Jump to content

Shower thoughts

p1t1o

By p1t1o
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
Fraston

Fraston

Posted
Posted (edited)

Apologies in advance for how badly written this is.

So, EM radiation.

So I can assume most of the people here know about all seven types.

Why do we call everything below visible light in wavelength a ray and everything above above visible light a ray?

Is it simply because of how in comparison to our world, the waviness of infrared, micro and radio waves is macroscopic, while ultraviolet, x and gamma rays fit the mathematical definition of ray (a straight line stretching infinitely) to anything but something that can see the wavelength?

Edited by Fraston
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cubinator

cubinator

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, Fraston said:

Apologies in advance for how badly written this is.

So, EM radiation.

So I can assume most of the people here know about all seven types.

Why do we call everything below visible light in wavelength a ray and everything above above visible light a ray?

Is it simply because of how in comparison to our world, the waviness of infrared, micro and radio waves is macroscopic, while ultraviolet, x and gamma rays fit the mathematical definition of ray (a straight line stretching infinitely) to anything but something that can see the wavelength?

No, they're all the same thing. All light beams follow a straight path through space, no matter how big they are. The difference is that we can see a few of them, and most often call those ones "colors". I refer to the others as colors, too, because they're the same thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kerbiloid

kerbiloid

Posted
Posted (edited)

(This is about the characters from sagas, not from comics, so any reference is purely coincidental, especially since I watched only parodies).

So, when Thor rotates his hammer, a whirlwind raises, like it pulls the air with some gravitation.

When Thor throws the hammer, it flies away and then returns back.
But not into Thor himself, just in his extended hand, like it follows a highly eccentric elliptic orbit with gravitating Thor in its focal point.
And the Thor's effective gravitational mass is obviously greater (we could estimate the ratio, but lazy).

It's hard to pick up the hammer from the ground Earth surface.
(Btw. There is no "ground" in the Universe. Nowhere at all. Only planetary surface. If not particular atoms. The "ground" is just an old incorrect term for this surface. Forget the "ground".)
So, when the hammer is not held by Thor, it gets gravitationally attracted to the closest significant mass, for example to the Earth.

But Thor can pick it up. So, Thor's gravitation is enough great to attract the hammer stronger than the Earth does.

So, Thor represents gravitational interaction and potential fields.

***

Thor's charriot can fly, at least in some sources.
So, the gravity doesn't pull it to the ground Earth surface, like it's shaded from it or represents not only the gravity but also another force.

As we can remember, in the Uthgard Lab Complex Thor was experimenting trying to pick up (and probably break apart, bearing in mind their enchanting sense of humor), a circular structure known as Jormungand.
And predictably failed.

We know that Jormungand encircles the Earth and is looped.
That's because Jormungand represents a fieldline of a vortical field. The electromagnetic field.
Of course, Thor couldn't break a fieldline, unless he is a magnetic monopole. We can see, he isn't.

But we can also say that Thor doesn't have electromagnetic nature, so his levitation is probably of electromagnetic origin, provided by Jormungand's source.
Another proof is that Thor's flight is accompanied by electric events like lightnings.

And as we can see, he can fly only in a charriot. So, it's the charriot flying, not Thor himself.
The electrically conducting charriot interacts with electromagnetic field and flies. Lightings are side effects.

The charriot is pulled by a pair of goats, Tanngnjostr and Tanngrisnir. Their names ("teethgrinder"'s) obviously reveal their actual nature.
They represent electric poles, plus and minus. That's why they are twins. They are named after the electric sparkles.

So, the charriot represents the potential electric field or its particular application.

***

As we can remember, Thjalfi bited a bone of one goat, so as a result the goat was damaged.
Thjalfi allegorically represents the idiots who damage insulation on a high-voltage cable, or cause short currents in other ways.

Also he's a patron of those who steal wires to sell the metal.
Bad Thjalfi, do not be like him.

***

As we can remember, Thor tried to defeat Elli, secretly representing old age, i.e. the time axis.
Of course, Thor can't rule the time, as he represents the gravitation, a force, submitted to the space-time structure of the Universe.

******

Loki.

He represents uncertainty, spontaneity, quantum leaps, collapse of wave function, superposition of states.

He is a personification of quantum physics and lies. Just it. Nothing to add.

His adepts should wear a Planck constant symbol (the dashed one, as it mean "Did you think it's 'h'? It's not.").

***

And the journey of Thor and Loki to Uthgard is an allegorical description of the quantum gravitation experiment.

***

In Uthgard Loki tried to defeat in eating Logi, i.e. the personification of plasma state of the matter and thermal motion.
And Loki failed. That's because quantum effects didn't surpass the thermal statistical distribution.

*****

Odin is the Observer (in physical sense).
He can see and sees everything in the world. Because he doesn't just "see", he observes.

As any uncertainty in the universe needs an observer to be resoved in certainty, that's why Odin is considered as the boss.

He is described as "one-eyed". He may be or may be not. It's just an allegory, the Observer (in physical sense) may have any amount of eyes he wants.

***

Odin and Loki are a pair of antagonistic physical twins. One observes, (i.e. makes things certain, another one makes them uncertain.
They compete but can't operate without each other. That's how the quantum physics works.

Yggdrasil represents the graph (the math term) of possible states of the Universe.
Odin has walked along the full set of the Universe quantum states as Observer, so he observed everything. Recursively. Node by node. Could you?

His crows ravens, Huginn and Muninn are not just ravens.
They are recursive iterators with global access privileges. Odin sends them to recursively walk along the full set of the Universe states again and again to keep it up-to-date. That's how it works.

***

We can see that Asgard represents mathematics and quantum physics, while Uthgard and other such places represent earlier physical models, before the physics became pure mathematics.

So, the Ragnarok represents the final consolidation of physical theories, and the new physics which will follow.

This should happen on some plain named Vigrith, and its name means "place on which battle surges".
What it the "surge" in this context somebody could say better than me.
Probably, either some high-energy physical plant, or "surge" means "wave function", i.e. total collapse o wave function.
Maybe both (see Gordon Freeman).

***

Runes.
A mysterious alphabet given to the humans by aesir. Forget it.
Take a knife and a plank and try to cut Latin letters. And you can cut only vertical and diagonal visible lines. Congrats! You have reinvented futhark!

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clamp-o-Tron

Clamp-o-Tron

Posted
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

You can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose. But you can't pick your friend's nose.

I read this as "you can choose which nose you were born with" LOL

Edited by Clamp-o-Tron
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Superfluous J

Superfluous J

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, Shpaget said:

It's a line in Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy, one of my favorite cartoons.

 

Assuming that cartoon came out in the last 30 years or so, that's not where the phrase came from. I remember saying it in the 80s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kerbiloid

kerbiloid

Posted
Posted (edited)

Probably everybody remembers Shakespeare's Hamlet.

"To bee or not to bee".

Spoiler

apiary-beekeeper-works-bees-near-hives-1


But what is the past or perfect verb form of "to bee"?

"Beeed"?

***

If cross a bee and an eel, or find an eel building underwater hives, will this have a name "beeeel"?

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites
adsii1970

adsii1970

Posted
Posted

Most people do not know this, but I love to cook. In the past ten years, I've been a little braver in the kitchen and have been creating my own recipes for certain classic favorites. This morning, I thought about bringing the flavors of a Reece's Peanut Butter Cup into a pancake. As a side note, I make my pancakes from "scratch" meaning there's no pre-mixed powder out of a box. Here's the various ways I could accomplish the Reece's pancake:

  • Make the pancake into a chocolate base using dark baker's chocolate and add Reece's Pieces to the batter.
  • Make the pancake into a chocolate base using dark baker's chocolate and adding peanut butter chips.
  • Make the pancake batter have a hint of peanut butter and add dark chocolate chips.
  • Make the pancake batter the traditional buttermilk batter and add peanut butter chips and chocolate chips.
  • Make the pancake batter the traditional buttermilk batter and add the miniature Reece's peanut butter cups.

So, for you Reece's lovers, which do you think I should try first?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Castille7

Castille7

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, adsii1970 said:

Here's the various ways I could accomplish the Reece's pancake:

My choice!

Make the pancake batter the traditional buttermilk batter and add the miniature Reece's peanut butter cups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSaint

TheSaint

Posted
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, adsii1970 said:

Most people do not know this, but I love to cook. In the past ten years, I've been a little braver in the kitchen and have been creating my own recipes for certain classic favorites. This morning, I thought about bringing the flavors of a Reece's Peanut Butter Cup into a pancake. As a side note, I make my pancakes from "scratch" meaning there's no pre-mixed powder out of a box. Here's the various ways I could accomplish the Reece's pancake:

  • Make the pancake into a chocolate base using dark baker's chocolate and add Reece's Pieces to the batter.
  • Make the pancake into a chocolate base using dark baker's chocolate and adding peanut butter chips.
  • Make the pancake batter have a hint of peanut butter and add dark chocolate chips.
  • Make the pancake batter the traditional buttermilk batter and add peanut butter chips and chocolate chips.
  • Make the pancake batter the traditional buttermilk batter and add the miniature Reece's peanut butter cups.

So, for you Reece's lovers, which do you think I should try first?

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. Putting two different flavors into the pancake during the cooking process like that, something is going to go south. So my suggestion: Put a little peanut butter into the pancake batter to make peanut pancakes, then serve them with chocolate syrup.

Edited by TheSaint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...