Stupid electronic book I'm through... help me understand

[Vizier87]

was he banned for the first post? it looks nearly harmless except for the CAPS-ed words...

 

[Hero999]

The really rude posts which contained swearing were deleted.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

The really rude posts which contained swearing were deleted.

He's banned for 24 hours.

 

[canadaelk]

Oh well, at least we know he/she is not mealy-mouthed with his/her opinion.
Foul language is the last resort of the un-educated (freely quoted from someone else)

 

[blueroomelectronics]

Most of us long time members have found themselves banned at one time or another.

 

[Bob Scott]

Oh well, at least we know he/she is not mealy-mouthed with his/her opinion.
Foul language is the last resort of the un-educated (freely quoted from someone else)

I think I'll expand on that.
A few years ago I found myself screaming swearwords out loud at my car engine whilst replacing the alternator. Nothing was going right. I tried to take a few shortcuts and it did not work. I analysed my response and finally realised that people normally don't swear unless they feel trapped, cornered like a rat with no escape. They see a situation with no exit and are FRUSTRATED.

Can't fix it? Swear
Can't argue your point successfuly? Swear.
Can't understand it? Swear.

So I slowed down, carefully thought about what was necessary to get the job done properly using the right tools and it worked.
I don't get frustrated anymore, so I don't swear anymore. I just "shift my brain into low gear", assess the problem and do what is necessary.

I see a lot of frustrated Republicans on US TV. They have lost all power and just spew threats. They've gone bonkers. eg: Glenn Beck and all of Fox News could not stop universal medicare.

 

[Hero999]

Most of us long time members have found themselves banned at one time or another.

Normally it's for being too truthful i.e. calling an idiot and idiot or something silly like that.

I swear like a trooper. I probably get it from my dad. I can normally control it, if the situation needs it but I can't if something really bad happens.

 

[Ghost of the Shadows]

Yo.
Well I've been banned for 24 hours. I've got an explosive mind.

But I already can see that many of you judge so fast, want to show you know it all and argue at anything possible.



Did I offend anyone, seems so.
Anyway.

You may laugh at me, but in Quantum Physics, we learn that electrons are not particles that behave like waves, but that those "elementary particles" are waves.

Frequencies, waves, oscillations... you know ?

Oh you can argue my dear, all the words you want, but that's what the University of Berkley teaches, in crystal-clear lessons.

Do you know just how photons are made at least... For not being particles ? Photons and Electrons are the same at some point in their time.

And it is beleived that protons and neutrons themselves would be waves, making everything a wave...

Why do you make a war out of my thread ?

I was mad at my book, because I could not understand what they tried to show.
Because they did not put enough details in the explanations and in the concepts they assume we master after 3 sentences.

I'll try to behave, not to get banned. But the guy who quoted the Dunning–Kruger effect, come on. I know I know nothing already, but projecting this and your poor contribution to this thread shows that you only wish to look like you know something.

I wish to advance and be good.

I really like electrodynamic.

edit: oh yeah, I also beleive that some stablished laws of physics can be violated, because some of the physics need to be and will be somehow re-written......

 

[canadaelk]

Guys: Any takers or should this just stop?

 

[Ghost of the Shadows]

You just need to go elsewhere than this thread.
ptit con

 

[killivolt]

You transform (not creat) energy this is what your talking about. Changes in state.

The existance of electrons, protons, positrons and negatrons. When energy is tranformed they just show up as the evidence in the release in energy or it's storage.

They show up transformed at what ever state requires them.

No different than the effect of thermodynamics on water. We could say early findings in science would have concluded only 2 states air had no visible effect. Early man would see the evidence of water to ice.

The story can and will change in our understanding of the universe. We still only have a small picture of an ever evolving knowledge.

 

[Hero999]

No doubt he's read all about that, whether he understands it or not, it another thing.

Going from his statement about the earth's rotation and orbit other thread he made but was later deleted, it's obvious he doesn't understand the laws of thermodynamics.

I agree with the Dunning Kruger effect, I admit that the example applies to me also. I used to think I knew everything because I read a few Forrest Mims books, then I grew up, went to college and joined electronics forums and I realised there were people who knew more than me.

 

[Ghost of the Shadows]

I don't beleive in man's physic laws.

I'd rather say "Ensemble of best Working formulas/theories know to this date".

But again, no I do not know that observed thermodynamic behavior yet. Is it interesting?

edit: I will go to college later, I just want a good base before I start EET. Therefor, your help.

 

[Hero999]

Do you believe in God's laws of physics?

Some quantum mechanics is flaky, I give you that, but theories such as the conservation of energy and entropy are proven.

Conservation energy is just common sense - you can't get something for nothing. Most people believe that you can't just get matter from nowhere but when the same is applied to energy some people are less convinced. This is because they can't physically see energy so it in itself is a kind of mysterious force.

The best way to visualise is is to look at the mass energy duality: matter and energy are two forms of the same thing, you can't just create matter from nowhere and the same applies to energy.

Energy actually weighs something.

[latex]E = mc^2 = m \times 229.8 \times 10^6 = m \times 89.88 \times 10^{15}[/latex]

This means that a very small mass is equivalent to a huge amount of energy.

Rearranging the formula for mass.

[latex] m = \frac{E}{c^2} = \frac{E}{89.88 \times 10^{15}[/latex]

Mass is matter in kg and c is the speed of light.

This means that, if you charge a battery, it actually gets heavier.

Suppose you charge a 5Ah battery from 3V to 4V, for simplicity we'll simplify things by assuming the efficiency is 100% and the voltage increase is linear.

How much heavier does it weigh after charging?

[latex] E = VI \times t = 5 \times 3.5 \times 3600 = 7.2 \times 10^3J [/latex]

Where:
3.5V is the average voltage (V).
I is the current.
t is time.
3600 is the number of seconds in an hour.

[latex]m = \frac {E}{c^2} = \frac{7.2 \times 10^3}{c^2} = \frac {7.2 \times 10^3}{89.88 \times 10^{15}} = 80.11 \times 10^{-15}kg = 80.11 \times 10^{-12}g[/latex]

So 7.2kJ of energy only weighs 80.11pg (on earth) which is far too small to measure, considering the battery weighs 100g.

 

[killivolt]

I don't beleive in man's physic laws.

I'd rather say "Ensemble of best Working formulas/theories know to this date".

But again, no I do not know that observed thermodynamic behavior yet. Is it interesting?

edit: I will go to college later, I just want a good base before I start EET. Therefor, your help.

It would be a good idea to empty your cup so it can be filled.

 

[Ghost of the Shadows]

Is that assuming that E=Mc² in every case?

What if light have variable speeds, and that E equals not always Mc², or a force faster than the speed of light.

The general law of energy for particles in SR is
E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4 (p is the magnitude of the three momentum), so for a massless particle (m=0 in its own frame), the second term drops out and we would have E = pc.

 

[Ghost of the Shadows]

It would be a good idea to empty your cup so it can be filled.

I'm like a sponge. And it's too damn hot in here to be wet.

Ω

 

[Hero999]

Is that assuming that E=Mc² in every case?

What if light have variable speeds, and that E equals not always Mc², or a force faster than the speed of light.

Light reaches its maximum speed in a vacuum.

E = mc² is true despite the fact that light can be slowed down so there's no reason why it shouldn't also be true if it were possible for light to travel faster than c.

No, known force travels faster than light.

The general law of energy for particles in SR is
E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4 (p is the magnitude of the three momentum), so for a massless particle (m=0 in its own frame), the second term drops out and we would have E = pc.

What are you trying to say?

 

[Ghost of the Shadows]

e=(notalways)mc2

I have a thousand more questions tho

 

[Mikebits]

e=(notalways)mc2

I have a thousand more questions tho

Of course, what was Albert Einstein thinking?