I am plagued by questions of the universe - page 4
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
See also in future editions of our programme:
The trinkets and fits of universal gravitation.
The fig leaves of the theory of relativity.
Hocus-pocus of quantum theory.
Catch-up with heat.
Skittles with electricity.
P.S.
- Why does the electric motor rotor spin? - asks the examiner.
- An electric motor has windings! - the student answers.
- Windings? Well, a soldering iron has windings too. Why doesn't it turn then?
- The soldering iron has no bearings!
And there are also disorders in the brain (as we understand it) where people can taste colours. Or hear them.
... Imagine there is a common visualizer for all of us. :)
Imagine that's about right. :)
A quote from "The Grim Reaper":
The balls had properties:
They could dance!
But they didn't dance on their own,
But by a given program.
And that program was
Witty, hilarious!
For example, in order to begin this merry dance one had to group the balloons on the screen so that blue balloons would dominate in one place and red in another. Then "let them go" and let them "be themselves". And - mama dear! - The balls began to move in such a way as to equalise the amounts of blue and red in all places on the screen. Those who watched the marvelous spectacle had the impression that balls of different colours attracted each other and balls of the same colour repelled each other. But that was not all! One could forcibly arrange the collective movement of balls of the same colour - for example, along some closed curve. And - mama dear! - The neighbouring balls, left to themselves, tried, if possible, to compensate for this forced colour flow. If blue balls were forced to move, the free red balls curved their movement so that they moved in the opposite direction to the blue flow, and the free blue balls - on the contrary, in the opposite direction. It seemed that, in addition to the action of the resting balls on each other, the moving balls also acted on each other. It all makes sense: if static action tries to eliminate the static separation of blue and red, then dynamic action tries to compensate for the blue or red fluxes.
And so, there was a Dremya user sitting on one Terminal. He saw these dancing balls and nearly lost his mind. He played and played, but could not get enough of it. Seeing only the monitor and not suspecting that the dancing balls were made by the program, the user was deeply convinced that the property of the balls themselves is to work on each other. Having uncommon inquisitive mind, the Prodigal user started to think - what are the properties of balls that create forces making them dance. The user worked his fingers to the bone. He worked his inquisitive mind to the point of steaming out of his ears. What's the use? Pity the poor guy, he tried in vain. It was not about the properties of the balls. The balloons had only one colour: blue or red. But that property didn't give rise to any powers. The colour of the balloon was only a sign for the program, which ruled the blue balloons this way and the red ones that way...".
ITAK: Ladies and gentlemen! (Ta-da-da-mm!!!) For the first time in the arena of this circus! A strategic mistake in modern physics
kindergarten - read all the way to "God doesn't play dice!" He plays programming!" and quit.
Physics gave its answers to all this a long time ago. For example, the anthropic principle was formulated a long time ago to "Here you may ask - why are the properties like this and not others?".
Any fool who studied physics at school can scribble such an article. And it will turn out the better, the less he knows physics.
Sounds like "didn't read it because it's bullshit"... that's fucking logical.
I'd recommend reading it.
Sounds like "didn't read it because it's bullshit"... that's logical shit.
well, if you start reading and the first "fact" of it is a lie - what credibility is there in the text?
The anthropic principle of not knowing physics is not possible.
Either kindergarten or, more likely, the author is a physicist who deliberately trolls.
Nonsense. They claim a lot of things and we're still burning hydrocarbons.
Same nonsense. Dark matter was invented (as well as neutrinos) to make ends meet somehow on the "law" of conservation of energy.We used to. We already are.
So: Ladies and gentlemen! (Ta-da-da-da!!!) For the first time in the arena of this circus! A strategic mistake in modern physics
I read the article with great interest, but here's where I can't agree with the authors
Here, it is considered proven that electricity in metals is carried by free electrons. That's true, but it's far from the whole truth. In the best conductors, even at limiting currents, the speed of movement of a swarm of free electrons does not exceed a few millimeters per second [P1,K1]. Now imagine: a long two-wire line with a discharged capacitor connected to the far leads. Suddenly, we apply DC voltage to the nearer pins. It is well known: after this application, the voltage on the capacitor (reduced due to the voltage drop on the line) will appear lightning-fast - after a time equal to the length of the line divided by the speed of light.
First of all, of course, the first electron from the battery will not reach the capacitor. You've seen a train move. In fact, there's a nudge from the next one to the previous one. It's well known: after this nudge, the voltage on the capacitor willappear lightning fast . But no way, transients have never been cancelled))))
Sounds like "I didn't read it because it's bullshit"... that's logical, man.
I'd recommend reading it.
I'll let you in on the great secret of modern physics, chemistry and engineering:
"and the fundamental contradictions in the theories have not been eliminated" - and they will NEVER be eliminated. Because a single consistent theory of everything is now or never will be possible. This, by the way, has also long since been spelled out in the sociology of knowledge.
But there have been attempts - Einstein tried to create a unified and consistent field theory in his old age, and Newton went into the interpretation of the Apocalypse in his old age
Stopped by this site, bored. No interesting topics. It used to be more interesting. So I decided to diversify the topics a bit. That's why I can't calm down with such incomprehensible worldviews. Maybe somebody can help me understand it.
Misunderstanding #1. Scientists say the universe is expanding, galaxies are scattering in different directions. What about the stars - are they spreading out too? What about planets? Atoms? I saw a documentary. A scientist was demonstrating how the universe is expanding. He drew circles of galaxies on a rubber square. Then he pulled the corners. The circles scattered. Then combined one circle before stretching with the same circle after stretching and showed how all the other circles ran away from our circle. And the farther the circle was from ours, the farther it ran away. It all made sense. But the circles also increased in size in such an experiment. So we're all expanding, our atoms are scattering, etc. But if everything in the universe is increasing in size, then our ruler, by which we measure the distance, also grows in proportion to everything. So any distance measured by our growing ruler does not change. Thus, it is impossible to measure the expansion of the Universe, as any standard (ruler) of such measurement also grows. It turns out that the universe is not expanding, at least from the point of view of an observer inside this universe. Maybe someone can clarify. Then I will ask the second, more difficult question.
Nonsense. They claim a lot of things and we're still burning hydrocarbons.
Same nonsense. Dark matter was invented (like neutrinos) to at least make ends meet on the "law" of conservation of energy.We used to. We already are.
So: Ladies and gentlemen! (Ta-da-da-da!!!) For the first time in the arena of this circus! A strategic mistake in modern physics