Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: Hyperboles

Hyperboles, you never give a post that has any actual information contained with in it. Only cryptic plays on words or out right ignorance of other peoples posts, questions or statements. So Iv asked before, since this is an ask any questions thread.

Lets try this very very clearly
"Hyperboles I do not understand how you come to the conclusions you do in regard to the pendulum 'proving' GR to be invalid or inverted, please would you 1) explain your reasoning and 2) Explain your mathematics. From my own knowledge of the subject, your reasoning appears wrong, and is inverted, but I want to get your side so we can have a discussion on the matter."

OK cant get any more open or clear than that.

originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Lol are you not capable of reading my entire post? rather than cherry pick.
Alas AIs drawback, it figures

I read all of them, but you're contradicting yourself instead of answering my direct question. Your entire post reads as follows:

originally posted by: Hyperboles
fairly trivial which you can do yourself.
apply the values of g for both conditions at that altitude ( do not invoke any sheites like reference frames ), to your pendulum equation

So you're telling me to use the pendulum equation, which contradicts what you just told me in the prior post that the pendulum won't do its job, so why are you contradicting yourself by telling me to use the pendulum equation? It makes no sense at all.

originally posted by: Hyperboles
Any computation of time aboard the iss has to take in the g (due to earths gravity) at that altitude too, so pendulum wont do its job as the point of suspension is free falling

Assuming I did use .9g in the formula for the pendulum (where Earth's surface has 1.0g), the result I get won't match observation so this proves your idea false. The pendulum period will not match that prediction. When your model disagrees with experiment and observation, and yours does, then it's wrong.

a reply to: ArbitrageurThe pendulum equation will give you its period at that altitude.

Ive already told you the pendulum will not do its job while the iss is freefalling, even when using its thrusters. Oberservation is moot in this case.
Anyway humans will understand me but you certainly will not unless your program is tweaked to think like a human

a reply to: Hyperboles

conclusive... you do not know or realize you are wrong but don't want to admit it.

a reply to: Hyperboles

I would like to discuss your AI comments.

In my experience. AI is not very good. And, you can usually tell its AI.

Big companies use AI. It must be expensive too.

Ats is not a company that i am aware of. And, I don't see how ATS would afford it.

Arbitrageur AI seems way better than most other AI.

It was this good 3 years ago when i joined.

This thread. Ask anything ... Has been going since 12 June 2014.

So. What do you think we are dealing with here?

Is Arbitrageur AI really an advanced AI system?

How does ATS afford it? Maybe a rich owner.

Is it an ongoing experiment? If so. Sell it to the highest bidder. It's better than most others.

I will be interested to read your comments. Hopefully with some evidence provided too.

originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: ArbitrageurThe pendulum equation will give you its period at that altitude.

Yes if mainstream science is used it will. If your method of ignoring reference frames is used, it won't give you the period of the pendulum inside the ISS with or without thrusters because g is not 0.9 of earth surface g inside the ISS reference frame, as you want to pretend.

Even if you somehow put a magic hook in the sky to hang the pendulum from at that altitude where the pendulum is not in orbit, it would be easy to show based on experiments already done that the period of the pendulum is not measuring the passage of time relative to the passage of time on Earth's surface.

Ive already told you the pendulum will not do its job while the iss is freefalling, even when using its thrusters.

Translation: you don't even know what freefall means even though I already posted the definition, you choose to ignore it. When thrusters are firing that's not freefall. You're trying to exclude observations which don't fit your broken model, which is unscientific. Mainstream science can't explain everything, but it had pendulums pretty much figured out before any of us were born, and it can explain those well and virtually all observations we have discussed. Mainstream has no lame excuses like "the pendulum can't do its job", instead has a model that predicts what the pendulum will do and that's what it does.

Oberservation is moot in this case.

That statement is one of the most unscientific things I've ever read. That's not defending your model, it's admitting you have no defense. If observation contradicts your model, it's wrong. You can't just choose to disregard observations you don't like.

originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: Hyperboles

I would like to discuss your AI comments.

It's just a weak attempt at an ad-hom which is less blatant than calling me an idiot because he doesn't want to get banned from ATS again like he has been before, and of course when you don't have valid arguments in science all you've got left are ad-homs.

I don't think it's relevant if I'm an AI or not; physics is the topic of this thread. While mainstream science doesn't have everything figured out, it had pendulums pretty much figured out before we were born. If an AI can beat a chess grand master it might also be able to figure out how a pendulum works better than some people who don't understand it, like hyperboles.

In any case remember what the ATS mods always say, attack the ball, not the player. So in this case the ball is the claim that "observation is moot in this case". That is a self admission by hyperboles that he's not applying science and doesn't understand the scientific method, which has nothing to do with any of the other players nor any ad-homs he throws at them, such as whether they are AIs or not. Observations are not moot in this case or any other case. They are the very foundation of science and in some cases they are the only things everybody can agree on when we argue over which models can best explain them.

If you've seen this video 1000 times it's worth watching a 1001th time if the message still isn't clear that the key to science is testing your ideas against observation. When they don't match, you don't claim "observation is moot in this case", you admit the model must be wrong.

The Key to Science



"If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science"

hyperboles saying "observation is moot" doesn't understand that key to science, making posts pretending to challenge science while denying the very basis of the scientific method. It's really sad. Even sadder that someone thought that egregious denial of the scientific method "observation is moot in this case" deserves a star.

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: Hyperboles

conclusive... you do not know or realize you are wrong but don't want to admit it.

You an arb have the patience of a saint. Im amazed how you to try to teach people something. I gave up on it because I have come to the realizations that some people are just incapable of having an intellectual conversation.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Wow now your an AI id take that as a compliment if i were you because it appears he admitted he can't match you intellectually. It is difficult for people to understand that anything in science that doesnt match observation is wrong.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Ive already said, pendulum will you its period at that altitude.
the conclusions you are drawing from observations in this case are wrong.
the iss is still orbiting the earth when the thrusters are firing. you should know that

a reply to: blackcrowe

AI with occasional human input

originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: blackcrowe

AI with occasional human input

Is there any evidence?

In the second reply on this page. Arbitrageur says he reads all posts. If he was AI. He should also reply to the read posts. A computer would.

Arbitrageur is very good. And. Answers most questions. But. Not all.

I put this down to human error. Nothing to do with AI.

I can provide evidence.

originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Ive already said, pendulum will you its period at that altitude.
the conclusions you are drawing from observations in this case are wrong.
the iss is still orbiting the earth when the thrusters are firing. you should know that

Firing thruster on the ISS objects would feel force pushing them in the opposite direction of acceleration. This isnt a difficult concept when they stop accelerating they go back to 0 acceleration and would be free falling at a higher or lower altitude depending on if they increased or decreased velocity.

You need this.

originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Ive already said, pendulum will you its period at that altitude.

I have no idea what that means. When the pendulum dies I will inherit its period from that altitude? What? Nevermind, it doesn't really matter.

the conclusions you are drawing from observations in this case are wrong.

Mainstream models predict observations quite accurately. You have no model to predict or explain observations.

the iss is still orbiting the earth when the thrusters are firing. you should know that

The thrusters firing was just an additional concept to get you out of your mental rut where you seem to think there is something about freefall orbit that exempts objects from obeying the laws of physics with such proclamations as "the pendulum can't do its job", which is not a model.

The mainstream equation for the period of a pendulum in contrast is a model or is based on a model, and it predicts and explains these observations which you still cannot predict or explain in any quantitative way:

- In orbit without thrusters, the period of the pendulum approaches infinity as g in the reference frame of the pendulum approaches zero. Mainstream explains this quantitatively. You dismiss this without any quantitative model by saying "pendulum can't do its job". So you fail here because you have no model to explain this, nothing to interpret or misinterpret.

- In orbit attached to the ISS with thrusters operating, your claims get much further from reality. Again the mainstream models can predict why the period of the pendulum is somewhere in the ballpark of 45 times longer than the period of the same pendulum on Earth's surface (and more precise calculations are possible if given the exact thruster boost in question, exact mass of the ISS at that time, etc). You are completely without any explanation of this at all. You have provided nothing to interpret or misinterpret. You saying "but it's still in orbit" doesn't explain the long period of the pendulum, you can't explain that, so this is a massive failure on your part. All you can say is "observation is moot in this case".

-This is where it gets ridiculous to the point of absurdity. The formula you want to use to calculate the passage of time inside the ISS is the MAINSTREAM formula for the period of the pendulum. That has a whole list of problems:

>That calculation results in a pendulum period approximately 5% longer than the same pendulum would have on Earth, and so you seem to be claiming that reflects the passage of time on the ISS. That disagrees with several observations. Observations for the passage of time are consistent with the gravitational time dilation graph I posted previously, and observations for the period of the pendulum aboard the will not show that period. Those observations who two different things depending on whether thrusters are firing and you can't explain either. "Can't do its job" isn't an explanation and it certainly doesn't explain the difference in pendulum period with thrusters firing.

>That formula itself by definition says the period of the pendulum is a function of g. You say:

originally posted by: Hyperboles
We are not using the pendulum to measure g at all, btw

The mainstream formula for the period of a pendulum contradicts this assertion, since according to the formula the period of the pendulum is a function of g, so you can say the period varies as g varies but that certainly does imply a measurement of g as g varies, and pendulums have historically been used for just that purpose. This denial shows you don't understand how equations work at a very fundamental level.

I know, "observation is moot in this case" according to you, so we are done here. If you can just dismiss so many observations which contradict your idea and you have no idea how to explain many observations that mainstream models explain, then you have no interest in trying to apply a scientific approach to your arguments, thus there's no point in further discussion.

originally posted by: dragonridr
You need this.

But she relies on observation to prove her point and according to hyperboles "observation is moot in this case" so anything which doesn't fit can just be dismissed that way.

At least mods mercifully closed the flat earth thread where you can show evidence proving the earth is round, but even flat earthers don't say "observation is moot", they are more creative like "that photo of the stars in the southern hemisphere is a fake", so at least they don't deny observations are important. They don't seem interested in going to the southern hemisphere to see the stars there for themselves though.

originally posted by: toysforadults
What is time?

How does gravity work?

What is consciousness?

What is time?

time is a concept, something you imagine and you add up smaller thing like days for example if you want to know how long it takes to do something.
imagine you are digging a hole in the ground...
it takes 3 days to dig a hole to a deep you want it to be..
you count the days you dig and than you know how long it takes.
than you say, digging this hole lasted for 3 days...
this is "time", the understanding of counting periodic things like days to make up something more.. a concept of time

How does gravity work?

I'm not sure how familiar you are with electricity and magnetism, fields and so on.. lets talk simple words than..
you have surely heard about an electron, or a proton..
if not, electron is a very small "ball" that... we say has a negative charge... having a "charge" is like saying " it goes in one direction "
so... electrons have by convention a negative charge, is like saying they "go left"
and protons that are "balls" too but much bigger, have an positive charge.. they go "right" so to say
we call every one of those electrons and protons "a particles"

the thing nobody knows is, why one electron repeals another electron, and proton repeals another proton, while electron and proton attract each other..

I have told you already that proton is bigger than electron, this is important.. because bigger is less responsible to a change.. a change in direction of movement for example.. well, on the end we call it mass..
don't ask, nobody knows how mass comes into existence.. it is just a word for what we observe, there are theories out there, some of them are really funny indeed ( higs particle )

so.. we have those two kind of particle everywhere..
billions trillions zillions of them, repealing and pulling on each other all the time.
the thing is, they somehow know about each other, where the one is and where the other is..
they somehow "know" about each other..
this is the so called electrical potential. "do I pull or do I push" thing...

now, imagine there is a lot of those particles in one place and less of them in other place, like, right is a lot and left is just a few..
this we cal a gradient.. just a name for the change in amount between one place an the other.
I call it a density, a density in a field.
a field is just a name, a name for the distribution of the amount of the electrons and protons in space.

because all those particles are "talking" to each other, it is obvious that talking to a few is faster than talking to a lot, right ? so if want to know what to do..where to pull or push, if you talk to few on the left, you can react faster as if you talk to a lot that are on the right, OK ?
now, this "talking" takes place with something we call a magnetic field,
where they are they know it instantly, we call it the electric field.

now, an atom is a cluster of those particles.. but there is a lot of this clusters around you...
for you as an proton or an electron it will take longer to "talk" to those on the right, where there is more others, than to those on the left, where there is less. Your "response" to the pull or push is slower on the right than on the left.
also the distance to those other particles is what makes the "talk" faster or slower..

at the same time you are pulling on the other particle that is closer to you in the atom cluster ( electron - proton or proton - electron)
and because you spend more time on the right talking to the more particles on the right than you spend on the left talking to the few, your cluster starts moving to the right...
so you and your "atom cluster" move more to the right than to the left, and this has nothing to do with the electric "pull" - "push" between particles in your local cluster, but influences the whole cluster itself as electrons and protons "talk more" on the right side.

gravity - movement into the direction of a denser gradient.

What is consciousness?
just a name we use for something nobody really know what it is...

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Heck you have gone all topsy turrvy again.
In the case with firing thrusters and pendulum being 45 percent slower actually proves my point, in that, whatever g generated, however tiny when firing thrusters, the pendulum period is consistent with the tiny g.
Heck you may twist this anyway you please and derive your satisfaction, however misplaced it may be.
Carry on mate

a reply to: Hyperboles

I asked for evidence of AI.

Non given. No worries.

If Arbitrageur was AI. He would not error.

The error is a human failing.

He clearly missed this. At the bottom of the last page. Last reply.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks Arbitrageur.

As you and Pharge gave me so much to read. I didn't think i would have much to add for a while.

Hopefully this link is better than the BBC disappointment.

It's about new findings on Venus' weird spin.

www.space.com...

It's rotation is very slow. And in the opposite direction of Earth.

'Orbital characteristics
If viewed from above, Venus rotates on its axis the opposite way that most planets rotate. That means on Venus, the sun would appear to rise in the west and set in the east. On Earth, the sun appears to rise in the east and set in the west.

The Venusian year — the time it takes to orbit the sun — is about 225 Earth-days long. Normally, that would mean that days on Venus would be longer than years. However, because of Venus' curious retrograde rotation, the time from one sunrise to the next is only about 117 Earth-days long. [Gallery: Transit of Venus from June 5, 2012, when the planet transited in front of the sun for the last time until the year 2117.

Taken from link within posted link. www.space.com...

Where it is said 'Venus takes 243 Earth-days to rotate on its axis, by far the slowest of any of the major planets, and because of this sluggish spin, its metal core cannot generate a magnetic field similar to Earth's.'

It does however mention a magnetic field.

'Magnetic field: 0.000015 times that of Earth's field.

Internal structure: Venus' metallic iron core is roughly 2,400 miles (6,000 km) wide. Venus' molten rocky mantle is roughly 1,200 miles (3,000 km) thick. Venus' crust is mostly basalt, and is estimated to be six to 12 miles (10 to 20 km) thick on average.'

This is from another link from link.

'Inside of Venus

Venus is a rocky planet, much like the Earth. Given its similar size, mass, and density to our planet, scientists think that its interior is much like Earth's own. In addition to a crust significantly older than Earth's constantly changing surface, Venus likely also sports a mantle and a core. The mantle is probably rocky, and the core is probably somewhat liquid.

But despite the planets' similarities, the magnetic field of Venus is far weaker than on Earth's. The reasons for that may have to do with the core. Part of it could simply have to do with motion. The planet spins very slowly — once every 243 Earth days — and the core may not spin fast enough to create a magnetic field the way the core of Earth and other planets do. The core may also be completely solid, or may not even exist at all. Taking readings on the interior of another planet is a significant challenge.'

From here. www.space.com...

Also from same link above.

'Early in the history of the solar system, while planets such as Venus were forming, the cloud of dust and rock orbiting the sun was a chaotic place. Giant rocks pounded the surface of the newly created planets and their moons. So how did Venus escape unscathed? While Venus could have been extraordinarily lucky and missed any significant damage in the turbulent young system, it is more likely that the surface of Venus has been completely redone by volcanic activity, smoothing over the scars of its early life. The planet has significantly more volcanoes than Earth, several of them the size of Earth's largest system, the Big Island of Hawaii.'

Which would then fit with the moon smack as a trigger to shake things up.

It's very interesting. And so much to learn.

I am willing to accept whatever Arbitrageur gives as a reason. But. I think it's just an oversight. Human error.

I do like how you finished your last reply though.

a reply to: blackcrowe

It is believed that earth still has a magnetic field because of our moon.

astronomynow.com...

As far as venus being retrograde to major theories. One being that venus slowed and eventually stopped rotating. However as it orbits the planet would start to spin again in retrograde just to balance its orbit.
The other that the planet actually flipped meaning its always rotated only on one direction but the planet itself has turned upside down. To be honest i think this is the least likely excuse. And well there's the multiple collision theory which simply states multiple collisions changed the angle to 98 degrees. Either way i don't think any theory has been proven at this point.

All we can do os rely on models and try to see what scenarios we can imagine to get the results.

a reply to: dragonridr

Thanks dragonridr.

That was an interesting read.

The moon is very important indeed for gravitational effects on the earth.

I had not considered gravity to be a factor in producing a magnetosphere.

The original question however was if Trappist 1e in the Trappist star system had a magnetosphere. It has an iron core. A claim made by researchers. After earlier research had claimed all 7 planets were 'likely' tidally locked.

The planets orbit an ultra cool red dwarf.

They are positioned close to their sun. And orbit it quickly.

I had reached my conclusion that it would be unlikely that 1e was capable of producing an earth like magnetosphere due to it not rotating on its own axis. Dynamo effect. After my reading on this subject.

The subject is not conclusive. And. New theories give us even more to consider.

I often see comments like. 'This is the best time in science'

It's always the best time in science.

a reply to: ErosA433

Hey don't go so much topsy turvvy.
go to a local flying club and hire a light aircraft. tell your pilot to do some 60 deg power turns during which time you feel 2g forces and see the time tick about 40 percent faster during the power turns.

originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: ErosA433

Hey don't go so much topsy turvvy.
go to a local flying club and hire a light aircraft. tell your pilot to do some 60 deg power turns during which time you feel 2g forces and see the time tick about 40 percent faster during the power turns.

That's as bad as that guy Savvy trying to measure time travel with the brightness of a candle and the pH of a tomato. What you see and what actually happens may be two different things. You might indeed perceive a distortion of time in a number of effects on human illusions of time which have been well researched, but in light of said research it's preposterous to think that such illusions are any reflection of the actual passage of time.

Human time perception and its illusions

Time perception is surprisingly prone to measurable distortions and illusions. The past few years have introduced remarkable progress in identifying and quantifying temporal illusions of duration, temporal order and simultaneity.

Measuring the actual passage of time versus another reference frame like the surface would take a very accurate clock like the latest NIST optical clocks perhaps. The clock itself should fit aboard a light plane, but I don't know how light they can make the cryogenic cooling apparatus that is needed for the clock. An ordinary watch displaying seconds wouldn't show any difference to a comparable clock on the surface with such small accelerations, despite any time illusions generated by human perception.

If time illusions were real, just think of the effect you could have on space time by watching a pot that takes forever to boil, but go do something else instead of watching it and the same pot is boiling before you know it.

I thought everyone knew that the "watched pot never boils" was just an expression referring to human time illusions and nobody really thought clocks ran slower when you watched the pot, though they might seem to do so, but then I read your post which seems to take time illusions seriously, or if you were joking you forgot to add the smiley face.