| User Name | Down Rodeo |
| Assigned Title | Cap'n Moth of the Firehouse |
| Assigned Color | #eeff44 |
| Avatar |  |
| Medals |  Find the Hole II Participation Medal |
| Registration Date | 2007 October 19 |
| Post Count | 5404 |
| Score | 57,583 ₧ |
| Location | Scotland, Scotland! |
| Signature | I give a little into the moment like I'm standing at the edge (I know)
That no-one's gonna turn me 'round Just one more step, I could let go |
| Timezone | GB |
| Groups |
Recent posts by Down Rodeo
Truck: gifs. in Video Recommend!
In before:
But yes, it annoys me that the candyfloss doesn't quite reattach. I think I have a problem.
In before:
aaronjer said:
I get that same feeling with your mom.
But yes, it annoys me that the candyfloss doesn't quite reattach. I think I have a problem.
Friday at 10:02
Truck: gifs. in Video Recommend!
I am ever so slightly disappointed that that GIF doesn't show just a little bit more, you know?
I am ever so slightly disappointed that that GIF doesn't show just a little bit more, you know?
May 16
Truck: C++ broken stuff whatever shit dog in Programming Help
Basically, #include <header.h> will look in standard OS locations for header files. Like, I dunno, gcc's install directory, Visual Studio's defined header locations, whatever. It will also look in the locations you pass to the compiler, probably with a flag like -I"../path/to/hedders". This is why the compiler can't find it.
You actually want #include "header.h", which will look in the current directory (or as superjer notes you can pass a relative path in there, if that's what turns you on).
So to clarify: #include "BlackThornDemon.h". What kind of header file has that name anyway? :s
There's more, you probably want #include <Arduino.h> but that seems to be working regardless, also you will need #include "../BlackThornDemon.h", just like superjer said. When it tells you it can't find the file, there's a reason. It's because it's not where it's looking! And I tend to trust the computer when it says it can't find it.
Basically, #include <header.h> will look in standard OS locations for header files. Like, I dunno, gcc's install directory, Visual Studio's defined header locations, whatever. It will also look in the locations you pass to the compiler, probably with a flag like -I"../path/to/hedders". This is why the compiler can't find it.
You actually want #include "header.h", which will look in the current directory (or as superjer notes you can pass a relative path in there, if that's what turns you on).
So to clarify: #include "BlackThornDemon.h". What kind of header file has that name anyway? :s
There's more, you probably want #include <Arduino.h> but that seems to be working regardless, also you will need #include "../BlackThornDemon.h", just like superjer said. When it tells you it can't find the file, there's a reason. It's because it's not where it's looking! And I tend to trust the computer when it says it can't find it.
May 12
Truck: INTARESTIN DISCUSSHINS in General
Confusing internet historians of the future.
SuperJer said:
I don't know what the hell this discussion is doing on my forams. 
Confusing internet historians of the future.
May 10
Truck: INTARESTIN DISCUSSHINS in General
Exactly! I think. I wouldn't say it was wrong, so much as it is... a model, that, although not true, is accurate. Y'know what I am going to bed, because I think I have said the same thing several times now. I am, in fact, saying the same thing as 18 months ago. I've read through the thread. I'm an insufferable prick :(
Exactly! I think. I wouldn't say it was wrong, so much as it is... a model, that, although not true, is accurate. Y'know what I am going to bed, because I think I have said the same thing several times now. I am, in fact, saying the same thing as 18 months ago. I've read through the thread. I'm an insufferable prick :(
May 7
Truck: INTARESTIN DISCUSSHINS in General
Not getting it is fine. The concept of a minimum temperature is a quantum effect, somewhat to do with the fact that a particle with zero temperature would have zero energy which would imply several things, all of which are infinite. We don't like infinite, as a general rule.
The CMBR has a temperature, it's about 3K. I think. That is not what Aaronjer is talking about. (Also, re: /sarcasm: I misinterpreted
)
Fun fact! The hottest and coldest places in our solar system exist on none other than our planet! That's cool. Also, the average density of the universe is approximately one hydrogen atom per cubic meter, which is to say some 10^24 less dense than air at STP. You can safely conclude, therefore, that anybody you meet is a statistical anomaly.
Aaronjer, you might want to look at the Michelson-Morely experiment, it is very interesting. As regards a variable speed of light... there is a theory which suggests that actually mid sentence I have decided I am thinking of the wrong thing. Never mind!
zjamz: the experiment came first, kind of. A similar one did anyway. This necessitated new theory, not the other way around. The experimental result is all the proof you need that it happens, because, well, it does. This isn't the same as saying that the experiment proves the theory, because it only does not disprove it; however given the large body of experimental evidence so far acquired for QM it is held as accurate and correct by the vast majority of scientists. It is as accurate and precise as a measurement of the distance from New Yoik to London differing from the "true" value by the width of a human hair.
This final edit is somewhat my own opinion, but whatever.
It doesn't really matter, in the end, what is "really happening" in these experiments. All we can do is experiment -> measurement -> theory -> test -> refine, endlessly. There is a theory in which you can treat sound moving through solids as a particle, called a phonon. Now, we know that it ain't true. It's atoms vibrating. But it doesn't mean that this phonon cannot have a mass, a velocity, energy, and so on. And using this phonon theory you can predict very well the movement of sound through a solid. The model works - that is all we can ask of it. Anyways, as I said that's the way I see things. I've actually pretty much stopped doing science now, I graduated last summer and have moved onto a postgrad in high performance computing instead, so my thoughts are not necessarily the most coherent, accurate or indeed correct.
/walloftext
Not getting it is fine. The concept of a minimum temperature is a quantum effect, somewhat to do with the fact that a particle with zero temperature would have zero energy which would imply several things, all of which are infinite. We don't like infinite, as a general rule.
The CMBR has a temperature, it's about 3K. I think. That is not what Aaronjer is talking about. (Also, re: /sarcasm: I misinterpreted
)
Fun fact! The hottest and coldest places in our solar system exist on none other than our planet! That's cool. Also, the average density of the universe is approximately one hydrogen atom per cubic meter, which is to say some 10^24 less dense than air at STP. You can safely conclude, therefore, that anybody you meet is a statistical anomaly.
Aaronjer, you might want to look at the Michelson-Morely experiment, it is very interesting. As regards a variable speed of light... there is a theory which suggests that actually mid sentence I have decided I am thinking of the wrong thing. Never mind!
zjamz: the experiment came first, kind of. A similar one did anyway. This necessitated new theory, not the other way around. The experimental result is all the proof you need that it happens, because, well, it does. This isn't the same as saying that the experiment proves the theory, because it only does not disprove it; however given the large body of experimental evidence so far acquired for QM it is held as accurate and correct by the vast majority of scientists. It is as accurate and precise as a measurement of the distance from New Yoik to London differing from the "true" value by the width of a human hair.
This final edit is somewhat my own opinion, but whatever.
It doesn't really matter, in the end, what is "really happening" in these experiments. All we can do is experiment -> measurement -> theory -> test -> refine, endlessly. There is a theory in which you can treat sound moving through solids as a particle, called a phonon. Now, we know that it ain't true. It's atoms vibrating. But it doesn't mean that this phonon cannot have a mass, a velocity, energy, and so on. And using this phonon theory you can predict very well the movement of sound through a solid. The model works - that is all we can ask of it. Anyways, as I said that's the way I see things. I've actually pretty much stopped doing science now, I graduated last summer and have moved onto a postgrad in high performance computing instead, so my thoughts are not necessarily the most coherent, accurate or indeed correct.
/walloftext
May 7
Truck: INTARESTIN DISCUSSHINS in General
Perhaps I am misinterpreting, but what I meant is that experiment is the ultimate arbiter. You experiment, you make a theory that explains the experiment, maybe it makes a prediction you can test. Great. Anything else is masturbation. Saying that the experiment was an attempt at proof... well, it is what happens. Explaining it is the tricky bit.
At the moment, we are sort of in the "prediction" stage. Though it is expected, or rather hoped, that this will change soon. Say the next 20 years.
Also I have a bit of a problem with the universe, it has chosen some really shitty constraints. Like a speed limit that is not on the same scale as the distance scales of the universe, what the hell physics. Same with Planck's constant: 0 would be great, or a big number would be cool too. Turns out it's just really small. BO-RING.
Perhaps I am misinterpreting, but what I meant is that experiment is the ultimate arbiter. You experiment, you make a theory that explains the experiment, maybe it makes a prediction you can test. Great. Anything else is masturbation. Saying that the experiment was an attempt at proof... well, it is what happens. Explaining it is the tricky bit.
At the moment, we are sort of in the "prediction" stage. Though it is expected, or rather hoped, that this will change soon. Say the next 20 years.
Also I have a bit of a problem with the universe, it has chosen some really shitty constraints. Like a speed limit that is not on the same scale as the distance scales of the universe, what the hell physics. Same with Planck's constant: 0 would be great, or a big number would be cool too. Turns out it's just really small. BO-RING.
May 7
Truck: INTARESTIN DISCUSSHINS in General
That's all models are. Models. You can discuss what might "really" be happening, but when it comes down to it you have a model and an experiment. If the model predicts the outcome of the experiment, what else can you do?
That said, various folks have suggested ideas for what might be "actually happening" (a phrase I am not entirely comfortable with). You might be interested in the Many Worlds interpretation, the Copenhagen interpretation, Feynman's sum-over-histories interpretation... There are lots. Quantum mechanics is only concerned with the fact that things likesubatomic particles electrons and protons etc. are not necessarily waves, nor are they necessarily particles. They can appear to have some of the properties of both, depending on how you observe them, but ultimately they are neither.
They key point in all this is that the double-slit experiment is weird if you think an electron (or indeed a photon) is a particle. If you assume it's a wave, whatever that might mean, there's no problem! Of course if you then go do a different experiment involving gold foil and a monochromatic source of light (the Photoelectric Effect) then you have to assume that photons are actually particles. As I said, it's weird if you assume they are one or the other. Thinking of it as some third thing with properties of both is better.
AAAAAAARRGHHH that is a horrid sentence, pls no
SRAW said:
and also when these scientists talk about models of electrons and atoms and whatever etc... does that mean that we may not know the true nature of them, but that these models simply describe how they behave?
That's all models are. Models. You can discuss what might "really" be happening, but when it comes down to it you have a model and an experiment. If the model predicts the outcome of the experiment, what else can you do?
That said, various folks have suggested ideas for what might be "actually happening" (a phrase I am not entirely comfortable with). You might be interested in the Many Worlds interpretation, the Copenhagen interpretation, Feynman's sum-over-histories interpretation... There are lots. Quantum mechanics is only concerned with the fact that things like
They key point in all this is that the double-slit experiment is weird if you think an electron (or indeed a photon) is a particle. If you assume it's a wave, whatever that might mean, there's no problem! Of course if you then go do a different experiment involving gold foil and a monochromatic source of light (the Photoelectric Effect) then you have to assume that photons are actually particles. As I said, it's weird if you assume they are one or the other. Thinking of it as some third thing with properties of both is better.
phoenix_r said:
There is no real definitive proof that they exist in all states, hence it being a theory; the slit experiment attempts to add some proof.
AAAAAAARRGHHH that is a horrid sentence, pls no
May 7