Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Traffic Jams Obey The Equations Of Supersonic Flow.

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard Ruquist on June 28, 2002 13:31:27 UTC

***Take two positions of the car on one line-traffic jam (call this 'an event'); and you have two positions on the superposed at-right-angles imaginary line. The Dirac delta function seems to describe this scenario.***

How does the Dirac Delta function, which is either zero or infinity at a point describe this scenario? You seem to answer it here.

***Between any two positions on one line, the car has described a curve if you plot its changing position on both lines, including the superposed at-right-angles line. ***

The Dirac Delta function is not a curve, so it could not be applicable.

And how is a universal delta fuction different from the ordinary one?


*** read in "The Force Of Symmetry" by Vincent Icke (all about quantum mechanics) that the qm idea of "spin" involves a curious kind of relativity: like you cannot tell apart actual spin (rotation) of the letter box from apparant rotation caused by your walking past it. ***

Not true. Icke emphasizes that spin has nothing to do with rotation. Read the book again.



***If either party may be rotating/ and/or moving sideways; how to separate out what is going on? ***

With mathematics- assume you are walking in a straight line and that the mailbox is stationary, and you will predict all the relevant data. That is how science is done. Nothing mysterious.

***Its all a question of entangled perspectives. As I see it, Dr. Dick is dramatically on the right
track. ***

Dr. Dick says nothing about entanglement. His equations do not apply to entanglement. In fact, the equations of entanglement are not known, only the data exists.

***It should be possible to demonstrate by pure logic why he cannot be wrong in certain respects within certain limits. ***

I have demonstrated by pure logic that his math is incorrect. His departure is evidence of that claim.

***Do you agree that Dr. Dick may be corrct re: Dirac delta function: he has complementary
views of it. His view may be wider than physics, which is why physics is a subset of his wider
view, so his paper can not be constrained into the regular restricted perspective on physics? ***

No. There is only one view of the delta function. You cannot bend math to suit your purposes. His wider view is irrational. I now have to judge that your original statement about looking at looking is also irrational. Can you defend yourself and convince me that you view is rational.

No hard feelings please.

Richard



Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins