|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..12~13~14~15~16..20..23..26..29..30~31~32 [Next] | ||||||||||
gaddy Inner circle Agent of Chaos 3526 Posts |
The transistor is a device that could not exist if the inventor did not have the science of quantum mechanics to use in it's construction. The the behavior of the movement of electrons through a substrate (what a semi-conductor does) must be understood before such a device can even be conceived of. This is a basic precept of the quantum theory.
Even the use of vacuum tubes as diodes and triodes rely on an understanding of the photoelectric effect, theorized in 1905. Before that, inventors had used vacuum tubes to transmit radio waves, but did not have much understanding of how those waves functioned, but only that they could be produced as a byproduct of their use of electrical currents. I'm really not interested in going into many details here, because my knowledge of the subject isn't very deep. Quote: On 2010-12-03 19:55, Carrie Sue wrote:
*due to the editorial policies here, words on this site attributed to me cannot necessarily be held to be my own.*
|
|||||||||
Destiny Inner circle 1429 Posts |
"Until we die and discover the Truth"
How can someone who strenuously advocates against social security, while quietly receiving it themselves for a decade, lecture us about truth? Is truth for everyone, or just other people? |
|||||||||
gaddy Inner circle Agent of Chaos 3526 Posts |
Quote: OK, technically the vacuum tubes themselves didn't do the transmitting. I did mention that my practical knowledge on this subject wasn't extremely deep, thus my ineptness attempting to explain it.On 2010-12-03 20:39, gaddy wrote:
*due to the editorial policies here, words on this site attributed to me cannot necessarily be held to be my own.*
|
|||||||||
Carrie Sue Veteran user Auburn, MI 332 Posts |
OK, I can understand how knowing how subatomic and sub-subatomic particles do what they do is important to technological invention.
Any speculation on the evolution of the cosmos for however many billion years, however, is just that. You can't prove the past scientifically because we don't have the past, and there was no one there to record the events when they happened, or to transmit those records to us. In a Big Bang sense at any rate. Carrie |
|||||||||
gaddy Inner circle Agent of Chaos 3526 Posts |
But we do have the past, and something was there to record the big bang -the universe itself.
The light and radiations that are bombarding the earth and our telescopes right now is the very same light/radiation that was emitted in those first moments of the universe's creation. We understand that through Relativity. We are actually looking at the big bang moments after the event when we look at the cosmic background radiation. Before that, the only way to understand what happened in the very first moments is to recreate the conditions of those moments, because the scale of the events that took place then were only observable on a subatomic level. Of course even when we can finally do that at will, we will still run up against a wall in that we can only observe physical reality to a certain resolution- the width of an electron, if I'm not mistaken... Quote: On 2010-12-03 20:57, Carrie Sue wrote:
*due to the editorial policies here, words on this site attributed to me cannot necessarily be held to be my own.*
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
What's this fuss about "truth" as regards what we know about the universe?
We've seen some things. We've made some darn good predictive models and every so often find something surprising that gets us to go and revise our models. ? and that's the truth.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Carrie Sue Veteran user Auburn, MI 332 Posts |
See, you subscribe to the idea that looking far into the depths of the cosmos is looking backward in time, and I simply don't accept that.
A couple scientific facts from the Creationist side: If Einstein was correct and space is curved, light could travel across a 15 billion light-year distance in a few thousand years. Space is not a true vacuum. As light travels across it will eventually hit a gas or dust particle. When it does, the object will heat up and re-emit light at a warmer or redder wavelength, thus making the light appear as though red shift had taken place when it has truly not. Einstein also said that light is bent by the force of gravity as it travels by "heavy objects" meaning stars and galaxies. Today we know he was correct. If the speed of light is a constant, when light is bent it must travel a greater distance, and in order to maintain speed it must shift to a redder (a longer) wavelength. This produces red shift without an expanding universe. The speed of light is not a true constant because it has been manipulated in the lab. Measurements of the speed of light over the past 325 years could support the idea that the speed of light could have been nearly infinite less than 10,000 years ago, allowing light to traverse a 15 billion light-year distance in only a few thousand years. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that all things degrade over time. Why should light be different? If light is subjected to the effects of the Second Law, then perhaps light has slowed down in its frequency since the Creation, which would appear to us as red shift. And then there's the Gravitational Time Dilation theory proposed by Dr. Russel Humphreys (the one that makes the most sense to me). Thank you for admitting that we can only observe physical reality to the width of an electron. So if they ever created that Higgs boson at the Cern supercollider, how would they know? Carrie |
|||||||||
gaddy Inner circle Agent of Chaos 3526 Posts |
Quote: Well you know how it is Jonathan... Every scientific discovery threatens dogmatic acceptance of the previous paradigm.On 2010-12-03 21:34, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
*due to the editorial policies here, words on this site attributed to me cannot necessarily be held to be my own.*
|
|||||||||
MagicSanta Inner circle Northern Nevada 5841 Posts |
Hi! Having a long career in the semiconductor industry and having actually met most of those involved with the development of the integrated circuits(for the most part not real nice men by the way, except Bob Noyce, he was cool) I will say that the major inventions such as the transistor and integrated circuit was done by physics types not engineers and of the significant CEO's I knew all had degrees in physics and often additional engineering degrees. My dad was in nuc energy and he has both physics and engineering degrees (as well as geology). Thus, Gaddy is correct that physics was the main discipline of those dudes. The biggest brain belonged to a guy named Jack Kilby and the others being Gordon something and Bob Noyce, they were all I believe associated with Texas Instruments (Kilby not only created the IC he created the calculator and the thermal printer I believe) and also were involved with the start up of most major semiconductor companies (at least Gordon whathizname and Noyce). They all be dead.
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Carie Sue, The experimental verification has been pretty much by way of predicted energies and distributions of particle trails rather than direct observation of a particle. What one gets from the photoreceptors or photographic plates are traces of an interaction of something with the detector or emulsion. The experimenters are pretty sure of what their procedures have colliding into each other from previous work and what we're talking about is evidence which supports a model versus anything else showing up in the detectors or emulsions. From Millikan's Oil Drop experiment on - its been about using large equipment and precisely measured energies to set the stage for things to happen and then looking at the trails for particular patterns. What I'm getting at is an process of indirect measure where the energy emitted or pattern in the trails of an interaction are what was predicted by the model in question.
I guess one could convert back from energy and wavelength to particle diamter though last I heard there's no radius of an electron.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
gaddy Inner circle Agent of Chaos 3526 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-12-03 21:36, Carrie Sue wrote: Many, many learned people would disagree with you, and not simply for ideological reasons. Quote: This makes no sense to me.
Quote: That's not really the way light and heat radiation is transmitted. You seem to be describing some sort of cosmic executive kinetic ball sculpture.Space is not a true vacuum. As light travels across it will eventually hit a gas or dust particle. When it does, the object will heat up and re-emit light at a warmer or redder wavelength, thus making the light appear as though red shift had taken place when it has truly not. Quote: Again, that's not the way light moves through space/time. You seem to be describing light as zooming along, like a muscle-car tearing through the desert with the engine sound whining, doppler-shifting to a lower frequency. The "curvature" of space described does not result in a longer distance traveled. Take the example of a black hole. The infinite curvature of the event horizon does not cause the light that gets trapped in it's gravity well to move a longer distance, it merely seems to move slower, relative to our perspective.Einstein also said that light is bent by the force of gravity as it travels by "heavy objects" meaning stars and galaxies. Today we know he was correct. If the speed of light is a constant, when light is bent it must travel a greater distance, and in order to maintain speed it must shift to a redder (a longer) wavelength. This produces red shift without an expanding universe. Quote: LOL! Well, I'm not sure the observational powers of scientists 325 years ago are really the best source for measurements of something that is so ephemeral as the speed of light. I suppose we we should be thankful the constant "C" was never described in the Bible...
As far as light not being a constant over the lifespan of the universe... That sounds like mere speculation to me. Curious, but only speculation. Quote:
The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that all things degrade over time. Why should light be different? Despite mounting some of the most sophisticated experiments in history, scientists have yet to detect proton decay. Quote: To this I can only say- "Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true." -Niels Bohr
And then there's the Gravitational Time Dilation theory proposed by Dr. Russel Humphreys (the one that makes the most sense to me). Have you seen TimeCube? It's pretty awesome too! Quote: Through inference.Thank you for admitting that we can only observe physical reality to the width of an electron. So if they ever created that Higgs boson at the Cern supercollider, how would they know?
*due to the editorial policies here, words on this site attributed to me cannot necessarily be held to be my own.*
|
|||||||||
critter Inner circle Spokane, WA 2653 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-12-03 19:20, Carrie Sue wrote: "This word you keep using, I do not think it means what you think it means."
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers |
|||||||||
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5194 Posts |
Isn't a theoretical physicist an imagined one?
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Statements don't get to be called theories, or even working hypotheses, in science unless they are predictive, account for what is already known by way of measures, and more elegant in they way the computations or model works. Not only do you get the right answers calculated for known findings but you get new things predicted which one can go looking for and enough such careful explorations have found that the working hypothesis not only predicts correctly but the old working theories don't predict well in the areas explored. It's gotta be able to be applied to measuring stuff, get the old stuff right and predict new stuff that it also gets right where the existing models don't get you to the same and verified measured quantities.
That elegant aspect was an issue back when group theory and tensor models were introduced into physics. The proffered models using those tools were and are significantly more demanding than what was in use at the time. Some folks mounted an expedition to take photos during a total solar eclipse to see if the path of light is effected by nearby massive objects - and when the predictions were made using Newton's gravity and Einstein's gravity - the community was confronted with a clear difference in the predictions and the evidence came in from those plates in favor of Einstein's gravity. That's the way it works. Interestingly if you read Newton he was pretty clear about his concerns for want of an explanation for why time runs everywhere at the same rate which he took to be axiomatic and also the lack of intermediary for gravitational forces in action - in his model it just happens instantly. IMHO he knew there was more to the story. With Einstein's gravity we get a little more of the story.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
hoodrat Veteran user Southern California 388 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-12-03 16:26, Carrie Sue wrote: Is your religion one of those ones that prohibits you from dancing? Geezus..... |
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-12-03 17:20, Carrie Sue wrote: Ok, so then perhaps you should stop using something you admittedly do not understand to support your beliefs.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
gaddy Inner circle Agent of Chaos 3526 Posts |
Having read further on the Russell Humphreys theory, I must say that I find it to be a very creative expression. I don't see any credible evidence supporting it -but perhaps I'm just missing it. It would certainly make an awesome premise for a science fiction story...
PS- that "conservapedia.com" (where I assume you're getting a lot of this scientific theory. It was the first site that popped up when I googled Humphreys name) is a hoot! I'm really enjoying it! Funny, funny stuff! Mind you I'm staying FAR away from the political and religious sections...
*due to the editorial policies here, words on this site attributed to me cannot necessarily be held to be my own.*
|
|||||||||
Destiny Inner circle 1429 Posts |
"Is your religion one of those ones that prohibits you from dancing?"
I think they're ok with vertical. |
|||||||||
MagicSanta Inner circle Northern Nevada 5841 Posts |
That reminds me of the old joke:
"Why don't Baptist make love standing up?: Answer: "Someone might think they are dancing" |
|||||||||
Destiny Inner circle 1429 Posts |
I must be too young to have heard that Santa - very good.
Glad you like my new avatar - I was asked to MC the Same Sex Marriage Equality Rally in City Place in Cairns and while I've never had much interest in the topic, of late I have been convinced in favour of same sex marriage by the arguments of those who oppose it. I was worried that it looks like I am at a pulpit, though it is in fact a stone lectern draped in the Rainbow Flag. I'm totally off-topic here but I long ago learnt that once Carrie Sue entered a discussion a predictable ritual of cliched dogma versus ignored rebuttal ensued, and any rational discussion ceased. Rather than run in a circle chasing my tail I limit my contributions to cheap shots from the sidelines. |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Discovery of extraterristrial life? (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..12~13~14~15~16..20..23..26..29..30~31~32 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.07 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |