nothing

[webby2]

If you take a pebble and place it in your hand then arrange a few mirrors so that when you look into a mirror you see 2 pebbles in your hand, you see 2 pebbles but there is only one, it is the same pebble but in 2 places at the same time.

You observe the pebble in 2 places, the pebble does not know which place it is in nor that there is another pebble appearing to be along side it.  You can touch the pebble and at the same instant you appear to be touching the other pebble, so which one is the real pebble and which one is the illusion.

If in the beginning there was nothing, not an infinitesimal that contained everything but truly nothing.
Then this nothing observed itself over there, no time no distance and no direction,, just over there.
At that exact moment there would be 2 nothings, the one here and the one over there, but there would also be a 3rd nothing that encompasses the observation of separation, then this 3rd nothing would have an observed inside, for the other two same nothings to observe one here and one over there, which it would then also have an outside,,,
Rinse and repeat and the nothing has become an infinite universe.

A fun fantasy to play with and it raises a simple question, if there was nothing then the first event would also have to be nothing, what could that be?? if it was only the observation, a non judgmental and non-impactful thing, a non-real happening that creates everything by the simple act of allowing an observation to be made.

I end up with a universe that is all connected by the simple fact that it is all made from the same nothing, so why is it not nothing?  Shared observations and communication of those shared observations.
What if it takes 12 shared observations to lock 2 nothings into something, and what if it is only 7 of those shared observations that are common to all leaving 5 observations as not common to all but still shared, say with other observations,, the observation needing to have an observation to share if you will.
Now we have a sense of distance and direction.

Sort of short hand but it is a close enough walk through of my fantasy universe

[webby2]

Keeping in the fantasy universe.

Draw a circle on a piece of paper, place 2 points on that circle.
The circle is dimensionless and only describes the universe that the 2 points exist on, the 2 points do not see the circle they only see each other and there relative distance of separation.

Can you move one point without affecting the other? No.
Depending on the direction of observation moving one point will either move the 2 points closer together, around the circle, or move them further apart, again around the circle.  While viewing the distance of separation one way it is getting smaller, they are moving together, but simultaneously if you were to view it from the other way it is getting bigger, they are moving apart.
This leads to a no net change in the universe for the 2 points, but there is a relative change in the distance of separation, no energy created and no energy destroyed.  Just a redistribution of the distance of separation.

Here we sit looking out and seeing the universe expanding, is it possible that we are oblivious to the other view where the universe is collapsing?

[webby2]

Take a closed chamber, place 2 balloons inside that chamber, the balloons do not see the chamber only the other balloon but they stay fixed in position relative to the chamber.

Blow the balloons up and seal them.

The balloons measure there distance apart by using there own dimensions, so many diameters apart if you will, or so many degrees from several points on the surface of the balloon.
Change the pressure within the chamber.

The balloons did not move but there is a change in the relative distance of separation.

Sure there are flaws in the setup but the general thought is easy enough that if I am measuring and comparing things to myself I might not be aware of changes within myself that would affect what I see outside myself.

[webby2]

If a coil passing current is producing an EM field of some value,, how much current must flow to have that field?
That is, does a certain amount of current need to flow for a certain amount of time before the field is there.
Does the field need to propagate some distance before it is at is density close to the coil?
If the distance of propagation is just far enough to cover a secondary coil, how long would it take?

[webby2]

Not that it matters,,

I wish to revisit the cap to cap dump loss in energy.

The setup is 2 identical caps, one charged up to some voltage and the other at 0V,, if then I connect the 2 caps together the final energy stored is 1\2 the initial energy stored in the single cap.

0.5CV^2

This is an often used relationship and it works as we use it, but where is the loss in energy?

Another formula we use often is F=ma.

This is a two part thing,, sort of.

If this was done with liquid, so I have a tank filled with liquid at some pressure and I have another identical tank that I connect it to that is at no pressure,, how much resistance to flow is there when I first open the connecting valve?  There is zero resistance (except of course for all the line losses) to the liquid flowing.

This makes it easy to understand that some of that stored energy via pressure is being expended to accelerate the liquid, this does not transfer the stored energy into the other tank but only serves to expend energy against the liquid to make things happen faster.

When this energy has been used to accelerate the liquid it can no longer be used since it has been transformed into velocity,, then it hits the tank walls and is transformed into something else like heat.

With the cap to cap thing there is the same situation, there is no initial resistance to flow so the initial voltage is used to accelerate the charge carriers into the other capacitor, the loss is not due to the contacts, it is due to the forces involved being converted into accelerating some mass that then ends up "hitting" a wall and transforming its velocity into something else like heat.

The other part to this is in dealing with a fixed volume and quantity and pressure.  If you change any of these 3 parts you change the energy of the system of all 3 parts.

If you double the volume with the same quantity the pressure will drop, if you increase the quantity within the volume the pressure will go up,, and of course if you decrease the pressure the energy stored goes down.

You then might start so see that the quantity and volume that is enclosing that quantity is related to the pressure, and this is something we also use and have an understanding of.

How then can you make this dump thing work out to provide for a conserved energy exchange?

Well doubling the volume means that the quantity needs to increase and to increase the quantity you could use an exchange system, one that might be able to take the moment of acceleration and convert it into a non acceleration but rather moves more quantity than that that is being discharged so that now the energy out equals the energy in.

There are ways of doing this, I have made a few for the more mechanical side of things and the same should also work for the cap to cap dump thing.

[webby2]

Just to show the depth of my ignorance 

To me a changing flux density looks a lot like a moving magnetic field,, or maybe a circulating magnetic field,, it is still moving but in a closed path whereas normally the field is not in motion in the local area.  This allows that it could still be propagating somewhere beyond the local area.

[webby2]

I ran across this on another site
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxFXsoqbfrk
It is about buoyancy.

The thing is you need to follow the water.  If you started with the upper and lower tanks filled to some level and marked, then you push in the "float" it will raise the water level in the lower tank, it has displaced water.  Then you move it into the tube and allow it to float up to the second valve, close the first valve and then open the second valve.

In this condition the water level in the lower tank is still up at the higher mark and the water level is still at the original mark in the upper tank.

The float goes up the tube and into the upper tank, now you remove the float and the tank is now at a lower level of water, the float has displaced some of the water.  As the float has moved up the tube the water from the upper tank has flowed down below the float to fill the void that the float would leave as it moves up.

Now when you close the second valve again and open the first valve the water in the lower tank is still at the higher level and you have replaced the displaced water from the float being pushed into the lower tank with water from the upper tank via the opening and closing of the valves.

[webby2]

Funny way to look at an acceleration,,

It is when you do NOT have an equal force of opposition