Science, religion and the truth

[WhyIsThatSo]

How can say 6 psi be negative pressure?

Regards
Mikkel

It's not. The scale starts at zero, which is atmospheric pressure .
anything above is positive pressure, anything below is negative pressure (vacuum).

 

[Polymath257]

lol.....please, give me a break. This is why you will never learn anything of value in this lifetime.
I guess that's why they make "vacuum gauges" with a negative pressure scale, to measure negative pressure,
which is anything below normal atmospheric pressure ( approx. 7 lbs psi ).

Oh, and "psi" is pounds per square inch, in case you don't know.

OK, what training in physics do you have? Pressure is measured *in physics* from a pressure of 0, which is a vacuum. Atmospheric pressure is well above that (101,325 N/m^2). Your figure for atmospheric pressure is wrong: it is a bit over 14.7 psi, not just 7.

Yes, I am quite familiar with psi, but prefer the metric Pa (for Newtons per square meter).

Those vacuum gauges are measuring *relative* pressure, not absolute pressure.

 

[Polymath257]

It's not. The scale starts at zero, which is atmospheric pressure .
anything above is positive pressure, anything below is negative pressure (vacuum).

No, the actual scale starts at 0, which is a vacuum. Atmospheric pressure is a *positive* pressure of about 101,325 N/m^2, or about 14.7 psi.

The designation of atmospheric pressure as zero is a *convenience* for people who usually work in an atmosphere. Anyone who really deals with the details of pressure, though, starts with 0 as the vacuum.

In particular PV=nRT fails spectacularly if you use P=0 for atmospheric pressure.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

It's not. The scale starts at zero, which is atmospheric pressure .
anything above is positive pressure, anything below is negative pressure (vacuum).

My whole point was to show how everything in this reality works at it's most fundamental level.
Which is "forces" that are "opposed" and seeking balance or "unity".
And ALL forces are ultimately either positive (male) or negative (female) until they achieve unity.

This is actually WHY we humans are here on this planet right now, and divided in unity between male and female .

 

[Polymath257]

My whole point was to show how everything in this reality works at it's most fundamental level.
Which is "forces" that are "opposed" and seeking balance or "unity".
And ALL forces are ultimately either positive (male) or negative (female) until they achieve unity.

This is actually WHY we humans are here on this planet right now, and divided in unity between male and female .

Nope. Forces have a magnitude and a direction. They are NOT simply positive or negative. They can point any direction in three dimensions. All a 'negative force' says it that it is pointing backwards (which only makes sense in a one-dimensional setting).

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

No, the actual scale starts at 0, which is a vacuum. Atmospheric pressure is a *positive* pressure of about 101,325 N/m^2, or about 14.7 psi.

The designation of atmospheric pressure as zero is a *convenience* for people who usually work in an atmosphere. Anyone who really deals with the details of pressure, though, starts with 0 as the vacuum.

In particular PV=nRT fails spectacularly if you use P=0 for atmospheric pressure.

14.7 psi at sea level......yes,
but we all don't live and operate at sea level.
averaged out it is closer to half that.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

Nope. Forces have a magnitude and a direction. They are NOT simply positive or negative. They can point any direction in three dimensions. All a 'negative force' says it that it is pointing backwards (which only makes sense in a one-dimensional setting).

No, you don't understand what I mean by "positive and negative".
As I already stated, without positive and negative forces, nothing moves.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

Nope. Forces have a magnitude and a direction. They are NOT simply positive or negative. They can point any direction in three dimensions. All a 'negative force' says it that it is pointing backwards (which only makes sense in a one-dimensional setting).

Let's try this another way.
When you use a straw in a drink, you are "sucking" the air (atmospheric pressure) out of the straw,
as a result, the drink rushes in to fill the void (vacuum), and against gravity no less.

The air pressure in the straw is reduced ( taken away, subtracted, etc ) and is at this point "negative pressure",
then the liquid , having "air" (oxygen) is still a "positive pressure".
The liquid in the straw can even be held in place by "trapping" the vacuum (negative pressure) in the confines
of the straw, even though the weight of the liquid is much heavier than the negative air pressure (vacuum).

So the "negative force" (female) is stronger than the positive force (male)..
which is just another way of saying,
don't mess with mama....lol

 

[Polymath257]

No, you don't understand what I mean by "positive and negative".
As I already stated, without positive and negative forces, nothing moves.

No, all it takes is unbalanced forces. Forces are vectors, not numbers. As such, they are neither positive nor negative.

 

[Polymath257]

14.7 psi at sea level......yes,
but we all don't live and operate at sea level.
averaged out it is closer to half that.

And that is a positive pressure. Zero pressure is that of a vacuum.

 

[Polymath257]

Let's try this another way.
When you use a straw in a drink, you are "sucking" the air (atmospheric pressure) out of the straw,
as a result, the drink rushes in to fill the void (vacuum), and against gravity no less.

I create a lower pressure and the higher atmospheric pressure pushes the liquid through the straw.

If the air around the drink was at half the usual atmospheric pressure, then simply sucking at 3/4 atmospheric pressure would not draw liquid into the straw. To the contrary, it would push air through the straw the other way.

The air pressure in the straw is reduced ( taken away, subtracted, etc ) and is at this point "negative pressure",
then the liquid , having "air" (oxygen) is still a "positive pressure".
The liquid in the straw can even be held in place by "trapping" the vacuum (negative pressure) in the confines
of the straw, even though the weight of the liquid is much heavier than the negative air pressure (vacuum).

Not if the straw is too long, it can't. In fact, that was how atmospheric pressure was first demonstrated by Torricelli (the word torr for pressure is from his name).

If you take a column of water that is enclosed at the top, opens at the bottom into a source of water, and is over 34 feet tall, the water will NOT stay at the top. It will drop and create a vacuum at the top of the tube. The level of the water will drop to be about 34 feet. No amount of suction can make it go higher.

That height of water represents the weight of the atmosphere pushing down at the water at the bottom and making the water level rise.

By the way, the reason we use mercury for barometers is that it is much more dense than water and so is not pushed up nearly as high. You could make a water barometer (Torricelli did) but it would be 34 feet tall.

So the "negative force" (female) is stronger than the positive force (male)..
which is just another way of saying,
don't mess with mama....lol

You might want to learn a bit about atmospheric pressure.

Evangelista Torricelli - Wikipedia
Barometer - Wikipedia

 

[sayak83]

Here is a test for you. If the information and thus meaning are in the words as words, then explain this:
Linear A and Linear B | script

How come we can't read Linear A? We have the words and thus we have the information in the words. Let me give you a tip. Look for the information being somewhere else than in the words as words.

Regards
Mikkel

Actually no. Information is contained in the words, we lack the ability to translate it into the form that our mind can access.
It's easily possible to mathematically deduce whether any series of sign is nonsense or contains meaningful information, even if we can't read it out yet. That's how code breaking works.

Recommend you to read this
https://www.amazon.com/Information-History-Theory-Flood/dp/1400096235

 

[Mock Turtle]

Yes, what has value to us? But that is in part subjective.
So just because you don't understand, that something can have value to me, doesn't mean, it doesn't have value to me.
Or in reverse.
Now how to do a "we" for value is a whole other ball game.

So here it is. I place value on God differently than you. But as long as I can separate that as for me versus as for a "we", it doesn't matter that you do it differently. What matters is how we go about a "we".
So we are playing a game of useful for you, me and us. But those are not the same and that "us" you use is limited. You don't control it and neither do I. We either agree or we don't.

Regards
Mikkel

What's useful to us all essentially. We just seem to disagree on what though. Myths seem to have a higher value than truth or fact in your world.

 

[Native]

But weren't you just commenting that eg the Big Bang theory was NOT true? How could you say that without some concept of truth in your mind?

Not exactly. I said it was a THEORY.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Actually no. Information is contained in the words, we lack the ability to translate it into the form that our mind can access.
It's easily possible to mathematically deduce whether any series of sign is nonsense or contains meaningful information, even if we can't read it out yet. That's how code breaking works.

Recommend you to read this
https://www.amazon.com/Information-History-Theory-Flood/dp/1400096235

Here is the standard model of how words work from philosophy.
A word is a sign. It stands for something else than its physical appearance either as read or heard. It in effect refers to something else; i.e. what the word is about. E.g. "elephant" is about an elephant, but the meaning of words are in brains. You know this because humans can get brain damage and lose the ability to use language.
So a word is in effect about 3 things: It is a sign itself, it is about something and the meaning of a sign is in brains.

Now if you can explain it differently, I will listen to you.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What's useful to us all essentially. We just seem to disagree on what though. Myths seem to have a higher value than truth or fact in your world.

No, I am a skeptic. Read here:
An Open Challenge To Creationists

I just accept that humans make sense of the world differently and I have no way to show that it is wrong as for world views as such.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[sayak83]

Here is the standard model of how words work from philosophy.
A word is a sign. It stands for something else than its physical appearance either as read or heard. It in effect refers to something else; i.e. what the word is about. E.g. "elephant" is about an elephant, but the meaning of words are in brains. You know this because humans can get brain damage and lose the ability to use language.
So a word is in effect about 3 things: It is a sign itself, it is about something and the meaning of a sign is in brains.

Now if you can explain it differently, I will listen to you.

Regards
Mikkel

Different languages, similar encoding efficiency: Comparable information rates across the human communicative niche
Language is universal, but it has few indisputably universal characteristics, with cross-linguistic variation being the norm. For example, languages differ greatly in the number of syllables they allow, resulting in large variation in the Shannon information per syllable. Nevertheless, all natural languages allow their speakers to efficiently encode and transmit information. We show here, using quantitative methods on a large cross-linguistic corpus of 17 languages, that the coupling between language-level (information per syllable) and speaker-level (speech rate) properties results in languages encoding similar information rates (~39 bits/s) despite wide differences in each property individually: Languages are more similar in information rates than in Shannon information or speech rate. These findings highlight the intimate feedback loops between languages’ structural properties and their speakers’ neurocognition and biology under communicative pressures. Thus, language is the product of a multiscale communicative niche construction process at the intersection of biology, environment, and culture.

 

[Native]

I still don't understand why so much value is placed in such beliefs, especially as I have pointed out, their knowledge was mainly just guesswork and hardly based in facts. They might have seen the extent of our galaxy, what with no light pollution to interfere with such, but they wouldn't have known the real extent of the universe.

If you were living in close contact with nature watching the day- and night scenario on and above the Earth, would you then take it all as guesswork? Do you think numerous generations all over the world would? Of course not.

When speaking of creation stories and "the extend of the Universe", most cultural religions didn´t speak of a creation of the entire Universe as interpreted by modern scholars and taken for granted by most people today, but "just" of the creation of the Milky Way.

They describe even the pre-conditions of this Milky Way creation from a floating chaos to forms and if you for instants read the Egyptian story of creation, the Ogdoad, they also have some principles of creation, even eternal cosmological principles of creation such as the "Primordial Waters".

In about 3.200 BC the Egyptians had a "Mother Goddess" Hathor who resembles the Milky Way on the southern hemisphere. This goddess is closely connected with Amun-Ra, a "fiery light" which was the initial result of the "primordial waters" coming together in the coming Milky Way. If taking this female looking image seriously, her womb is located in the center area of the Milky Way, thus describing very logically via a natural symbolism the formation and creation of everything in the Milky Way. More Milky Way illustrations here.

I admit it can be hard for modern humans to grasp the ancient knowledge and the extent of this. I mostly "blame" this because of lack of natural connections and observations and on an education system where human spiritual skills are suppressed for centuries.

Yes, modern cosmological science can observe far out in space via all kinds of telescopes and taking images of everything. But when it comes to understanding these images, I´m afraid there is a long way to the ancient understanding of life and creation in our cosmos.

BTW: Does even modern cosmological science know the final extent of the Universe? I don´t think so.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Yes I can. It (The Ouroborus) resembles the very contours of the Milky Way when described as a celestial Serpent which encircle the entire night Sky above the Earth on both hemispheres.

I would say that the ouroborus also represents how life feeds on life (death) and that the circle seems to be unbroken. Knowing that such life systems evolve then indicates that the entire universe is a self-creating, self-destroying system which seems to create itself in the form of such unbroken, unbounded circles/cycles. Indeed a mystery but a ubiquitous one.

Thanks for this elaboration to which I agree. I just forgot to add these issues in my short reply. In several cultural religions, this eternal story of creation, dissolution and re-creation is specifically mentioned and spiritually contains the basic galactic question: "From where were we came and to where we go".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Different languages, similar encoding efficiency: Comparable information rates across the human communicative niche
Language is universal, but it has few indisputably universal characteristics, with cross-linguistic variation being the norm. For example, languages differ greatly in the number of syllables they allow, resulting in large variation in the Shannon information per syllable. Nevertheless, all natural languages allow their speakers to efficiently encode and transmit information. We show here, using quantitative methods on a large cross-linguistic corpus of 17 languages, that the coupling between language-level (information per syllable) and speaker-level (speech rate) properties results in languages encoding similar information rates (~39 bits/s) despite wide differences in each property individually: Languages are more similar in information rates than in Shannon information or speech rate. These findings highlight the intimate feedback loops between languages’ structural properties and their speakers’ neurocognition and biology under communicative pressures. Thus, language is the product of a multiscale communicative niche construction process at the intersection of biology, environment, and culture.

"...their speakers’ neurocognition and biology..." means that meaning is in brains.

"... at the intersection of biology, environment, and culture. ..." means that meaning is in brains.

Brains are necessary for meaning because there is no meaning in words as words. Words are "imbued" with meaning by brains.

Regards
Mikkel