse me of making useless and irrelevant statements, and then follow it up with an incorrect example.
I do understand you gave me the courtesy of a less offensive phrase, which I appreciate...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No one denied that obvious truth.
But more importantly, now that you've admitted the math of string theory is far beyond you: what makes you qualified to judge it and make proclamations about it, as you have been doing throughout this entire thread?
(Note that what Write4U quoted is not mine; it's from Schnabl's paper.)
So whenever you see a number or an equation, you think "that's the same as music!"? Clearly, your understanding of the intricacies of mathematics is woefully inadequate for you to be taken seriously on the subject.
You appear to be unfamiliar with the figure of speech. Let me help you: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/throw_enough_mud_at_the_wall,_some_of_it_will_stick
1) It's not an example, it's a figure of speech.
2) It's not incorrect. My point is that you keep making arbitrary unfounded claims, and sometimes happen to be correct by sheer luck.
3) Your insinuation that my statement was useless and irrelevant is thus false.
I'm not here to insult you, so I see no reason to do so.
Not necessarily. It depends on the mathematics of cooking specific types of food.
I'm sure you are trying to make a point, but it is a little to obtuse for me to respond to.
I'm sure you are trying to make a point, but it is a little to obtuse for me to respond to.
If it was intended as a clever ad hominem it fails, but does tell us something about your state of mind.
You asked for an answer to post # 73, so for clarity, I requoted the portion which prompted my posit.
Hmmmm, no. I don't think I put it that way.
But Phytagoras seemed to think music was very mathematical. Apparently he didn't understand mathematics either.
Well if you have lived in New Mexico, as I have, I can only smile at that "figure of speech".....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! .
Obviously it was invented as a derogatory statement by people who had no idea of the mathematical properties of clay.
Hazen showed clay has the peculiar property of offering the greatest surface area of any other nano substance. You can coat an entire tennis court with just a cubic centimeter of clay. (ROBERT HAZEN - CHANCE, NECESSITY, AND THE ORIGINS OF LIFE, see 54:55)
Well, that's encouraging. It seems that occasionally I can be correct after all....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It was false and therefore useless (to turn a "figure of speech")
That's a relief.....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I see you've chosen to ignore my question. That's quite telling.
I was trying to figure out why you keep bringing up music when we're talking about string theory, and you brought up mathematics. How else am I to interpret that?
Which is not something that I denied.
Your claim, not mine.
And now explain to me what 440Hz has to do with string theory specifically.
I never claimed otherwise.
Please demonstrate that my example was incorrect.
I must admit that I don't understand how that's a relief, because that insinuates that you are afraid of me insulting you. Which is, in my opinion, a silly fear to have.
Naaah, I'm not afraid of you insulting me. It was just a common phrase.......Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
(=/>)Prior to Isaac Newton inventing Calculus, did Mathamatics exist already ?
Picnic Blanket = the complete mathamatical universe ...
has the scientific ability to percieve new un-percievable concepts continued to increase ?
is Moores law more soo a financial markets snake-oil sales metaphor than a scientific reality of modern scientific discovery ?
IMO, yes, but not necessarily consciously. Most (perhaps all) animals with two eyes (except perhaps for rhinos) use triangulation to gauge distance. Chameleons and Cuttlefish are masters in gauging the precise distance which their long tongues can reach to catch their prey.
For humans, yes. The Higgs boson is but one example.
In animals I would not call it scientific nor concepts, but many animals (including insects) have abilities far superior to humans in perception of natural phenomena, such as sight (eagles), colors (insects can see infrared and ultraviolet), sound (bats, dolphins, whales use sonar), smell (insects use pheromones and bloodhounds can detect bio-chemical odors which are days old), atmospheric changes (mosquitos become very active before a storm) , migrating birds
And a host of other animals or organisms use subtle phenomena outside the perception of humans. That's why we make instruments to compensate.
First of all there are two Moores , Gordon Moore
This NOVA presentation by David Pogue may be of interest.
The interesting part is that flat horizontal processors cannot be made too small, due to shorting (leaking) of cicuits.
Instead they are experimenting with stacking processors vertically, which allows for layering at nano scale, without the problem of shorting (leaking) circuits.
But there is also Ann S. Moore
I have no idea if they are connected somehow, except that they have in common a form of "exponential function".
Added the exponential function to try and stay at least tangently connected to the OP.
Of course. Calculus is just one branch of innumerable types of mathematics.
Yes. We can see farther, larger, smaller, faster than ever before.
Laws are simply statements of observation, quantified.
Kepler's Laws state what planets do as they move about the sun, but not why.
Moore's Law states what we see happening with computer chips over time. It doesn't state why it's happening, and is not intended to predict the future.
Good, glad that's the case.
Now, are you going to respond to the rest of my post?
I looked back and I see nothing posted by you to which I feel warrants a response or a further defense of my simple analogy to string instruments and musical scales and harmonics, and the quote from Wiki, which for the record I'll repost now:
If that analogy is wrong and you feel qualified to instruct me on the subject of "string theory", I would be very interested to hear it.
Instead of constantly repeating that I am wrong, why not tell me what's right. Would be much simpler, no?
Now that you've switched sides (calling it an "analogy" instead of "mathematical strides"), of course I agree with you. Then I guess (this part of) the discussion is indeed done.
This makes me ponder the construct of light speed & general science concepts around attempting to measure light speed. Given that we do not really have the ability to measure black holes or the internal substance of Stars or planets ..(yet i hope)
it seems fairly logical to summise we simply are not there yet with current science to be able to quantify such aspects as faster than(currently percieved) light speed travel(or even vaguely close to light speed travel).
It seems soo at odds with our experiential reality of humans(currently) to conceive membrane dimentional theory(Gravity?) being also contingent on string AND possibly bubble theory(particle duality?) all kinda being rolled up into one.
postulating Galaxys at flat planes all at different angles like disks creating variant directional planes of gravity fields... thus Gravity is only omni directional in ? Globe shapes ? (planets moons stars etc... , what of black holes ?)
(is Gravity omni directional?)
Could one suggest Harmonics are the Factual position to assert String theory as being a theory ?
Not quite. You see, I never introduced the term "mathematical strides" into this thread in the first place.
Check out posts # 1, 19, 20, 31, 38, 39, and in post # 40 I used the term for the first time, to inquire in what context the term was used. Here is a quote of my post;
So, all that time wasted because you incorrectly attributed the term"mathematical strides" to me, tsk, tsk.
Now, I hope we have cleared this matter once and for all.
Take another look at post #19. You respond to the term without asking for context. If it took you until post #40 to ask for the context, then you are admitting to answering a question you don't understand. That is intellectually dishonest.
You respond to the term in post #19, and I respond to that in post #20. Note that I did not attribute the term to you, so already you are lying here. But even if I did: why did *you* waste all that time before pointing that out? Tsk, tsk indeed.
Well, one thing has become clear to me...
Separate names with a comma.