The space part of space time is 3-D, and since 2-D is a subset of 3-D a flat square would be just that, — jgill

I believe, to shortcut description; — god must be atheist

correCT.

much as you looking at one on a piece of paper. — jgill

. CorREct

Please take a sheet of paper, a pen and perform the following mental-physical+graphical exercise.

At top of the paper write the following 2-D mathematical relationship-/Rule\relationships'S that have been fundamental to my professional career for over fifty years:

V = I.R where V = potentialDifference I = Current and R = Resistance
XC = 1/2.pi.f.c where XC = reactance pi= relationship between circumference+Diameter f = frequency

Comments??
TBA

much as you looking at one on a piece of paper. — jgill

Please take a sheet of paper, a pen and perform the following mental-physical+graphical exercise.

At top of the paper write the following 2-D mathematical relationship-/Rule\relationships'S that have been fundamental to my professional career for over fifty years:

V = I.R where V = potentialDifference I = Current and R = Resistance
XC = 1/2.pi.f.c where XC = reactance pi= relationship between circumference+Diameter f = frequency

TBA

Since this thread has slowed down, I wanted to try to jump in here quickly. The following video has much to add to my question here, so watch it if your interested. It's ten minutes only:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNqNnUJVcVs

Although I haven't read Einstein say this in words, I have heard all over the place that he thought the earth moves up towards an object when the object appears to fall. Now if the world is round and someone drops an apple on the North pole and someone drops an apple on the South pole, which way will the earth move? It doesn't make sense. If the earth was an accelerating disk, this actually would make sense however. Is the world a disk that sometimes acts as a sphere, or it is sphere that sometimes acts like a disk, or is it neither or both? Modern science seems to get stranger and stranger as time moves on and it's hard for us lay people to know what to think about material realism anymore

Some basic physical literacy wouldn't go astray here.

Since this thread has slowed down, — Gregory

Maybe we need to drop an apple on it to make it accelerate.

Seriously speaking, yes, when you drop the apple, it accelerates toward the Earth, and he earth accelates toward the apple, and upon impact they both stop movement caused by this drop.

You are also right in saying that the Earth would not move if two apples of the same size and mass were dropped from equal distances form the centre of the Earth, at opposite sides of the Earth. South pole, North pole, will do just as well as any other two opposite sides.

You must realize, however, that when you pick up an apple from the ground and you lift it up, then you not only distance the apple from the centre of gravity of the Earth-apple mass, but you also move the Earth away not just form the apple, but from the same centre as well. Then when you drop the apple, and it hits the ground at the same spot where it lay before you picked it up, the Earth moves toward the apple, the apple moves toward the Earth, and they both stop movement upon impact.

One more fascinating fact for you: there is a centre of gravity in the apple-Earth system. The initial stage is that the apple lies on the ground. If you lift it up, it moves the apple and the Earth in relation to the centre of gravity of their system. If you throw the apple at escape velocity toward the sky, the apple and the Earth will constantly be moving away from each other for ever, and also from their common centre of gravity. But if you took note of the centre of gravity between the Earth and the apple, it will never move as long as the only things that move in the system are only the Earth and the apple. Whether the apple is lying on the ground, or falls, or is lifted, or speeds away at escape velocity, the centre of gravity of the system of Earth and the apple remains in the same spot.

This is what @Banno in his haughty and condescending way said you should know when he suggested a basic grounding in physics literacy... he actually called it physical literacy, which means a bit different, but we won't tell him that, will we.

He knows.

The reasoning is that Gregory was not paying attention in physics class, therefore science doesn't make sense.

I've seen more cogent arguments on milk cartons.

Thanks. I've never taken a physics class before. Banno get's haughty all the time on this forum

I presented a specific argument about dropping apples on the North and South pole. This is a philosophy forum and I most read philosophy, so it's ok to ask general physics questions when they come up. The link I cited mentioned particles from outer space which react to the earth as if it was flat. These where specific questions I was interested in.

I guess it's his privilege, as it is our privilege to behave any way we want. I don't like him at all, but I guess he figures (no knowledge claimed, I'm not him, I don't know his true motivation) that he is not on a popularity contest. In a way he has the right, but it is really demeaning to other users. He sucks up to the mods big time though, I noticed. He is not of strong moral character in my opinion, but that is nothing else but my own opinion. Nobody should quote me on that, because my opinion is not evidence of his character.

I don't know why he misrepresented the specific questions I was asking in such a ridiculous and demeaning way

I don't know why he misrepresented the specific questions I was asking in such a ridiculous and demeaning way — Gregory

It is not to be our worry why he does what he does. Let him be and don't let him negatively influence you. He is an autonomous human being, and we must not have the pretence to claim we can, should or must change him. Just don't let his haughtiness bring you down, in fact, don't even read his posts.

Other sites have functions that hide any user's posts from your sight on the site if you choose. This site does not.

Other sites have functions that hide any user's posts from your sight on the site if you choose. This site does not. — god must be atheist

Years ago I was on a religious site that had that option

Ahhh, don't let the grumpy old bastard get to you. He's probably just having trouble with his bowls.

What a garbled mess this thread has become. :sad:

What a garbled mess this thread has become. — jgill

A true reflection of quantum physics.

much as you looking at one on a piece of paper. — jgill

What a garbled mess this thread has become. :sad: — jgill

Yes. Let's see WHAT we can do about it :roll:

(Thanks again for the inspiration BY the w.W.way).

Can you help me predict that Project-Experiment "Grail Quest" will show us that "R"eality is Chunky + hence iT iS Constantly SeeK\ing - SMootH stability - TheRmal eQuiliBRium + Balance.

As required by Universal L&W's of Thermodynamics.

Right I think THAT is IT: (Please Correct Me IF i am Wrong)

No more numbers.!!!!

No more coLouring in fact ors- Form ulae+ function s.

Let's just get that blank 2-D sheet of paper (Virtual OR otherwise) AND
Get Started.

Consider:

The simplest possible r/-R+\reality.
One containing only two different sized sub-atomic particles.
circle 1 in the top Left Hand corner.
Circle 2 in the bottom Right Hand corner.

Give them each an Imperfect+irregular textured surface.

Right.
Time to go away, draw that, have breakfast and pay attention to Wife.
:nerd:
Regards Chris
p.s Will Get Back 2U & aLL .?.
p.p.s. Look after You and yours.

Open for further comments Questions or opinions................now :pray:

A true reflection of quantum physics. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's amazing how Dirac, Feynman, and others were able to discover the mathematics to deal with a world in which visualization seems so difficult, if not impossible. In high school in the early 1950s we were taught that electrons were like little BBs, flying around atoms. Now they are non-local fields or Poincare groups or whatever, and Feynman tells us to shut up and compute. For me, I don't know enough modern physics to even be wrong. :meh:

I agree that the mathematics required to deal with virtually anything, can be discovered. The question for me though, is how real are the things which are inferred from these mathematical solutions. It seems like we now have a whole class of things, like non-local fields, multiverses, dark matter, dark energy, etc., whose existence is inferred from the mathematics, but to me an existence which is highly doubtful. This is why I am very skeptical of the mathematical axioms, and the principles of physics, which are employed. Regardless of the problem which the mathematics solves, if it just creates another problem, it is not an adequate solution.

. . . whose existence is inferred from the mathematics — Metaphysician Undercover

The math in QT itself is pretty shaky. Renormalization and regularization procedures are used to manipulate expressions that annoyingly become infinite. And Feynman's "Sum of all paths integral" is not really a functional integral as most mathematicians think of the term. Nevertheless, with a lot of handwaving the physics works out. Here's a quote from Feynman on Wikipedia:

"The shell game that we play is technically called 'renormalization'. But no matter how clever the word, it is still what I would call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent. It's surprising that the theory still hasn't been proved self-consistent one way or the other by now; I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate." :cry:

electrons were like little BBs, — jgill

Snap :grin:
That is how they taught me about thermionic Valves.
? Do you know anything about them?
ElectroStaticDevice, Works at High Voltage+Temperature. Easy-Peasy :blush:

Now days we employ transistors-Semiconductors+chips.
? Do you know anything about them?
Surprise: NO BBs there at all, JUST holes???

Makes you doubtful about their ExPlanation/s doesn't it.
It did me.

Anyway: Turns out there IS an explanation that works.
(Some math (I have been warned (site police(unwanted emails))

AND which has never failed me in over 50 years) and a thing called an AVOmeter that would sort it all out for M-me+E.

(Thank your mob for that one when you see them next)

Along With whoever discovered a thing called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-hand_rule

Definitely TRUE I know that from PersonalExperience.

Sorry got to go: Wife just woke up.
Will get back to U-ALL :razz:

The question for me though, is how real are the things which are inferred from these mathematical solutions. — Metaphysician Undercover

Exactly. I have spent a considerable time thinking about that issue. Years in fact.

The "slide" in the representation of Form and function as Physics moves from "Classical" to "Relative" and finally into the Quantum Mechanical viewpoint is v/V\very a\A/ apparent.

The "Click" came for me:

high school students work generally in 2-D since it is easier to visualiz(S)ze and thus convey principles — jgill

I took a pragmatic approach and returned to years -gone By:Y+ an approach that had proved it's-SelF to be both successful and PraCtical for OVER 50Year-/R\+r's.

"blackBox\X/x modeling/G\g's"
:cool:
Will Get Back 2-u.U.u.:ok: :starstruck:

Hey Chris, why do you write in such a strange way? I find it kind of distracting, making it difficult to read some of your longer posts.

It's the way I get things straight in my mind and a reflection of my core Philosophy:

"Reality" is the product of an electroMechanical d/Duality
Caused by properties of reluctance, Resistance and reactance.

c/C\creation I leave to g/G\g's AND individual Choice OR fW

Within it there are only 2 options open to any e\Entity/e:
move up/ \down in energy
OR back- +forth in spaCetime


Would you agree?.

??? Does anyone know how to put an image here?
OR is that not possible ?

Become a subscriber, Chris. Or link an image from an existing (safe) site.

This is an interesting thread and delves into the bizarre nature of some mathematical interpretations in physics, where the math can be crazy but results experimentally verifiable. For example,regularization techniques are used to "sum" series that normally would diverge to infinity. In the Casimir effect, the following weirdness prevails: ${{1}^{3}}+{{2}^{3}}+{{3}^{3}}+\cdots =\frac{1}{120}$ . Also of use is: $1+2+3+\cdots =-\frac{1}{12}$.

These "sums" are obtained by using analytic continuations of the Zeta function, and are jarring to one accustomed to normal mathematical summation. Crazy, in fact. If Kenosha Kid reads this he could tell us more about the physics.

Become a subscriber, Chris. Or link an image from an existing (safe) site. — jgill

Thanks. Logical :nerd: :cool:

diverge to infinity. — jgill

Read something in Feynmans preface about that :worry:
Charge low. Have to cop out for a Quick one 12% and falling

It's the way I get things straight in my mind and a reflection of my core Philosophy:

"Reality" is the product of an electroMechanical d/Duality
Caused by properties of reluctance, Resistance and reactance.

c/C\creation I leave to g/G\g's AND individual Choice OR fW

Within it there are only 2 options open to any e\Entity/e:
move up/ \down in energy
OR back- +forth in spaCetime — Chris1952Engineer

If all activities are describable as changes of energy, what accounts for the difference between electro and Mechanical?