Please note that the PhilPapers forums will be closed in March 2017 and replaced by a newer, more modern feature shortly thereafter. To minimize disruption, we have now disabled the creation of new threads. We encourage forum participants to wrap up discussions before March.

Philosophy of Physical Science


 1 - 14 / 14 
2017-01-03
Dear Mr&Ms.

I don't know how can I start, then i said: Wittgenstein in TLP, said that time is work of chronometer.
I thought that this could be expressed by formula.I propose this formula below:

P/M = Tw   - This is time in which object "a" going way "z". It is simple and i said that is time of way.

But

If we want to have formula for time understood as working chronometer, we need minimum two objects, then:

 amp((P1/M1) + (P2/M2)) = Tc

In variables:

amp(x1/m1+...x2/m2+...xn/mn)/mo= Tc

Dictionary:

P - speed of object
M- meters
amp - amplitude
Tw - Time of way ex. car go in road in 40 sec.
Tc - Time understood as chronometer ex. 1 sec or quantum of actions
x - speed of object
m - distance
mo - distance between objects

Configuration is rearrengment objects in space. When appear move, then time appear too, but to came time,we need space, object and move. "Move" came when object change his position in space under the influence of power.

With regards and hope for comments,
P. A. Grabowski

2017-01-03
Dear Ms.&Mr.

On my own calculate and experiments power of gravitation is expressed by:

M+M/2M - 5% = 2,5%M + 2,5%M = PG

Dictionary:
M - Mass
PG - Power of gravitation.

It is not dynamic power but power of attraction.

I stand below, following hypothesis:

The force of gravity is 2.5% by weight.
100 kg can achieved with power 2.5 kgN
100 kg attracts with 2.5 kgN
When the force is balanced because of the distance, the body gravitate to each other as long as they are rotated.
As a result of fission  atom arises 2.5% of its mass calculated for example, in kgN
To implosion followed the mass that is reduced by fission would begin to attract, but with the outbreak of falling apart. As a result of the implosion would yield more energy than the result of cleavage.
The star which burns up and make the implosion, turns into a supernova, which is 2.5% of its weight. Supernova could be star around witch is bigger pressure, and fission give us implosion.
The star, who is falls and will be split turns into a black ho ... (read more)

2016-12-31
Did you know that many non-Christians celebrate New Year? Of course for them, and for many Christians also, it is only a happy calender event, and usually only "westernized" people really care about it. Still, it is another international aspect of a secularization process that started a very long time ago. We are very far from Anno Domini, or the Year of our Lord. But when have people ever rejected an opportunity to party? After all, they still celebrate their own religious events, including their own New Year, very often in a very different way. More traditional.
Anyway, 

Happy New Year.

Spooky!
The issue of two particles communicating with each other faster than light has divided great minds like Einstein and Bohr. It is also the most spectacular proof that Nature cannot be understood with common sense. Two particles that seem to communicate with each other beyond space and time! That is the stuff of legends and myths, and still, it looks like an undeniable scientific truth confirmed aga ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: https://philpapers.org/post/25462 Reply

2016-12-17
The Michelson Myth

"Some of the current applications of optical interferometry are accurate measurements of distances, displacements, and vibrations; tests of optical systems; studies of gas flows and plasmas; studies of surface topography; measurements of temperature, pressure, and electrical and magnetic fields; rotation sensing; high resolution spectroscopy, and laser frequency measurements. Applications being explored include high-speed all-optical logic and the detection of gravitational waves. There is little doubt that, in the near future, many more will be found."
(P. Hariharan "Basics of INTERFEROMETRY", 2007)

You know how a full moon seems to follow you everywhere you go? Well, you can recreate the same eerie experience with a piece of cardboard in which you have made a small hole. Now all you need is a window pane and a light source. I can use the street lamps I can see from my kitchen or from the living room. If I place the cardboard against the glass in such a way that I can ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: https://philpapers.org/post/25074 Reply

2016-12-11
Welcome,

I'm not sure whether what I wrote is correct, but this is my problem. Galileo make thought experiment with gravitation and calculate speed of gravitation for earth. Below my calculate. Please if You can, check it and surrender criticism.

Body weight has an effect on gravity, the bodies are heavier, the more they attracted. The sum of their masses are coupled is reduced by 5% from the sum of the bodies which are odalone from each other and interact with each other. Earth's gravity should be relativized to the weight of the body should also be taken into account air resistance. Bedding is falling more slowly than stone, single wash floating on the wind. The body is lighter, the gravity is less, because the same body separate from the planet, also gravitates to the planet. (M + O) / (V / M) = X

Dictionary: M - Mass of attracting bodies, O - Distance, V - speed attraction, M - Mass of attracting bodies, X force of gravity.

Under this link why 5% unfortunately just in polish.

Warm reg ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: https://philpapers.org/post/24914 Reply

2016-09-19
Electromagnetism or gravitomagnetism?
[See also  http://philpapers.org/post/20174
Halley's "Synopsis of the Astronomy of Comets", 1705, is an ingenious mathematical proof of the parabolic shape of a comet's path and fits those cosmic wanderers right into Newtonian Physics, but it does not explain how such paths are possible. We understand now the why of the famous "hypotheses non fingo", Newton could simply not start to imagine what such an explanation would have looked like. The only thing he could say was that his equations seemed to work. A cosmologist's nightmare.]

Ever since Faraday it has been understood that electricity and magnetism are inseparable. Electric current influences the magnetized needle of a compass, and the motion of a magnet can create an electrical current in a metal coil.
Gravity seems different not only because it always is attractive, but also because it is understood to be the reason why bodies not only move towards each other, but also orbit each other. And that i ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: https://philpapers.org/post/20546 Reply

2016-08-29

We all know Mother Nature’s gradualist ways and have coined phrases for them: “Rome was not built in a day”; “a journey of a thousand miles starts with a step”, “little drops of water make a mighty ocean”, etc. Unfortunately, some cosmologists would prefer that the universe become wealthy overnight. The universe is now 1052kg rich (i.e. about 1069J) and they want to force this wealth, our current mass estimate into the very beginning (time zero), the Planck epoch and the other early times.  Of course, Mother Nature has resisted this get-rich-quick attitude and has inflicted such versions of our Big bang model with riddles, like the flatness and singularity problems for example.

In this post, I quote from Steven Weinberg’s popular book, The First Three Minutes,

 “As the explosion continued the temperature dropped …but the temperature continued to drop, finally reaching one thousand million degrees (109K) at the end of the first three minutes. It was then cool enough for the protons and neu ... (read more)

Latest replies: Permanent link: https://philpapers.org/post/19646 Reply

2016-08-08
After the publication of this paper, I enjoyed personal communication with Aloysius Martinich and discovered that I misused if and only if in several places of this paper. The corrections are below:

The formula indicates the following:
1. A is relatively identical to the value, but A is not absolutely identical to the value.
2. B is relatively identical to the value, but B is not absolutely identical to the value.
3. The value of A is absolutely identical to the value of B.
4. A is not identical to B.
(page 135)

1. The expression 1 + 3 is relatively identical to the value 4, but 1 + 3 is not absolutely identical to 4.

2. The expression 2 + 2 is relatively identical to the value 4, but 2 + 2 is not absolutely identical to 4.
3. The value of 1 + 3 is absolutely identical to the value of 2 + 2.
4. The expression 1 + 3 is not identical to the expression 2 + 2.
(page 135)

1. The triumvir was relatively identical to Lepidus, but the triumvir was not absolutely identical to Lepidus.
2. The pontifex maximus ... (read more)

Latest replies: Permanent link: https://philpapers.org/post/18954 Reply

2016-07-08
I have come across a strange discrepancy between the claims of Simon Stevin and Einstein concerning gravitation. Well, the first is a classic thinker of the 16-17th century, while Einstein is a prodigy of the 20th. So, why should it be a problem? But then, this is not my area of expertise and I would like very much to hear from people on the know.I would greatly appreciate comments on the following post:
http://philpapers.org/post/17566

Latest replies: Permanent link: https://philpapers.org/post/17602 Reply

2015-02-19
If you have any questions or comments on "The Zygote Argument is Invalid", I would enjoy discussing them on this thread!


2014-09-25
I understand the philosophical and scientific conversations about space and time have shifted toward conversations about spacetime. Instead of following that model, I prefer to ask a common sense question about space that impacts directly on the more technical conversations we are likely to have theses days.

The question is: What, if not space, is between you and the other things around you right now? I'm talking about the furniture, objects, devices, flora or fauna or whatever happens to be about. Between you and those things there is also the atmosphere, the air that surrounds us. Air has oxygen, nitrogen and various other gasses and pollutants that compose it but we can also ask about what is between these molecules? Or inside them even? Without getting too technical, I think we all know enough about atoms to ask what is between, say the nucleus and their orbiting electrons? Or between the protons and neutrons in the nucleus? 

No matter "how far down" you might go into smalle ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: https://philpapers.org/post/9005 Reply

2011-10-06
I am posting an explanation of this on my blog. It's drawn from my eprint

The Many Computations Interpretation (MCI) of Quantum Mechanics
http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.0544

but I expect to make a shorter paper just on this more limited topic.

My question is: is the explanation I give and purpose of what I am doing clear? Comments on the validity of the ideas are also welcome. Thanks.

So far I have the following posts on it (and see the main blog for more context related to QM):

Basic idea of an implementation
http://onqm.blogspot.com/2011/10/basic-idea-of-implementation.html

The Putnam-Searle-Chalmers Theorem
http://onqm.blogspot.com/2011/10/putnam-searle-chalmers-theorem.html

Restrictions on mappings 1: Independence and Inheritance
http://onqm.blogspot.com/2011/10/restrictions-on-mappings-1-independence.html


2011-04-11
Dear all,

Lately I was wondering if there is any check on quality of review in e.g. Foundation of Physics.

A paper can be rejected on  

1. Stated dislike of the philosophy by the reviewer.
2. Claim that a proof is 'not convincing' while giving no further spoecification at all.

Does this kind of reviewing practices sound familiar to any of you?



Yours
Han Geurdes













Latest replies: Permanent link: https://philpapers.org/post/5717 Reply

2011-03-04
I ask this question from a position of profound ignorance of physics.

I would have answered the question in the title with a reflexive "of course not" until just a few minutes ago when something occured to me.

As far as I know, it's entirely possible that it was [i]physically possible[/i] for all the constants of nature could have turned out to be different. This, in turn, would have made for worlds in which the laws of physics would have appeared quite different to creatures inhabiting those worlds than ours appear to us, up until those creatures had succeeded in completing a full and correct theory of everything.

So what constraints are there on these basic constants? Are there any but mathematical constraints? If not, isn't this tantamount to saying there are none but logical constraints? If that's so, then, doesn't this imply that the physical possibilities are exactly the same as the logical possibilities?

Another way to put it: If a multiverse theory turns out to be correct in physic ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: https://philpapers.org/post/5496 Reply

 1 - 14 / 14