How to interpret these curious REAL experimental results?

Science and Technology
101

To @mrmhead.

<hr />

Let me remind only again (it is written in the explanatory text of the link Perpetual motion and reactionless drive - YouTube ) that the zigzags generate a mechanical effect (let us call this mechanical effect the X effect), (a) which is absolutely identical and equivalent to friction and (b) which does not generate heat. (We “…take gravity and friction out of equation and consideration…” as you mentioned in your last post.) And really even if the mean experimental value of force of friction inside the zigzag channels is equal to 0.0000001 N (our last experimental result), then the X effect still remains and can be clearly observed as in PART 3 of the link above.

Looking forward to your answer. (Please do not be in hurry. We are patient.)

Regards,

102

Escapism sure is easier than dealing with our Physical Reality.

 

https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/p/case-for-reality.html

OK, I’ll bite.

No matter how you look at it, in the long run “natural selection” always favors pattern integrity. This is already apparent in pre-life chemistry where “weak” atomic links will eventually be replaced by “strong” atomic links, leading to greater integrity and stability of the pattern.


 

“Probing the interface theory of perception: Reply to commentaries, by Donald D. Hoffman, Manish Singh & Chetan Prakash” -Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. volume 22, pages 1551–1576(2015)

We propose that selection favors nonveridical perceptions that are tuned to fitness. Current textbooks assert, to the contrary, that perception is useful because, in the normal case, it is veridical. Intuition, both lay and expert, clearly sides with the textbooks. We thus expected that some commentators would reject our proposal and provide counterarguments that could stimulate a productive debate. … (HSP)


Are you trying to say the second quote relates to the first.

How?

What are you seeing there?

103
This is a legitimate question: What is time and how does it become expressed?
Legitimate in what regard? Because of the human fancy to think they can dissect and know everything?

How does it relate to your life, or your day to day, or the matters of life and death and this planet Earth that produced and that supplies our life support system and that will swallow you up after you die?

 

104
What is time and how does it become expressed?
"Time is natures way of keeping everything from happening at once"
105

mrmhead, I like this one:

Time is god's way of making sure we don't bump into ourselves walking out the front door. ?
 
106

An interesting discussion takes place here, there is no doubt about this.:slight_smile:

Time. What is time? Is time only a human “invention”? Does time really exist? I have read somewhere that some “primitive” tribes have no term/definition for time. The latter does not exist for them. But are these tribes really “primitive”? Aren’t they simply closer to reality?

107

Guess it’s all in your mind.

And yet, this planet and the life it created happened. Unfolding one day at a time for the past billions of years.

Without our help.

Don’t know how to get more real than that.

 

 

If you are confused about the reality of time, might I suggest you spend a little sitting on a sea shore contemplating time and tide.

108

I take that back. Forget the contemplating part, too much temptation to get lost within your thoughts.

Just absorb it and Be.

Experience the reality of time and tide waiting for no man.

 

 

109

And what about infinitely small and infinitely large in calculus? What about infinity? The latter seems to be a problem, which cannot be solved by mathematics. Don’t you think so?

110

To @mrmhead.

<hr />

Any progress related to your evaluation of the “X effect”? The latter does not depend on the value of the force of friction Ffr inside the zigzag channels. No matter how small is Ffr the “X effect” still exists. According to our last experiments Ffr = 0.0000001 N. Therefore (a) Ffr, (b) the related generated heat and (c) the related due-to-friction experimental error (which is obviously much smaller than 1 %) can be neglected.

Looking forward to your comments.

111
What about infinity?
Since you asked.

What about infinity?

It’s a fancy notion with mathematical applications.

Mind candy.

 

How does “infinity” impact a human’s day to day activities and our actual lives?

I can’t think of anything, can you?

(Excluding fancy mathematical applications that eventually find their way into science and technical application, and sure it also bleeds into philosophical/spiritual notions. But, all that seems a few degrees removed from our day to day physical realm.)

 

No doubt, it’s fun to think about, as a kid, it could actually make me dizzy. Now a days, for me, it’s lost of its early fascination and become rather hoo hum. Perhaps because it seems to me too many have tried to make too much of it.

112

@will34ab

I haven’t had a chance to fully digest it. But now you are introducing (unless I messed it before) moving the black apparatus - the pipes. I saw it in the video, but wasn’t sure of it’s significance.

And why are there two sides of each apparatus? Couldn’t the same be demonstrated with one straight pipe and one zig-zag pipe?

Partly what I was trying to get at was:

Considering the ZigZag only - the ball moves “M” velocity along the pipe. From an external reference, the components of “M” are x=0, y > 0

When it enters the ZigZag - presuming conservation of momentum*, the ball still moves a “M” velocity ALONG the pipe - but from an external reference, x’ >0, y’ >0

Then back to the straight section where M velocity is still constant with components x’‘=0, y’’ >0

However y <> y’, but y = y’’

In your comparison Straight pipe, and to keep the balls aligned, the ball changes from y to y’ through friction.

How does the straight-pipe ball change from y’ to y’’ ?

*I’m just guessing that when we remove gravity and friction that the ball will still move at the same velocity when the pipe changes direction … ?

 

113
Time. What is time? Is time only a human “invention”? Does time really exist? I have read somewhere that some “primitive” tribes have no term/definition for time. The latter does not exist for them. But are these tribes really “primitive”? Aren’t they simply closer to reality?
IMO, time is a human invention to record the duration of events. Time emerges along with the phenomenon of continued existence of a thing or activity.

But the universal space itself has no notion of this. It is just physically impossible that events can happen at the same time in the same place. There needs be either spatial (physical) separation or temporal (chronological) separation for reality to be able to become manifest.

David Bohm called this the Implicate (inherent potential) and Explicate (expressed work) orders.

 

114
time is a human invention to record the duration of events.
I've occasionally pondered (and looked up ... and forgotten) the basis of many of our units of measure for time, temperature, distance, weight ...

I understand that now, they have specific protocols and definitions - “1 second = <x> number of flutters of a cesium crystal” … or something like that.

But that all collapses down from “24 hours in a day, 60 minutes/ hour, 60 seconds/ minute” …etc

How was it decided to divide the rotation of the earth into 24 units?

Or what is always amusing to me is the Fahrenheit scale - I don’t know/remember the basis for it. Did Mr. Fahrenheit step out of his lab one cold winter day and say “Wow! There must be Zero heat out here” and called it Zero Degrees ?

Zero for freezing and 100 for boiling (water at atmospheric pressure … yadda yadda) sure makes a heck of a lot more sense.

 

Or why is there 360 degrees in a circle? Why not KISS and just call it 100?

 

And to abstract it further - this is all based on a base-10 numeric system. I guess that makes sense from a “10 fingers” POV … how do aliens count?

 

Sorry, just another rabbit hole ?

 

115

It makes no difference how you count, as long as the counting makes logical sense and is usable for recording measurements and performing calculations, all human mathematical notation is only symbolic description of natural functions which are inherently mathematical, IMO.

That’s why human maths work. A perfect example is the different relative values of monetary denominations in different countries. They are all relative translations of the same thing.

p.s. Zero degrees for freezing and 100 degrees for boiling are Celsius measurements. Another example of relative measurements being used for different purposes.

Roger Antonsen has an entertaining lecture on mathematics and how maths can represent relative values.

 

116

I think mrm was wondering about Fahrenheit. As I have, so I looked it up. Celsius, certainly does seem to make more sense all the way around.

Engineer, physicist and glass blower, Fahrenheit (1686-1736) decided to create a temperature scale based upon three fixed temperature points – that of freezing water, human body temperature, and the coldest point that he could repeatably cool a solution of water, ice and a kind of salt, ammonium chloride. It is generally thought he chose these three points based on an older temperature scale created by Ole Christensen Rømer (1644-1710) 20 years earlier.

… According to his published article on the subject, he started with the brine and a blank thermometer; he then assigned the point where the thermometer was the lowest as 0°F. Next, he placed the thermometer in still water just as ice was beginning to form, and eventually assigned this 32°F. He then measured human body temperature and assigned this 96°F. He ultimately chose these two numbers, as opposed to 30°F (7.54) and 90°F (22.54) in no small part due to the fact that the 64 degrees between the two points made marking lines on the thermometer easier (due to the six equal intervals).

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/12/fahrenheit-scale-isnt-arbitrary-seems/

 


Wow, sounds like a hodgepodge. Using the temp. of a human body as a standard for temp, certainly seem arbitrary to me. Though it does underscore how absolutely self-centered much of our thinking is. Ice with a mix of salts, doesn’t sound much more “precise” either.

But the universal space itself has no notion of this.
Hmmm, so what does the universe have a notion of?
IMO, time is a human invention to record the duration of events.
You surprise me. CLOCKS are a human invention to record the passage of time.

Time was there all along.

Heck, how could matter have coagulated from energy after the “Big Bang” if time wasn’t happening from the beginning.

The notion that humans somehow created time, because we developed concepts that define and measure time, seems as out there (and ego centric) as thinking consciousness is something outside of the human body, rather than an emergent result of your body’s evolution and biology.

117
But the universal space itself has no notion of this.

Hmmm, so what does the universe have a notion of?


Nothing. That is like asking what do mathematics have a notion of. These are functions that require no conscious participation.

IMO, time is a human invention to record the duration of events.

You surprise me. CLOCKS are a human invention to record the passage of time.


Well yes, both time and clocks (measuring devices) are human inventions to symbolize observed natural phenomena of chronology. “Time” is a human symbolic term. Clocks are measuring devices which record the emergence of time in parallel with chronological change.

Time was there all along. Heck, how could matter have coagulated from energy after the “Big Bang” if time wasn’t happening from the beginning.
No, that's not correct. Time does not exist until it is created along with chronological change. Time began with the Big Bang (t=0). Before the BB there was no time,. only a timeless permittive condition.

There is no time in the future, it has not yet been created by the present. If time existed on its own it should be measurable, but that is not possible. You cannot measure time with time. You can only measure physical duration with time… i.e. the caesium clock, which is only usable due to it’s incredible vibrational precision.

Caesium: A brief history of timekeeping - BBC News

The clock mechanism counts a second each time it swings. Quartz plays the same role as a pendulum, just a lot quicker: it vibrates at a resonant frequency many thousands of times a second. And that's where caesium comes in. It has a far higher resonant frequency even than quartz - 9,192,631,770 Hz, to be precise.Oct 4, 2014
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29476893#

But a caesium atom does not in any way describes time, it describes the vibrational frequency of caesium.

Consider; what is a fundamental unit of time, how long is a moment? There is no answer to that question, because time does not exist until it is created by a momentous event.

The notion that humans somehow created time, because we developed concepts that define and measure time, seems as out there (and ego centric) as thinking consciousness is something outside of the human body, rather than an emergent result of your body’s evolution and biology.
No, that's not what I am saying. Human do not create universal time, the universe does. Humans create their own individual time-lines, i.e time relative to events related to human existence.

What we have named time is our observation that certain events have regular durations or recurrence. Time is a mathematical term of a natural function. The orbit of earth around the sun is a function of time. The universe doesn’t know that, we do and we have symbolized it.

118

@Citizenschallengev3

Thanks!

Brine, cold water and a human body. Sounds like the punchline of a joke. … or let’s see that answer up on a Jeopardy board!

119

A conversation on Time could drift into the philosophy of cause and effect.

I remember a philosophy class that approached it from the opposite direction - cause and effect implies time exists … or something like that

Then the next rabbit hole of what caused “The First Event”

Man invented time like Newton invented gravity. ?

 

 

120
Man invented time like Newton invented gravity.
Damn, it's nice feeling like someone is on my side. ?
 

But a caesium atom does not in any way describes time, it describes the vibrational frequency of caesium.


That’s playing with semantics.

I never said a caesium atom describes anything. Be it time, or a vibration.

That why I point to ocean waves as plenty solid enough evidence for time, vibrations are the same thing. Both, impossible without being embedded within a oneway arrow of time. I’ll bet math can’t even conjure a vibration without its time element.

 

But, I hear math can make time flow backwards. So much for representing physical reality ?

 

I think all this comes down to the good ol “Map v. Territory” problem.