Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Electronics_101] Re: SCIENCE ANALOGIES

Expand Messages
  • Jim Purcell
    manifold, ... But I know more about black holes by understanding about gravity than the other way around. The purpose of such an analog is to make the complex
    Message 1 of 20 , Dec 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      manifold,

      > science fiction that can then be used to describe more "down to
      > earth" phenomenon like the gravity of a planet.

      But I know more about black holes by understanding about gravity than the
      other way around. The purpose of such an analog is to make the complex or
      mysterious less complex.

      > The dimple is the analogy that I wanted to come across.

      What's wrong with 'dimple'? :-)

      > So here we are on a planet with gravity living in curved space.

      Sorry, but I'm just bonehead enough to want to use the simple
      or familiar to explain the complex rather than the other way
      around.

      Jim
    • d nixon
      ... What, you haven t seen demonstrations of curved space with a piece of stretched fabric and a couple of balls? -Mike ...
      Message 2 of 20 , Dec 1, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        >Interesting idea. It seems to me that there is no analogy
        >for gravity, we understand how it acts but not why.

        What, you haven't seen demonstrations of curved space with a piece of
        stretched fabric and a couple of balls?

        -Mike


        >From: Jim Purcell <jpurcell@...>
        >Reply-To: Electronics_101@yahoogroups.com
        >To: Electronics_101@yahoogroups.com
        >Subject: Re: [Electronics_101] SCIENCE ANALOGIES
        >Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 18:25:52 -0600
        >
        >R. E. H.,
        >
        > > I am interested in visible analogies for invisible natural
        > > forces such as gravity and electricity.
        >
        >Interesting idea. It seems to me that there is no analogy
        >for gravity, we understand how it acts but not why. No one
        >needs to be told that things drop toward the earth if they
        >have nothing to support them.
        >
        >Electricity on the other hand can be explained in part
        >using the flow of water in a pipe as an analogy. It's not
        >perfect, for example, if a wire breaks the current stops, if
        >a pipe breaks the water spills on the floor. But water is
        >somewhat analogous to electricity. Voltage is like water
        >pressure, current like flow rate, i.e. cubic feet/minute.
        >Current's time base is of course, a second instead of a
        >minute. Resistance is like the friction in a pipe, although
        >we don't often think about pipe friction even though it is
        >there. The size of a pipe affects the rate of water flow as
        >wire size affects the amount of safe current.
        >
        >One drastic difference is that a wire provides the electrons
        >that move through it, while a pipe must have water pumped
        >into it.
        >
        >How's that?
        >
        >Jim


        _________________________________________________________________
        Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
      • Jim Purcell
        Mike, ... I find it difficult to imagine that this would help much. Actually I have this theory that so much science these days is so theoretical, with
        Message 3 of 20 , Dec 1, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Mike,

          > >It seems to me that there is no analogy
          > >for gravity, we understand how it acts but not why.
          >
          > What, you haven't seen demonstrations of curved space with a piece of
          > stretched fabric and a couple of balls?

          I find it difficult to imagine that this would help much. Actually I have this
          theory that so much science these days is so theoretical, with
          'proofs' based on circumstantial evidence that I take a lot of it with a grain
          of salt, like curved space, black holes, alternate universes, and evolution.
          Not saying that I believe these to be incorrect, just that they take more
          faith than I have to accept the theories at face value.

          Jim
        • tkgk9@hotmail.com
          ... Its easier to belive that God created the universe in 7 days, than the current theoretical science.....ain t it Jim :) Regards, CRG
          Message 4 of 20 , Dec 1, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In Electronics_101@y..., Jim Purcell <jpurcell@w...> wrote:

            > Not saying that I believe these to be incorrect, just that they take > more
            > faith than I have to accept the theories at face value.

            Its easier to belive that God created the universe in 7 days, than the current theoretical science.....ain't it Jim :)

            Regards,
            CRG
          • tkgk9@hotmail.com
            ... Wonderful Manifold......!! That really is a beautiful analogy! I wonder.....do they use this to talk more about gravity in the school? They should in my
            Message 5 of 20 , Dec 1, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In Electronics_101@y..., "manifold" <manifold_1@y...> wrote:

              > The marble is travelling a straight line
              > through 'curved' space. You see it take a curved path.
              >
              > Does that help?

              Wonderful Manifold......!!

              That really is a beautiful analogy! I wonder.....do they use this to talk more about gravity in the school? They should in my opinion.

              Regards,
              CRG
            • Jim Purcell
              CRC, ... No, I m an equal opportunity disbeliever. I don t just accept the theory that is slightly more credible. A theory is a theory, not a fact. Jim
              Message 6 of 20 , Dec 1, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                CRC,

                > > Not saying that I believe these to be incorrect, just that they take > more
                > > faith than I have to accept the theories at face value.
                >
                > Its easier to belive that God created the universe in 7 days, than the current theoretical science.....ain't it Jim :)

                No, I'm an equal opportunity disbeliever. I don't just accept the theory that is slightly more credible. A theory is a
                theory, not a fact.

                Jim
              • Jim Purcell
                CRC, ... Never saw a marble take a curved path. Jim
                Message 7 of 20 , Dec 1, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  CRC,

                  > > The marble is travelling a straight line
                  > > through 'curved' space. You see it take a curved path.
                  > >
                  > > Does that help?

                  Never saw a marble take a curved path.

                  Jim
                • tkgk9@hotmail.com
                  Jim, Its CRG not CRC.....although what s in a name?? ... Easy to see one Jim.....do you play golf? or ever seen golf on TV ? That should help. Else I can tell
                  Message 8 of 20 , Dec 1, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Jim,

                    Its CRG not CRC.....although what's in a name??

                    --- In Electronics_101@y..., Jim Purcell <jpurcell@w...> wrote:

                    > Never saw a marble take a curved path.
                    >
                    > Jim

                    Easy to see one Jim.....do you play golf? or ever seen golf on TV ?

                    That should help. Else I can tell you a few simple experiments that can be show a curving marble. We, surely, are not talking about the curved pitching of a baseball.

                    Regards,
                    CRG
                  • Jim Purcell
                    CRG, ... Never played golf, don t watch it on TV. But I guess I see what you are talking about but this still turns out to be an explanation of curved space
                    Message 9 of 20 , Dec 1, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      CRG,


                      > > Never saw a marble take a curved path.
                      >
                      > Easy to see one Jim.....do you play golf? or ever seen golf on TV ?

                      Never played golf, don't watch it on TV. But I guess I see what you are talking about but this still turns out to be an explanation of curved space based on gravity
                      rather than the other way around. As if there is some other gravitational center around which object might go in an elliptical path.

                      Jim
                    • tkgk9@hotmail.com
                      Jim, ... True, the path is elliptical for the object. But now, do a thought experiment (as a theoretician would exclaim! ;)) change the point-of-reference
                      Message 10 of 20 , Dec 1, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Jim,

                        --- In Electronics_101@y..., Jim Purcell <jpurcell@w...> wrote:

                        >As if there is some other gravitational center around which object >might go in an elliptical path.

                        True, the path is elliptical for the object.

                        But now, do a thought experiment (as a theoretician would exclaim! ;)) change the "point-of-reference" and....."become" the object.
                        The path is now pretty straight for 'you'. (Especially, since 'you' are but a 'point', and the radius of curvature infinitely large!)

                        What appears as a straight path for the 'object' is actually curved from a different, more "universal" view-point.

                        OK....that's how far the analogy would go. You are right. The analogy would fall apart when we look at the "other" gravitational center.

                        Regards,
                        CRG

                        PS: Talking about "points-of-view", I recall a quote from a book:

                        What's the end-of-world for a caterpillar
                        The Master call a Butterfly!!
                      • tkgk9@hotmail.com
                        Jim, ... I guess, the trick is to see it the other-way-round .....and imagine the uni-directional force that keeps the ball gravitating towards the
                        Message 11 of 20 , Dec 1, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Jim,

                          --- In Electronics_101@y..., Jim Purcell <jpurcell@w...> wrote:
                          > but this still turns out to be an explanation of curved space based > on gravity rather than the other way around.

                          I guess, the "trick" is to "see" it the "other-way-round".....and imagine the uni-directional 'force' that keeps the ball 'gravitating' towards the 'dimple's centre'.

                          Oh! the famous trick of theoreticians...."imagine squareroot of 2 is a "real number".......recall that one?

                          Regards,
                          CRG
                        • Jim Purcell
                          CRG, ... First off, I do not know that the path is curved in the big picture. That may be a theory, and besides, aren t we getting way off topic here? Jim
                          Message 12 of 20 , Dec 1, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            CRG,

                            > But now, do a thought experiment (as a theoretician would exclaim! ;)) change the "point-of-reference" and....."become" the object.
                            > The path is now pretty straight for 'you'. (Especially, since 'you' are but a 'point', and the radius of curvature infinitely large!)

                            First off, I do not know that the path is curved in the big picture. That may be a theory, and besides, aren't we getting way off topic
                            here?

                            Jim
                          • Jim Purcell
                            CRG, ... Nope, now you are going far afield from my experience, education and understanding. I am not a EE. I did teach electronics but I started before the
                            Message 13 of 20 , Dec 1, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              CRG,

                              > Oh! the famous trick of theoreticians...."imagine squareroot of 2 is a "real number".......recall that one?

                              Nope, now you are going far afield from my experience, education and understanding. I am not a EE. I did teach electronics but I started before the school started trying
                              to get everyone to get a bachelors degree. The school only grants associate degrees. I got in on 25 years of experience and a college course every so often.

                              Jim
                            • tkgk9@hotmail.com
                              Jim, ... Right you are! End of discussion :) Regards, CRG
                              Message 14 of 20 , Dec 1, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Jim,

                                --- In Electronics_101@y..., Jim Purcell <jpurcell@w...> wrote:
                                > aren't we getting way off topic here?

                                Right you are! End of discussion :)

                                Regards,
                                CRG
                              • d nixon
                                ... The squareroot of 2 *is* a real number. It s not a *rational* number. -Mike ... _________________________________________________________________ Get your
                                Message 15 of 20 , Dec 2, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  >Oh! the famous trick of theoreticians...."imagine squareroot of 2 is a
                                  >"real number".......recall that one?

                                  The squareroot of 2 *is* a real number. It's not a *rational* number.

                                  -Mike



                                  >From: tkgk9@...
                                  >Reply-To: Electronics_101@yahoogroups.com
                                  >To: Electronics_101@yahoogroups.com
                                  >Subject: [Electronics_101] Re: SCIENCE ANALOGIES...a better one
                                  >Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 03:53:00 -0000
                                  >
                                  >Jim,
                                  >
                                  >--- In Electronics_101@y..., Jim Purcell <jpurcell@w...> wrote:
                                  > > but this still turns out to be an explanation of curved space based >
                                  >on gravity rather than the other way around.
                                  >
                                  >I guess, the "trick" is to "see" it the "other-way-round".....and imagine
                                  >the uni-directional 'force' that keeps the ball 'gravitating' towards the
                                  >'dimple's centre'.
                                  >
                                  >Oh! the famous trick of theoreticians...."imagine squareroot of 2 is a
                                  >"real number".......recall that one?
                                  >
                                  >Regards,
                                  >CRG
                                  >


                                  _________________________________________________________________
                                  Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
                                • tkgk9@hotmail.com
                                  ... Ooooops! Thanks for correction. Regards, CRG
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Dec 2, 2001
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In Electronics_101@y..., "d nixon" <dnixon9@h...> wrote:
                                    > The squareroot of 2 *is* a real number. It's not a *rational*

                                    Ooooops!

                                    Thanks for correction.

                                    Regards,
                                    CRG
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.