Oh dear oh dear....where to start with you kids on the basics.......what gave us calculus (and I don't mean getting a take away bargain bucket of KFC and not brushing your teeth before going to bed in your mummy's council flat where you live). Yep - The ancient Greeks.
But what made us adept in calculus? Newtonian physics. What other field is highly dependant on this stepping-stone? Quantum Physics.
And there's more. Unfortunately for you, you are not my responsibility.
(,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 0:45,
archived)
But what made us adept in calculus? Newtonian physics. What other field is highly dependant on this stepping-stone? Quantum Physics.
And there's more. Unfortunately for you, you are not my responsibility.
Thank you for dripping me what little wisdom you deign toI will be forever grateful
(
boris the spider,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 0:47,
archived)
I only wish you could even begin to understand the basics that I am trying to drum into you. You need to stop regurgatating and start *thinking*. Read back what that guy said to you - read back your response...............................and even those you stand by play Devil's Advocate with - and when you do, free your mind of your investement in your knee-jerk responses and decouple yourself of all emotion. Maybe then you will learn something - because on balance, what he says makes more sense than your rebukes.
(,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 0:53,
archived)
I like Star Trek.
Ham o' Shatner -.-- --- ..- .-. / .- .-.. .-.. / --. .- -.--,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 0:56,
archived)
Some people have a habit of answering the question they wanted to be asked rather than the question they were asked:Bronze Medal : Chloe Smith, Silver Medal: James T Kirk, Gold Medal : Boris The Spider.
(,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 0:59,
archived)
Ah, but you haven't asked me any questionsYou've called me names, but you haven't asked me any questions, other than "Do you understand the zeroth law of thermodynamics". I answered, "Yes, I do."
( boris the spider,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 1:06,
archived)
I'm a doctor, Jim, not a brick layer. Ham o' Shatner -.-- --- ..- .-. / .- .-.. .-.. / --. .- -.--,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 1:17,
archived)
Hmmmthis is why narcissism and coke is a bad mix.
G'night all.
(G'night all.
FeralCatMan Unusual disease collector.,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 1:00,
archived)
Out of genuine interestwhat are you trying to ask me to do?
Read the rhetoric of someone who, for his own personal reasons, has a beef against general relativity? I'm perfectly happy with people having a beef against general relativity - it's very obviously not a complete theory; some of the reasons for this are in the Conservapedia article, while others aren't. My problem with his article was that he's misrepresenting GR, and making falacious and inaccurate arguments to argue against it - he is arguing from a pre-conceived position of prejudice and trying to bring in arguments to support this.
You may not believe me, and it's of little consequence to me whether you do or not, but I can assure you I've gone through special and general relativity from the first principles up to practical applications, and am well aware of the shortcomings of the theories, which are plentiful, and the successes of the theories, which are also plentiful.
I would comment that simply because Newton developed his form of calculus for his theory of mechanics, and simply because the most familiar form of quantum mechanics is the Schroedinger equation, which is a differential equation, this does not suggest that these are somehow special and inviolable as opposed to general relativity, which is what your logic suggests. The immediate response is that general relativity is nothing more, and nothing less, than differential geometry with a second-order equation relating a metric to the distribution of matter; since even in the Schroedinger formulation QM is a marriage of "calculus" and linear algebra, one could use your logic to suggest that GR is actually more pure than QM.
Thankfully we don't have to follow such logic; from both theoretical and experimental evidence, we can say with safety that neither Newtonian physics, nor general relativity, and nor quantum mechanics, form a complete description of physics and instead are all valid within their own regimes. Newtonian physics is a limit of both quantum theory and relativity, so we can take these theories as being more fundamental. Neither QM nor relativity is fundamental.
As for what is more fundamental than QM and relativity, obviously this is an open question. The most accurate current theory remains QED, which is a special relativistic, quantised theory of the interactions between electrons and photons. However, it has as yet proven impossible to satisfactorily include gravity in such a description of nature -- while it has been known for a very long time that a massless, spin-2 particle would act as a graviton and in the classical limit produces relativity, quantising this is an intractable problem. Progress is being made, certainly. Given the number of avenues people have pursued, at least some of them are certainly going the wrong way. Personally, I think following the entire idea of a graviton is going the wrong way, and we're likely to at least gain some insights following recent work in the emergent nature of gravity -- describing gravity as a thermodynamical construct, not a fundamental one. There is a neatness in symmetries emerging, rather than the usual approach of symmetries breaking, as we approach our common regimes.
But all this is kind of beside the point. I'm not sure what you're asking me to do here, because I'm not particularly aware of "regurgitating", nor of failing to "think". I am however aware of an impressive level of bile and abuse and unsubstantiated assertions from your side.
(Read the rhetoric of someone who, for his own personal reasons, has a beef against general relativity? I'm perfectly happy with people having a beef against general relativity - it's very obviously not a complete theory; some of the reasons for this are in the Conservapedia article, while others aren't. My problem with his article was that he's misrepresenting GR, and making falacious and inaccurate arguments to argue against it - he is arguing from a pre-conceived position of prejudice and trying to bring in arguments to support this.
You may not believe me, and it's of little consequence to me whether you do or not, but I can assure you I've gone through special and general relativity from the first principles up to practical applications, and am well aware of the shortcomings of the theories, which are plentiful, and the successes of the theories, which are also plentiful.
I would comment that simply because Newton developed his form of calculus for his theory of mechanics, and simply because the most familiar form of quantum mechanics is the Schroedinger equation, which is a differential equation, this does not suggest that these are somehow special and inviolable as opposed to general relativity, which is what your logic suggests. The immediate response is that general relativity is nothing more, and nothing less, than differential geometry with a second-order equation relating a metric to the distribution of matter; since even in the Schroedinger formulation QM is a marriage of "calculus" and linear algebra, one could use your logic to suggest that GR is actually more pure than QM.
Thankfully we don't have to follow such logic; from both theoretical and experimental evidence, we can say with safety that neither Newtonian physics, nor general relativity, and nor quantum mechanics, form a complete description of physics and instead are all valid within their own regimes. Newtonian physics is a limit of both quantum theory and relativity, so we can take these theories as being more fundamental. Neither QM nor relativity is fundamental.
As for what is more fundamental than QM and relativity, obviously this is an open question. The most accurate current theory remains QED, which is a special relativistic, quantised theory of the interactions between electrons and photons. However, it has as yet proven impossible to satisfactorily include gravity in such a description of nature -- while it has been known for a very long time that a massless, spin-2 particle would act as a graviton and in the classical limit produces relativity, quantising this is an intractable problem. Progress is being made, certainly. Given the number of avenues people have pursued, at least some of them are certainly going the wrong way. Personally, I think following the entire idea of a graviton is going the wrong way, and we're likely to at least gain some insights following recent work in the emergent nature of gravity -- describing gravity as a thermodynamical construct, not a fundamental one. There is a neatness in symmetries emerging, rather than the usual approach of symmetries breaking, as we approach our common regimes.
But all this is kind of beside the point. I'm not sure what you're asking me to do here, because I'm not particularly aware of "regurgitating", nor of failing to "think". I am however aware of an impressive level of bile and abuse and unsubstantiated assertions from your side.
boris the spider,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 1:05,
archived)
Again you are regurgatating...I've read everything you have just written before. You are failing to think objectively. Go back and try again.
(,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 1:16,
archived)
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my pointsIt means a lot to me
( boris the spider,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 1:17,
archived)
You spend too much time dumping out large volumes of what you think you know, rather than what is asked of you. You display no evidence of independant thought or adaptability.That is why you fail.
(,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 1:22,
archived)
"Do you even understand why the zeroth law of thermodynamics is called the zeroth law of thermodynamics? And before you answer I don't mean the rhetoric, and I don't mean the fuzzy bedtime stories. I mean...do you understand the implication of this?..."READ the question, UNDERSTAND it. Then when you think you have understood it, read it 5 times more. Then THINK - THEN answer.
(,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 1:29,
archived)
The answer was"yes". It's not his fault your question was shit.
(
Mu Dinofiddler,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 1:34,
archived)
If a body A is in thermal equilibrium with a body B, and the body B is in thermal equilibrium with a body C, then A is in thermal equilibrium with C.
I know you'd view that as "regurgitation", but that's because that's what the zeroth law of thermodynamics says. If two systems are in thermal equilibrium with each other, one of which is in thermal equilibrium with a third, all three are in thermal equilibrium with each other. Meaning no energy passes between them. This is what the zeroth law of thermodynamics says. What you want it to say is a different matter and one which isn't of very much significance.
It is called the zeroth law because it is more fundamental than the first law. The zeroth law is about bodies in thermal equilibrium, when no energy is being transferred. The first law of thermodynamics concerns the conservation of energy. As a result, the zeroth law is more fundamental than the first. It has nothing to do with the number "zero" in any physical sense; it is merely the law that comes before the first law. If you're digging extra meaning out of this then good luck and I look forward to the paper.
None of this is rhetoric, none of it is "fuzzy bedtime stories" (though if your bedtime stories consisted of pointless debates online about the zeroth law of thermodynamics then you have my pity), it's simply how the laws are defined.
That's genuinely the only thing you've asked me, though you have littered it with plenty of self-aggrandising abuse, which has certainly proved diverting.
(I know you'd view that as "regurgitation", but that's because that's what the zeroth law of thermodynamics says. If two systems are in thermal equilibrium with each other, one of which is in thermal equilibrium with a third, all three are in thermal equilibrium with each other. Meaning no energy passes between them. This is what the zeroth law of thermodynamics says. What you want it to say is a different matter and one which isn't of very much significance.
It is called the zeroth law because it is more fundamental than the first law. The zeroth law is about bodies in thermal equilibrium, when no energy is being transferred. The first law of thermodynamics concerns the conservation of energy. As a result, the zeroth law is more fundamental than the first. It has nothing to do with the number "zero" in any physical sense; it is merely the law that comes before the first law. If you're digging extra meaning out of this then good luck and I look forward to the paper.
None of this is rhetoric, none of it is "fuzzy bedtime stories" (though if your bedtime stories consisted of pointless debates online about the zeroth law of thermodynamics then you have my pity), it's simply how the laws are defined.
That's genuinely the only thing you've asked me, though you have littered it with plenty of self-aggrandising abuse, which has certainly proved diverting.
boris the spider,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 1:36,
archived)
Again you are answering the question you want to be asked and not the question you asked. Read it again.
(,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 1:38,
archived)
"Do you even understand why the zeroth law of thermodynamics is called the zeroth law of thermodynamics?"
Yes. It's because it is more fundamental than the first law. I've now said this two or three times and it's growing tiring.
"I mean...do you understand the implication of this?"
Yes, yes, I do. I have also explained this, in the post you replied to, rather obnoxiously.
I'm growing rather tired of this, not least as I have to work in the morning, and internet debates with someone who appears to have a different definition of "Do", "you", "understand", "zero" and "thermodynamics" is not a particuarly productive use of either of our time. I wish you luck in your scientific career and look forward to reading your research.
(Yes. It's because it is more fundamental than the first law. I've now said this two or three times and it's growing tiring.
"I mean...do you understand the implication of this?"
Yes, yes, I do. I have also explained this, in the post you replied to, rather obnoxiously.
I'm growing rather tired of this, not least as I have to work in the morning, and internet debates with someone who appears to have a different definition of "Do", "you", "understand", "zero" and "thermodynamics" is not a particuarly productive use of either of our time. I wish you luck in your scientific career and look forward to reading your research.
boris the spider,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 1:41,
archived)
Please don't make me embarrass you by making me elaborate further.
(,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 1:41,
archived)
god, fuck!i thought moggy was dull
(
real i'm not happy 'til you're not happy,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 2:07,
archived)
Boris, I'm a physicistand I still didn't read all that.
Might do tomorrow though.
(Might do tomorrow though.
An Egg ,D,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 4:31,
archived)
and you fail cos you are a supercilious cuntif he fails it's only as a scientist, not as a human being. I think he comes out better in the end
( simbosan is too tired,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 1:33,
archived)
you've just gotten out of a gcse physics lesson, haven't you?
(
real i'm not happy 'til you're not happy,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 2:37,
archived)
he is rather good at winding people up, he does the same thing over on youtube, in fact a quick scan for his user name revealed that he's used some of the same lines on here as he has on youtube. just sayin'.
(
quackpipe swings like a pendulum do,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 4:09,
archived)
haha, 'your' not wrong(that should get him going!)
( simbosan is too tired,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 14:24,
archived)