Welding Tips and Tricks

LtBadd wrote:

Rupes wrote:Let me finish reading




Then I'm going to give this a crack and build one. Then I'll check out this space time thing.

send me the Cliffs notes

+1 Send them to me too.

I'm going to use this to go back in time to tell my past self its not worth reading the 86 page manual which came with the welder I just bought. Actually wait a minute, if I don't read it, I won't need to build a time machine and then I won't end up going back to ... f$#ken causal paradoxes

Better send the notes first eh

Rupes wrote:I'm going to use this to go back in time to tell my past self its not worth reading the 86 page manual which came with the welder I just bought. Actually wait a minute, if I don't read it, I won't need to build a time machine and then I won't end up going back to ... f$#ken causal paradoxes

Better send the notes first eh

Eh!

I'm waiting for Emmet Brown to post a reply - you can trust him - he's the doc !

Since the coating on a SMAW rod has insulating properties, I'm pretty sure I can build a "flux capacitor" with it. I doubt it will operate in the gigawatt range, unless it becomes slag, which defeats the purpose.

Closest I've come to travelling back in time was when I made instant coffee in the microwave...

Steve S

Most people see Einstein through a mythology. He was not a super-genius like the characters on "The Big Bang Theory" or "Scorpion". There are similar I.Q.s to his here on this forum. I think he was in the 140's, which is still considered "genius" on that bell curve.

His talent was in seeing the numbers when he'd do thought experiments. I don't see the numbers when I think through issues like General or Special Relativity. They are secondary to me. I see the visual representations in my mind of what I perceive to be happening, then compare them to the provable and/or accepted facts, and adjust accordingly.

I have no way to express, mathematically, the theory I put up. Math is something I am good at in a technical sense, meaning I can make it work for me solving problems I can put my hands on. Math is not something I can use in an abstract sense, to explain an idea.

... and I could be completely wrong. I've just never seen physics explored from this angle, which I find odd since it seems obvious to me that one should not simply assume the nature of something so intangible as space-time.

Steve S

Otto Nobedder wrote:Most people see Einstein through a mythology. He was not a super-genius like the characters on "The Big Bang Theory" or "Scorpion". There are similar I.Q.s to his here on this forum. I think he was in the 140's, which is still considered "genius" on that bell curve.

His talent was in seeing the numbers when he'd do thought experiments. I don't see the numbers when I think through issues like General or Special Relativity. They are secondary to me. I see the visual representations in my mind of what I perceive to be happening, then compare them to the provable and/or accepted facts, and adjust accordingly.

I have no way to express, mathematically, the theory I put up. Math is something I am good at in a technical sense, meaning I can make it work for me solving problems I can put my hands on. Math is not something I can use in an abstract sense, to explain an idea.

... and I could be completely wrong. I've just never seen physics explored from this angle, which I find odd since it seems obvious to me that one should not simply assume the nature of something so intangible as space-time.

Steve S

I've had many discussions with myself over the years (don't laugh) re thought experiments. I think millions of people have since the dawn of time. Unfortunately as much as I love solving puzzles you end up trying to look for pointers in academic literature and it you're right, its all reduced to some kind of abstract math. Now, the problem as I see it is not the math, far smarter people than I understand it and assure me its correct but rather that there are so many unknowns that can't be measured or quantified. I was home schooled and never did a lot of repetitive study. My father used to quote Einstein re why should I memorize something that I can read in a book. A lot of my learning was problem solving and thought experiments. I used to puzzle at the light speed limit for objects with mass. How is it possible there is a speed limit and how it can be quantified to a very specific number. Annoyed me for years that did every time I thought about it. How can an object just increase its mass as it goes faster, and how can speed even be measured or quantified in a space thats moving apart faster than light. Then somewhere I read that special relativity and relativistic mass etc pertains more to local laws so far as the other side of the universe can do whatever it likes. Long story short, it all kinda got stuck when I tried to conceptualize gravity and its influence in my head. That seemed to be the major sticking point for the whole thing, what the hell is it, why is it there, is it just a byproduct of something else we can't perceive/detect/measure etc What if the view-able universe is just the tip of the iceberg and we have no concept or perception of the other 90%

Anyway, I always figured you conceptualize a problem in your head to develop a theory, then try and apply tests to it to prove or disprove. I always liked that idea till I realized that in order to test it you need to apply some kind of alien abstract mathematics to it and thought of where to even start something like that with so many unknown/immeasurable variables just did my head in. No wonder religion got so popular.

Wow - this has to be the strangest " off topic " yet ! clearly there are some great minds here being used at less than their true potential in their current jobs - not sure if the academic community is ready to be challenged by alternate theories of space / time / gravity yet - they tend to have a set mind once one theory becomes accepted - even if you can prove something new they stick to the accepted version of things - maybe if welding becomes too mundane it would worth applying to the " Star Gate " program ? !

Don't look at me... I only just figured out what Otto Nobedder means

I conceptualize a problem in my head, pour plenty of beer on it. Problem goes away.
Cheers [CLINKING BEER MUGS]


Sent using Tapatalk

I never thought too deep into Einsteins theory. I have wondered about ufo's though. Here is a related thought though on time travel. There is a short commercial before the short (15 or 20 second) video. After you watch the video you can wait and it will auto-play some more without the commercial.

http://tinyurl.com/jmsnf48

LtBadd wrote:

image0351.jpg

I looked in to that. It's from a partnership in geriatric medicine, called "Grandfather Pair-o-Docs."

That's a good one.

noddybrian wrote:Wow - this has to be the strangest " off topic " yet ! clearly there are some great minds here being used at less than their true potential in their current jobs - not sure if the academic community is ready to be challenged by alternate theories of space / time / gravity yet - they tend to have a set mind once one theory becomes accepted - even if you can prove something new they stick to the accepted version of things - maybe if welding becomes too mundane it would worth applying to the " Star Gate " program ? !

Noddy, I agree there are some great minds here.

I disagree on the academic community being challenged.
If you work with or know scientists, you'll find that most are thirsty for new theories.
They rightly tear new theories to shreds since that is the basis of the scientific method.

If it survives, it warrants further investigation. Weak ones die early.

The only ones that stick around without merit are the ones which are not scientific theories, but ideas that non-scientists really want to be true. Wanting something to be true doesn't make it so and science says it ain't so lest it is testable and follows from a narrative which is testable/provable all the way back to fundamentals.

- John

Quite true, John,

But, as it stands, my theory is no more or less provable than dark matter or dark energy, as science can only imply them, not observe them at this point. I would love to be proven wrong, or proven right. Either is acceptable, so long as we have quantifiable data from direct observation.

Steve S

Steve, but your theory has the narrative I mentioned.
It isn't coming out of vacuum because you want it to be true, even if you do.
Your footings are based in a heritage of scientific background going back quite far.
That heritage welcomes challenge, in opposition to the comment made by noddybrian.
Put another way, there are no scientific conspiracies.
Scientists are the last people who would reject something to preserve status quo.
That's my only point.

Sadly, science (as a community) has a long history of resisting new ideas even in the face of evidence. Acceptance of significant change comes slowly, when it flies in the face of what you've studied and believed to be true. Granted, the change does come, but rarely is it instant. This, too, I suppose is the scientific method, opposing a new idea until sufficiently convinced by the evidence.

Steve S

Interject all the recent info on studies done that involve use of mice that gave incomplete data. Even though there are better ways ( still sometimes animal based studies I'm not anti animal study ) but the structure to maintain and rely on use of the same processes due to already invested $ trumps scientific theory.

Steve, you may be right on the whole, taking into account the entire population and all endeavors.
I tend to think scientists fall on the 'ready to believe, with evidence' side of that curve.

Cheers - J

EINSTEIN?
Did I dial the wrong number here?

Otto Nobedder wrote:

LtBadd wrote:

Otto Nobedder wrote:I had no doubt some of you were familiar, but we have some newer entrants to machining with new (or new-to-you) equipment looking for projects and knowledge, so I had to share this guy.

Also, horology interests me.

Steve S

does that include "space time"?

"Gravity as Curved Spacetime. ... Gravity feels strongest where spacetime is most curved, and it vanishes where spacetime is flat. This is the core of Einstein's theory of general relativity, which is often summed up in words as follows: "matter tells spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter how to move".

I think Einstein got it wrong. Close, but wrong. I think the current crop of astrophysicists chasing intangible "dark matter" and "dark energy" support my theory.

The graphic representation of matter in space-time is a "fabric", curved by the presence of matter, like a bowling ball on a trampoline (as an easy analogy). This assumes, both graphically and in his math, that space-time is an infinitely compressible fluid.

Place that trampoline fabric on a swimming pool, edges sealed... The water then represents an incompressible fluid. Put your bowling ball in the middle, and you still get curved space-time around the ball. What do you get, displaced some distance from the ball? Fabric above the zero point, sloping away toward the edge. This neatly explains matter in the universe moving apart and accelerating, and also explains the Pioneer anomaly, which future missions did not adequately investigate.

Steve S

All paths cross at some point.

LtBadd wrote:

image0351.jpg

The Time Travelers Society Annual Meeting will be held last Tuesday, , , , ,

cornmuse wrote:

LtBadd wrote:

image0351.jpg

The Time Travelers Society Annual Meeting will be held last Tuesday, , , , ,

That's a good one...

This way they can ensure ONLY time travelers will be there

I'll be there last Tuesday.

That's what dreams are for!

Steve