I'm probably wrong about this too but aren't the LEDs being turned on/off 60 times per sec.?
I don't wish to labour this any further, but I did just that and the 10,000 photons per pixel figure relates to how many photons it takes to record an image on a digital camera - nothing at all to do with TVs.
Imaging with a small number of photons
Sorry if I'm sounding harsh, Pete, but, having a scientific background, I am quick to pick up on numerical quantities which are unsubstantiated.
It's just something that came with the job and has, unfortunately perhaps, extended into my retirement.
Please keep challenging what I submit - some (most?) of the time it is absolute rubbish!
It's just something that came with the job and has, unfortunately perhaps, extended into my retirement.
Please keep challenging what I submit - some (most?) of the time it is absolute rubbish!
I finished the challenge of Bonsai's notions of Space/Time/Gravity:
(LIVE) Erik Verlinde Public Lecture: A New View on Gravity and the Dark Side of the Cosmos - YouTube
Whew, heavy and intense stuff from Dr. Erik Verlinde. Took me a week to wade through it. I had to adapt my ideas about 1-0 Information Theory into the Entangled +1/2 / -1/2 Quantum. And superposition.
75% of our stuff is Dark Energy, which drives Galactic expansion. 20% of or stuff is Dark Matter, which might explain rotation of Galaxies. 4.995 % is solid matter like atoms. 0.005% is photons. 😕
Much to enjoy in the free Public lecture. Most of the audience were baffled. But at the end a kid of 5 (at 1.04m) asked him a severely difficult question about Energy and Virtual Particles.
You are either a Standard Model or a String Theory person in the end. 😀
(LIVE) Erik Verlinde Public Lecture: A New View on Gravity and the Dark Side of the Cosmos - YouTube
Whew, heavy and intense stuff from Dr. Erik Verlinde. Took me a week to wade through it. I had to adapt my ideas about 1-0 Information Theory into the Entangled +1/2 / -1/2 Quantum. And superposition.
75% of our stuff is Dark Energy, which drives Galactic expansion. 20% of or stuff is Dark Matter, which might explain rotation of Galaxies. 4.995 % is solid matter like atoms. 0.005% is photons. 😕
Much to enjoy in the free Public lecture. Most of the audience were baffled. But at the end a kid of 5 (at 1.04m) asked him a severely difficult question about Energy and Virtual Particles.
You are either a Standard Model or a String Theory person in the end. 😀
The fundamental question is flawed. Prior to the linear timespace we experience there was undifferentiated Allness or source. To say prior is to delineate between liner timespace and not linear timespace, although they technically are in a super position. Once could call it "nothing" but that doesn't quite touch it as the concept comes before the ability to conceive existed. The closest literal conceptual scripture I have read to date is the Sefer Yetzriah, however, when one open their mind to creative expression all creation stories are similar and different angles on the same event. This includes the big bang, which was the "existance-ifying" of the linear timespace out of the "not that" to form the "not that and also that" as one way to say it. This is what source is as it is a "vibration" of "light" that pervades All. I generally put this into different terms for myself however with this being a group of engineers, I thought this way of communicating it would be the most effective.
Thanks for joining the discussion, but we're not all engineers or even simple scientists.
However, like you, we are all searching for the answers to the big questions. 😎
Thanks, one of the models I really like for creation is the 5 dimensional space outlined within the Sefer Yetzriah and how it fits in with the relative models we use in physics just with consciousness taken in as an aspect.
According to Britannica, the Sefer Yetzirah, or Book of Creation, is the oldest Hebrew text on cosmology.
Sefer Yetzira | Hebrew literature | Britannica
You will appreciate that, because of forum rules, we must steer clear of any religious connotations.
The thread has moved on from asking what the Universe is expanding into, and whether it was created in a Big Bang - it now hosts general discussions on the science related to the exploration and description of the Universe.
However, the answer to the first question is very simple - the Universe is expanding into itself! 😎
Last edited:
Nono - we are just on a little detour. Question remains - into what? ;-)
And yes - no religious references as per rules.
//
That's right, we're stayin' put!🙂
Speaking of which, if I'm standing right on the spin axis of Earth, there's no centrifugal force trying to throw me off. So 1000mph is pretty forceful at the Equator, right? How much of an impact does gravity have on the difference? Would I feel heavier?? How much? Must be a calculation for that,
Speaking of which, if I'm standing right on the spin axis of Earth, there's no centrifugal force trying to throw me off. So 1000mph is pretty forceful at the Equator, right? How much of an impact does gravity have on the difference? Would I feel heavier?? How much? Must be a calculation for that,
Covered in ‘Motion Mountain’. You are lighter at the equator.
Another one. If the earth did not rotate, the water at the mid and equatorial latitudes would flow out to the poles. Most of Western Europe would be under 4 kilometers of water. The reason is the mid latitudes are about 20 miles further away from the Earth’s centre of gravity. Interestingly, the Mississippi flows uphill wrt to the Earth’s centre of gravity- and it’s not insignificant at about 40 or 50 thousand feet.
So, we have much to thank a rotating Earth for!
Another one. If the earth did not rotate, the water at the mid and equatorial latitudes would flow out to the poles. Most of Western Europe would be under 4 kilometers of water. The reason is the mid latitudes are about 20 miles further away from the Earth’s centre of gravity. Interestingly, the Mississippi flows uphill wrt to the Earth’s centre of gravity- and it’s not insignificant at about 40 or 50 thousand feet.
So, we have much to thank a rotating Earth for!
Your weight at the equator is less than at the poles for two reasons.
- Because of its rotation, the Earth is not spherical, but bulges out at the equator. This means you are further from the centre of the Earth at the equator, and consequently the gravitational force on you is smaller than at the poles.
- At the equator, you will experience a centrifugal force because you are in a rotating reference frame. Since centrifugal force acts outwards from the centre of rotation, it tends to cancel out a little bit of Earth's gravity. This makes your perceived weight at the equator versus at the poles even smaller.
In addition,the Coriolis effect due to the Earth's rotation bends the direction of surface ocean currents to the right in the Northern Hemisphere and to the left in the Southern Hemisphere.
Currents | Earth Science
However, since it is not a static force, the Coriolis force does not contribute to your overall weight.
The cutting edge of Technology is actually Military stuff:
I have to be careful what I say. 🙄
But in WW1, our splendid Queen Elizabeth Class battleships were engaging the German battleships in the South Atlantic. Guns kept missing. Happily the Germans had run into similar issues. 😀
All down to the Coriolis force. As we NOW know. This was before GPS.
I have to be careful what I say. 🙄
But in WW1, our splendid Queen Elizabeth Class battleships were engaging the German battleships in the South Atlantic. Guns kept missing. Happily the Germans had run into similar issues. 😀
All down to the Coriolis force. As we NOW know. This was before GPS.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.