Originally posted by StarValleyWyYou force me to repeat the main definition of represent: "To bring CLEARLY before the mind." Nothing you say even comes close to this definition, so does nothing to counteract my statement.
Did you ever consider the meaning of "Quanta" as a packet?
All change is binary. Hence the term "Packet of One" or "Quanta".
If time exists... is it "Quantum" in nature? Is there a single least most value in which a packet of light progresses one unit of distance?
Or else... how do we measure it?
Slice? Sorry. That implies a good sharp ...[text shortened]... ld SVW knows that to be true. And up till now, all I know is that Nothing is free. Imagine that.
Oh, and "Slice" merely means sample. "Slice-of-life" is a common literary term that means a sample of every day happenstance.
Nothing you say makes any sense whatsoever. Filling a post with obscurities will do nothing to make anyone understand anything.
And one last thing. If all you know is that nothing is free (a statement that has nothing to do with time) then why are you such a pedant?
Pronunciation: pe-dnt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Italian pedante
Date: 1588
1 obsolete : a male schoolteacher
2 a : one who makes a show of knowledge b : one who is unimaginative or who unduly emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge c : a formalist or precisionist in teaching
Definition 2, part b is you.
This is because to measure something, you must disturb it, and therefore what you were measuring has changed and is something else entirely.
My first QM professor, Dr. Wohl, says that there have been 'non-intrusive' measurements made recently that prove this theory wrong. I think this is what he was talking about, but I am not sure:
http://www.tardyon.de/mirror/Mandel/qphil.html#mandel
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is not the "Heisenberg Measurement Blows Up The System Principle", to paraphrase him. (I don't remember exactly how he put it.)
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle applies only to subatomic particles and basically states that you can't simultaneously measure both the position and momentum of such particles. The HUP is, of course, not applicable to macroscopic objects i.e. what we see in the "real world".
Not exactly true, but a good approximation. The effects of the HUP are so slight as to be undetectable for macroscopic objects, but they are still there. This is because uncertainty in momentum x the uncertainty in position is greater than or equal to a very tiny number. Momentum is mass times velocity; if mass increases, the uncertainty in momentum increases with it, so both velocity and position can be measured very precisely.
I hope I am not butchering the equation. Even if I did it wrong, as mass increases, the HUP becomes less significant through some simple mathematical equation.
Actually it's position and velocity which cannot be measured at the same time.
The HUP involves position and momentum, not position and velocity. Momentum varies linearly with velocity, but mass is involved in the HUP as well. So yes, it's position and velocity that can't be measured exactly at the same time (they can both be measured imprecisely), but the amount of precision you can get for both of them depends on the mass.
As to "faster than light"... the frame is the thing. Of reference. The frame of reference might move or not. The term relative is only between any two frames. Reality has nothing to do with either... except if one assumes only one reality is possible or to be more concise... "all reality shares the same frame", or "Two and exactly two frames"
I am confused here. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
Regardless of how a frame is moving, light moves at the same speed relative to that frame. If I am going ten thousand miles per hour west, and you are standing still (both relative to you), then the same photon will be going the same speed to both of us. c + 10,000 mph = c + 0 = c.
That's the basis of the theory of special relativity, I think.
Originally posted by richispsychoIn a strict sense, the expression "nothing is free" is just a euphamism. Precision is the thing. No change is made free of energy. No postulation of time is made free of energy. No transfer in space/time occurs without energy.
I didn't really get that...
But certainly Nothing is Free,
which infers Time is money.
Which is a nice way to end the thread thanks for your thoughts everyone!
On the level of societal marking... which I apologize for bastardizing... ahem... "nothing is free is a very broad statement that if a thing is of value to a human, they will exact the same effort required of them to extract and/or produce it. Else they will die. Nature is a bitch. We live by the same rule as the glorious shark."
Only princes and princesses "deserve" things. Only the "entitled" are truly "entitled". The rest of us just fall for the brainwashed use of the word "entitlement".
Is there such a thing as being "entitled"? See my thread On "Pro Choice". I submit that "entitled" has been hijacked. Nobody is entitled to the life and effort of others. Except by largesse.
If any of you believe you are "entitled" tell me which soul amongst us is required by you to pay for your entitlement. Somebody must. Unless you believe that money is "Printed", not "worked for" by the masses.