The Perils Of Privatisation - Part X
News10 mins ago
Question For Naomi
209 Answers
I read on another thread that you used to live in a haunted house. Can you tell us a little more about what happened there? Im genuinely interested. One of my sisters seems to constantly have unexplained things happening to her and other members of my family have had 'spookey' experiences.
Anyone else lived in a haunted house or had experiences of the 'impossible'?
Anyone else lived in a haunted house or had experiences of the 'impossible'?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nailit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
jom, …//has more to do with mental attitude and physical fitness than energy as a physicist would understand it.//
Like everyone else, a physicist doesn’t understand it. If he did, we wouldn’t be questioning it. Who do you suggest we build asylums for?
Khandro, don’t get your coat. In my opinion when we’re searching for a solution, all ideas should be open to consideration.
Like everyone else, a physicist doesn’t understand it. If he did, we wouldn’t be questioning it. Who do you suggest we build asylums for?
Khandro, don’t get your coat. In my opinion when we’re searching for a solution, all ideas should be open to consideration.
Naomi, you're still twisting a physical law to fit an abstract concept. No-one in the history of the world has ever followed up comments like "oh, he's so full of energy!" with a quantitative assessment of how many Joules it amounts to, or categorised the forms it's taken. We're just using it in an off-hand way to mean something abstract.
Conservation of Energy applies to the physical quantities of heat energy, kinetic energy, potential energy (gravitational, chemical, elastic...), electrical energy... it says that the sums of these quantities balances against each other -- and can't be applied to the abstract concept of "energy" in the everyday sense. I'm amazed that you can't see that. It's an abuse of scientific language.
Actually, so is Khandro's point: although the idea of parallel universes might be one solution to the appearance of "ghosts", it will have nothing to do with wormholes, because these are (theoretical) physical objects within our own Universe. Any type of "bridge" to a parallel Universe, if it exists, will have markedly different properties and nature from a wormhole.
Conservation of Energy applies to the physical quantities of heat energy, kinetic energy, potential energy (gravitational, chemical, elastic...), electrical energy... it says that the sums of these quantities balances against each other -- and can't be applied to the abstract concept of "energy" in the everyday sense. I'm amazed that you can't see that. It's an abuse of scientific language.
Actually, so is Khandro's point: although the idea of parallel universes might be one solution to the appearance of "ghosts", it will have nothing to do with wormholes, because these are (theoretical) physical objects within our own Universe. Any type of "bridge" to a parallel Universe, if it exists, will have markedly different properties and nature from a wormhole.
Naomi, I think it is a given that scientists do understand that we don't know all there is to be known, that is why they are scientists..It is the believers who think they have all the answers even when they demonstrably cannot answer a simple question about their own relgion.
As for vigour..what units does it come in, pounds or kilowatt hours?
As for vigour..what units does it come in, pounds or kilowatt hours?
Jom, // I think it is a given that scientists do understand that we don't know all there is to be known,//
It ought to be - but that's not always the impression I get.
Vigour - if we ever discover a means of measuring it we’ll have an answer, although having said that, do you, being a scientist, already know that it will never be measurable? ;o)
It ought to be - but that's not always the impression I get.
Vigour - if we ever discover a means of measuring it we’ll have an answer, although having said that, do you, being a scientist, already know that it will never be measurable? ;o)
spi·ral (sprl)
n.
a. A curve on a plane that winds around a fixed center point at a continuously increasing or decreasing distance from the point.
OK........ BUT;
b. A three-dimensional curve that turns around an axis at a constant or continuously varying distance while moving parallel to the axis; a helix.
n.
a. A curve on a plane that winds around a fixed center point at a continuously increasing or decreasing distance from the point.
OK........ BUT;
b. A three-dimensional curve that turns around an axis at a constant or continuously varying distance while moving parallel to the axis; a helix.
//So which kind of staircase is it. A 3 dimensional spiral staircase or a helical staircase?// There is no choice here because they are both identical. If however you mean choosing between a helical or 2 dimensional staircase then the latter is a misnomer because;
'Stair;
1. one of a flight or series of steps for going from one level to another, as in a building.'
However, despite its impossibility, I seem to spend most of my time on the 2 dimensional version :0)
The problem with that definition is that the one you chose actually "force or energy" -- which are two utterly different concepts. Which is precisely the problem.
There is no getting away the fact that "vigour" or, indeed, "energy" as used in everyday conversation is too vague in meaning, too abstract, to have any relation to a scientific concept.
There is no getting away the fact that "vigour" or, indeed, "energy" as used in everyday conversation is too vague in meaning, too abstract, to have any relation to a scientific concept.
I think it's a shame you see "scientific concepts" as a restriction. You must have reached that view a while ago. Where, initially, did it come from, if I may ask?
Ultimately, scientific concepts themselves are restricted by what the real world actually does. At some point the two may exactly intersect each other -- although realistically this will never happen, and indeed it's probably a good thing if it doesn't. Imagine how boring the world would be if we had nothing left to discover about it.
Using dictionary definitions as a guide to scientific concepts runs into all sorts of problems, for all sorts of reasons. Partly it's because language is too fluid, partly it's because dictionaries are often out of step with scientific language (my Chambers Dictionary, in particular, is useless when it comes to defining scientific vocabulary), partly it's because how we use terms in daily life is often in a vague, abstract sense. All of these seem to me to be far greater restrictions than are provided by Science. And to some extent they aren't even self-imposed, either. That different quantities have different units and, thus, must be treated differently isn't just a scientific whim but is a mathematical theorem (ie proven). (More precisely, every physically meaningful equation can be reduced to equations that are dimensionless, and so equations that can't be aren't physically meaningful). This is incredibly powerful , essentially because it give you a fixed and solid starting point.
* * * * * *
The traditional and most remarkable demonstration of the technique is often shown at this point at any lecture on dimensional analysis, so I'll repeat it here. It comes from the Manhattan project and an analysis of the Trinity test. At the time, details of the Nuclear bomb were classified, but armed with a couple of pictures and dimensional analysis, a mathematician was able to construct an expression for calculating the energy yield simply by constructing the only possible "physically meaningful" equation made from the quantities involved (up to a dimensionless constant). Using this, he was able to extract the correct yield to within 10%, which is seriously impressive from just two or three photographs!
I've wandered away from the point, but I do enjoy that story.
* * * * * * *
I suppose the point really is that a non-specialist dictionary is a bad place to start when it comes to discussing Science. "vigour" and "life" may be treated as synonymous with "energy", but they only vaguely mean the same, and can't be treated as the same in all cases. There are precise definitions that should be respected. These shouldn't be thought of as straitjackets. Probably the exact opposite, really. When trying to explore and understand our world, if you can't even agree on what you mean when you say "energy", you would very quickly get lost and end up going round in circles. Once it's established what these things mean precisely and how they relate to each other, you're then free to explore.
Ultimately, scientific concepts themselves are restricted by what the real world actually does. At some point the two may exactly intersect each other -- although realistically this will never happen, and indeed it's probably a good thing if it doesn't. Imagine how boring the world would be if we had nothing left to discover about it.
Using dictionary definitions as a guide to scientific concepts runs into all sorts of problems, for all sorts of reasons. Partly it's because language is too fluid, partly it's because dictionaries are often out of step with scientific language (my Chambers Dictionary, in particular, is useless when it comes to defining scientific vocabulary), partly it's because how we use terms in daily life is often in a vague, abstract sense. All of these seem to me to be far greater restrictions than are provided by Science. And to some extent they aren't even self-imposed, either. That different quantities have different units and, thus, must be treated differently isn't just a scientific whim but is a mathematical theorem (ie proven). (More precisely, every physically meaningful equation can be reduced to equations that are dimensionless, and so equations that can't be aren't physically meaningful). This is incredibly powerful , essentially because it give you a fixed and solid starting point.
* * * * * *
The traditional and most remarkable demonstration of the technique is often shown at this point at any lecture on dimensional analysis, so I'll repeat it here. It comes from the Manhattan project and an analysis of the Trinity test. At the time, details of the Nuclear bomb were classified, but armed with a couple of pictures and dimensional analysis, a mathematician was able to construct an expression for calculating the energy yield simply by constructing the only possible "physically meaningful" equation made from the quantities involved (up to a dimensionless constant). Using this, he was able to extract the correct yield to within 10%, which is seriously impressive from just two or three photographs!
I've wandered away from the point, but I do enjoy that story.
* * * * * * *
I suppose the point really is that a non-specialist dictionary is a bad place to start when it comes to discussing Science. "vigour" and "life" may be treated as synonymous with "energy", but they only vaguely mean the same, and can't be treated as the same in all cases. There are precise definitions that should be respected. These shouldn't be thought of as straitjackets. Probably the exact opposite, really. When trying to explore and understand our world, if you can't even agree on what you mean when you say "energy", you would very quickly get lost and end up going round in circles. Once it's established what these things mean precisely and how they relate to each other, you're then free to explore.
jim;//scientific concepts themselves are restricted by what the real world actually does.//
I would have thought 'concepts' were only limited by the imagination, and
what scientists do is come up with implications of a concept, make hypotheses based on that implication, and then try to prove it true or false through either experiment or observation.
But what do I know? I'm only a dauber. :0)
I would have thought 'concepts' were only limited by the imagination, and
what scientists do is come up with implications of a concept, make hypotheses based on that implication, and then try to prove it true or false through either experiment or observation.
But what do I know? I'm only a dauber. :0)
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles23 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles25 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles41 mins ago
ChatterBank144 mins ago
Masterchef - The Professionals
Film, Media & TV176 mins ago
