Explanation
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/explanation
1 : the act or process of explaining
2 : something that explains
For the purposes of this site it seems to me that the explanation must link up to something that is already known to the explainee.
Method
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/method
: a procedure or process for attaining an object: as a (1): a systematic procedure, technique
A method that gives the right answer isn't an explanation - it is (obviously) just a method. Engineers, technicians and other beasts of the field will generally be content with a method because (in general) they neither need nor seek anything more.
Motive
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/motive
motive implies an emotion or desire operating on the will and causing it to act <a motive for the crime>.
Guilty as charged.
More may follow .. depending on time/responses/feedback
-C2.
My thanks to Flyingbuttressman for the feedback:-
"Aimless idiot"
Here we find Mollypants using links to Wiki to 'explain'.
Part of the explanation
Here we see me posting a simple test to see if anyone (Mollypants included) has learned anything from the Wiki link.
Here I repeat the test.
Time passes ..
"Aimless idiot"
Here we find Mollypants using links to Wiki to 'explain'.
Part of the explanation
QUOTE
In a field model, rather than two particles attracting each other, the particles distort spacetime via their mass, and this distortion is what is perceived subjectively as a "force". In fact there is no force in such a model, rather matter is simply responding to the curvature of spacetime itself.
Here we see me posting a simple test to see if anyone (Mollypants included) has learned anything from the Wiki link.
Here I repeat the test.
Time passes ..
Are you asking a question? I didn't really get a question out of all of that.
QUOTE (Flyingbuttressman+)
Are you asking a question? I didn't really get a question out of all of that.
I am not asking a question. I am attempting (and apparently failing) to draw attention to the difference between something that might appear to be an explanation and something that is actually an 'explanation'. In the OP I drew attention to the need (IMO) for an 'explanation' to link to something that is already known to the explainee.
In the case cited the link (IMO) is (currently) particularly poor and I doubt if even the explainer (Mollypants) can make any sense of it.
Time passes.
I am not asking a question. I am attempting (and apparently failing) to draw attention to the difference between something that might appear to be an explanation and something that is actually an 'explanation'. In the OP I drew attention to the need (IMO) for an 'explanation' to link to something that is already known to the explainee.
In the case cited the link (IMO) is (currently) particularly poor and I doubt if even the explainer (Mollypants) can make any sense of it.
Time passes.
Why would you even ask if two different log cabins are the same size? Are they built to the same size? Using the same measuring tools? What are you asking? Oh, and you have it backwards, the lower cabin would appear to be going faster from the perspective of the higher cabin (by an infinitesimal amount).
QUOTE (Confused2+Aug 4 2009, 03:52 PM)
I am not asking a question. I am attempting (and apparently failing) to draw attention to the difference between something that might appear to be an explanation and something that is actually an 'explanation'. In the OP I drew attention to the need (IMO) for an 'explanation' to link to something that is already known to the explainee.
In the case cited the link (IMO) is (currently) particularly poor and I doubt if even the explainer (Mollypants) can make any sense of it.
Time passes.
What you don't bother to mention is that an explanation is not part of what I claimed to be offering. 4Dumbass asked for a 'cause', not an 'explanation'. There is a huge difference between those. What you're claiming is that when someone asks why nuclear power plants produce power, the valid response "because the nuclear activity heats water, which turns a steam turbine" somehow gives the person asking the question an understanding of nuclear power generation. It does not.
In the same vein, I am not attempting to give 4Dumbass or csezlaw or even you an explanation of anything, all three of you have proven time and time again that you will reject any explanation which you don't like.
Anyone who bothers to read those links you provided to try and discredit me is just going to see that I wasn't doing what you're sitting here claiming I was doing.
You're a retard, you know that? You consistently prove that you have nothing better to do but stalk and insult anyone who disagrees with you, even if that means lying in order to do so. You continually prove yourself to be a dishonest hypocrite, and the part that makes you a retard is that you have no idea that you're doing it.
So tell me, jackass, why do you spend so much time and effort on me? I mean, you follow me from thread to thread making what I'm sure you think are witty comments, always trying to insult and discredit... Why don't you concern yourself with someone else from time to time? I mean, it's a little flattering to get so much attention, but at the same time, it's pretty freaky. It's not normal behavior to focus on one person to the point of obsession.
If this was real life, I'd take out a restraining order on you, but since this is just the internet, it doesn't bother me. After all, no matter how many times I show you to be a psychotic looser, you still can't break into my house with a gun.
In the case cited the link (IMO) is (currently) particularly poor and I doubt if even the explainer (Mollypants) can make any sense of it.
Time passes.
What you don't bother to mention is that an explanation is not part of what I claimed to be offering. 4Dumbass asked for a 'cause', not an 'explanation'. There is a huge difference between those. What you're claiming is that when someone asks why nuclear power plants produce power, the valid response "because the nuclear activity heats water, which turns a steam turbine" somehow gives the person asking the question an understanding of nuclear power generation. It does not.
In the same vein, I am not attempting to give 4Dumbass or csezlaw or even you an explanation of anything, all three of you have proven time and time again that you will reject any explanation which you don't like.
Anyone who bothers to read those links you provided to try and discredit me is just going to see that I wasn't doing what you're sitting here claiming I was doing.
You're a retard, you know that? You consistently prove that you have nothing better to do but stalk and insult anyone who disagrees with you, even if that means lying in order to do so. You continually prove yourself to be a dishonest hypocrite, and the part that makes you a retard is that you have no idea that you're doing it.
So tell me, jackass, why do you spend so much time and effort on me? I mean, you follow me from thread to thread making what I'm sure you think are witty comments, always trying to insult and discredit... Why don't you concern yourself with someone else from time to time? I mean, it's a little flattering to get so much attention, but at the same time, it's pretty freaky. It's not normal behavior to focus on one person to the point of obsession.
If this was real life, I'd take out a restraining order on you, but since this is just the internet, it doesn't bother me. After all, no matter how many times I show you to be a psychotic looser, you still can't break into my house with a gun.
QUOTE (Mollypants+)
Smaller, due to length contraction and equivalency.
I actually thought your answer wasn't too bad.
My answer..
Assuming we agree that the atomic clock in the lower cabin appears slow from the upper cabin (Pound-Rebka):-
The frequency of whatever it is that makes the clock_lower tick must be lower.
We know the velocity of a wave is v = frequency x wavelength
For an EM wave v=c = frequency x wavelength
If the frequency is lower then the wavelength must be greater. Since wavelength has dimensions of length and we know the laws of physics are everywhere the same .. every other length must be greater - so I conclude the lower cabin must be bigger [ than the upper cabin ].
I invite you to explain your (editcontrasting) conclusion - without mentioning guns (if possible).
-C2.
Edit .. I think Flyinbuttressnman is right .. the frequncy of the lower clock will be higher .. this makes the cabin smaller.
I actually thought your answer wasn't too bad.
My answer..
Assuming we agree that the atomic clock in the lower cabin appears slow from the upper cabin (Pound-Rebka):-
The frequency of whatever it is that makes the clock_lower tick must be lower.
We know the velocity of a wave is v = frequency x wavelength
For an EM wave v=c = frequency x wavelength
If the frequency is lower then the wavelength must be greater. Since wavelength has dimensions of length and we know the laws of physics are everywhere the same .. every other length must be greater - so I conclude the lower cabin must be bigger [ than the upper cabin ].
I invite you to explain your (edit
-C2.
Edit .. I think Flyinbuttressnman is right .. the frequncy of the lower clock will be higher .. this makes the cabin smaller.
QUOTE (Confused2+Aug 5 2009, 01:13 PM)
this makes the cabin smaller.
No, it doesn't.
No, it doesn't.
Hi Flyingbuttressman,
Now give YOUR reasons (Edit explanation/cause/whatever) ..
After a few minutes of doubt .. I'm back to claiming lower gravitational potential causes clocks to appear to run slower
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation
"Clocks which are far from massive bodies (or at higher gravitational potentials) run faster,"
-C2.
Now give YOUR reasons (Edit explanation/cause/whatever) ..
After a few minutes of doubt .. I'm back to claiming lower gravitational potential causes clocks to appear to run slower
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation
"Clocks which are far from massive bodies (or at higher gravitational potentials) run faster,"
-C2.
QUOTE (Confused2+Aug 5 2009, 01:13 PM)
I actually thought your answer wasn't too bad.
Of course, because it agreed with you.
Never mind the fact that my answer was unverifiable, technically inaccurate and based on an extremely limited interpretation of an extremely limited form of GR. Obviously, you can't recognize taunting and mockery unless it's made clear to you.
The truth is that the smaller cabin would only appear smaller, and then only by such a very small degree that it would take an incredible level of accuracy to measure it, and it would have to be done using techniques which are currently (and likely always will be) beyond our capabilities.
In all reality, and to all known methods of measurement: Both cabins are actually the same size.
All of which basically ignores the whole concept of time dilation. Congrats on proving you can't do your own simple thought experiment using a basic qualitative understanding of relativity.
All of which basically ignores the whole concept of time dilation. Congrats on proving you can't do your own simple thought experiment using a basic qualitative understanding of relativity.
I invite you to explain your (editcontrasting) conclusion - without mentioning guns (if possible).
A wonderful straw man implication. You're very good at making a fool of yourself.
So tell me, what new principles of logic and philosophy have you deemed to be "nonsense" lately? I'm still laughing at you over that one...
Of course, because it agreed with you.
Never mind the fact that my answer was unverifiable, technically inaccurate and based on an extremely limited interpretation of an extremely limited form of GR. Obviously, you can't recognize taunting and mockery unless it's made clear to you.
The truth is that the smaller cabin would only appear smaller, and then only by such a very small degree that it would take an incredible level of accuracy to measure it, and it would have to be done using techniques which are currently (and likely always will be) beyond our capabilities.
In all reality, and to all known methods of measurement: Both cabins are actually the same size.
QUOTE
Assuming we agree that the atomic clock in the lower cabin appears slow from the upper cabin (Pound-Rebka):- The frequency of whatever it is that makes the clock_lower tick must be lower. We know the velocity of a wave is v = frequency x wavelength For an EM wave v=c = frequency x wavelength If the frequency is lower then the wavelength must be greater. Since wavelength has dimensions of length and we know the laws of physics are everywhere the same .. every other length must be greater - so I conclude the lower cabin must be bigger [ than the upper cabin ].
All of which basically ignores the whole concept of time dilation. Congrats on proving you can't do your own simple thought experiment using a basic qualitative understanding of relativity.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Assuming we agree that the atomic clock in the lower cabin appears slow from the upper cabin (Pound-Rebka):- The frequency of whatever it is that makes the clock_lower tick must be lower. We know the velocity of a wave is v = frequency x wavelength For an EM wave v=c = frequency x wavelength If the frequency is lower then the wavelength must be greater. Since wavelength has dimensions of length and we know the laws of physics are everywhere the same .. every other length must be greater - so I conclude the lower cabin must be bigger [ than the upper cabin ]. |
All of which basically ignores the whole concept of time dilation. Congrats on proving you can't do your own simple thought experiment using a basic qualitative understanding of relativity.
I invite you to explain your (edit
A wonderful straw man implication. You're very good at making a fool of yourself.
So tell me, what new principles of logic and philosophy have you deemed to be "nonsense" lately? I'm still laughing at you over that one...
QUOTE (Mollypants+)
All of which basically ignores the whole concept of time dilation.
Now I'm interested - what do you think the concept of time dilation actually is?
Now I'm interested - what do you think the concept of time dilation actually is?
QUOTE (Confused2+Aug 5 2009, 02:16 PM)
Now I'm interested - what do you think the concept of time dilation actually is?
Why do we even try with you?
Why do we even try with you?
QUOTE (Flyingbuttressman+)
Why do we even try with you?
OK .. anyone else..
A star falls into a black hole .. at the EH does it
1/ Become a point
2/ Totally surround the BH
3/ Something else
4/ Don't care.
Incidentally .. Trout seems to be able to do a lot using SR and the equivalence principle .. that's why I thought Mollypants might be on to something.
-C2.
OK .. anyone else..
A star falls into a black hole .. at the EH does it
1/ Become a point
2/ Totally surround the BH
3/ Something else
4/ Don't care.
Incidentally .. Trout seems to be able to do a lot using SR and the equivalence principle .. that's why I thought Mollypants might be on to something.
-C2.
QUOTE (Confused2+Aug 5 2009, 08:16 PM)
OK .. anyone else..
A star falls into a black hole .. at the EH does it
1/ Become a point
2/ Totally surround the BH
3/ Something else
4/ Don't care.
Incidentally .. Trout seems to be able to do a lot using SR and the equivalence principle .. that's why I thought Mollypants might be on to something.
I think that a star falling into a black hole is like the death of a human being. A soul is being extinguished and is falling into the blackness. Maybe the star is reborn as a new universe inside the black hole? Who knows?
A star falls into a black hole .. at the EH does it
1/ Become a point
2/ Totally surround the BH
3/ Something else
4/ Don't care.
Incidentally .. Trout seems to be able to do a lot using SR and the equivalence principle .. that's why I thought Mollypants might be on to something.
I think that a star falling into a black hole is like the death of a human being. A soul is being extinguished and is falling into the blackness. Maybe the star is reborn as a new universe inside the black hole? Who knows?
That's just beautiful.
QUOTE (Confused2+Aug 5 2009, 08:41 PM)
That's just beautiful.
Thanks!
Thanks!
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.