Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
positive, negative; darkness and light:
#41
Observation. And that is enough. If the laws could spontaneously change, they would have done so already most likely and the Cosmos we see simply wouldn't exist. Very good chance we wouldn't exist either, owing to the rather fine tuning of the laws themselves required to make a Cosmos that supports the evolution of beings like us.

As for the diameter of an electron, it's just metaphor. At that level of reality one is so close to quantum effects that to seriously suggest an electron is an object like a baseball is ridiculous.
You can lead 'em to knowledge, but you can't make 'em think.
Reply
#42
Why can't an electron have a diameter? They have a radius, don't they?

The internet tells me that the diameter of an electron is 1/1000th of the diameter of a proton.
Reply
#43
Depends on how you look at them. Literally. You're up on the notion that at the moment you measure a things velocity, particularly with higher and higher degrees of accuracy, then you can't tell where the hell it is with the same degree of accuracy? Other side of the coin is that when you measure a things position, you can't know much about it's velocity. Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

So, by the time you look at it, it's gone. And this is not just because they're moving fast, it's in the nature of shit that small. So, there's really no way to 'measure' it's diameter. As for the interwebz info, I expect what they really meant was that the mass of the electron is 1/1000 that of a proton. Except that when you look that one up, the numbers come up as an electron having 1/1837 the mass of a proton. Mass of these wee beasties is fairly easy to determine and it's been done a lot, so it's a pretty good bet that our data on that is accurate.

I'd love to know how the source you cited knows what it claims to know. Smile
You can lead 'em to knowledge, but you can't make 'em think.
Reply
#44
Fuzzy logic?

Thanks, sparks. That was easy for my physics lacking brain to digest.
Reply
#45
Quote:I'd love to know how the source you cited knows what it claims to know

Rumsfeld?
Reply
#46
42 is a primary pseudo-perfect number.

Evidently, that's not why Douglas Adams was drawn to it.
Rumor is, he thought it sounded funny.

which brings us to the number 240 and it's special significance in my upbringing.

One day, my dad decided we should cook some beans, and he asked me to count out 239 beans.
"Why 239, Pa?"

Because one more would be too farty.

(Yes, it's horrible that such a thing is stuck in my head, after all this time.)
Reply
#47
(04-21-2017, 11:34 AM)stanky Wrote:  Also, I don't get your thing about youtube.
There's fabulous stuff on youtube. That there is also shit doesn't negate the great stuff.

I'm sure there is, but like I said, I don't have time to watch them. Other than being owned by Google I have no particular problem with YouTube.

(04-21-2017, 11:34 AM)stanky Wrote:  Here's one, off the top of my head:

A=Pi r squared.  (apologies; don't have math notations on this keyboard.)

Being as Pi is irrational, A will vary depending on how many decimals of pi you use. In fact, the answer will always be a little bit wrong.
It might be said that A doesn't equal pi r squared.

Awful example, although not what I expected you to come up with. That's just incomplete data - there's no contradiction anywhere in it.

(04-21-2017, 11:34 AM)stanky Wrote:  Is it even a triangle?
Is the sphere really a sphere?

Yes and yes.

Just because you cannot draw a perfect sphere - which is all your argument is - has no bearing on the maths behind it. Seriously - you're just describing the difficulty of pi, because it's infinite. It doesn't change any maths anywhere.

You even say it yourself: "A will vary depending on how many decimals of pi you use". Two different inputs, two different answers.

What you need is one where using pi to 100 decimal places gives two opposing answers. (yes, with consistent rounding!)

(04-21-2017, 11:34 AM)stanky Wrote:  (I don't have time for typing that much. I've already spent 2 hours on this silliness. That's enough.)

2 hours to say that we can't calculate infinity? Fuckin' hell, I'm glad I didn't watch the videos!

(04-21-2017, 11:34 AM)stanky Wrote:  Claim victory if it helps with the virus.

There's no victory involved - you might have been going to show me something I didn't know.

Virus has had its arse kicked. A day out in the sun mowing lawns fixed it.

There are lots of things I don't know, and I've had all kinds of misconceptions removed from all kinds of angles and from the strangest people. Nothing to say this mightn't be another one.

(04-21-2017, 11:34 AM)stanky Wrote:  There's truly nothing in this for me.

Well, there is - a carton of delicious chocolate fish. They contain no fish, so you'd be fine with them. If you didn't eat 'em I bet Mary would. They only weigh about an ounce each. Light snack
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Reply
#48
(04-21-2017, 07:04 PM)sparks Wrote:  Observation.  And that is enough.  If the laws could spontaneously change, they would have done so already most likely and the Cosmos we see simply wouldn't exist.  Very good chance we wouldn't exist either, owing to the rather fine tuning of the laws themselves required to make a Cosmos that supports the evolution of beings like us.

As for the diameter of an electron, it's just metaphor.  At that level of reality one is so close to quantum effects that to seriously suggest an electron is an object like a baseball is ridiculous.

Yeah, man.

As one takes that plunge, it becomes ridiculous to describe something like a baseball as an object.

One of our problems is that we can't get a glimpse at anything without the polluting affects of our observation.
As far as we know so far, it could be said that one of the constants of the nature of reality is the aspect of being observed.
Take that away, and Poof!

gone like a cool breeze.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)