Andy - I CHOOSE YOU!

Andy said he can do the matching firesteels, so we are on for that. :thumbup: I'd still like the jimping, but leave it to Andy.

This is sounding really good now. I had no idea where this process was going to go, but dang it's working out great.

Anyone else getting in on an Arete?
 
I might be! I've been talking with Andy about buying one of his knives for a while. I was thinking it wasn't going to happen until next year, but I've been able to sell a few things online and I think I'll have the money for it. This knife sounds sweet!
 
Last edited:
Rotte said:
Andy said he can do the matching firesteels, so we are on for that. :thumbup: I'd still like the jimping, but leave it to Andy.

This is sounding really good now. I had no idea where this process was going to go, but dang it's working out great.

Anyone else getting in on an Arete?
Click to expand...

I'm very visual (a solid state physicist and quantum mechanic).

I'd like to see a picture of the "first off" Talfuchre special ... but then I know I'll be overcome and will spend weeks begging Andy for one.:eek:

I do so try to be practical.
 
OldPhysics said:
I'm very visual (a solid state physicist and quantum mechanic).
Click to expand...

OK, You are going to have to help me out here. I nearly failed quantum...think the professor had some sympathy for me (and I was handy in the lab). But never in my ignominious physics career did I learn to equate visual with quantum.

In fact, I believe that quantum leads us to believe that if you pin it down long enough to see it, you don't understand the rest of it. You have to take somethings on faith. The quantum of steel says: The probability that Andy is going to knock this blade out of the lowest energy state and produce something capable of emitting stunning photons approaches 1.0. That's all you need to know.

I preferred my string theory--anything can be made fast with enough 550 cord. :D
 
I think the uncertainty principle states that if you use a large enough wave to see where a photon (or other sub atomic particle) is going - you can not see where it currently is. If you use a small enough wave to see where a photon is, you cannot see where it is going.

Thus, humans are not capable of knowing both where a sub atomic particle is, and where it is going.

However, Andy uses larger than atomic particles for his knives - so we will know where they are (His shop) and where they are going (our GREEDY hands!).


I love your string theory though. It should be renamed 'cordage theory'...

TF
 
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. :p

I think we need a third of these. A N(neutron), P(proton), E(electron)

Mine can be in a G10 handle, I like G10. :)

Pretty please.
 
Talfuchre said:
I think the uncertainty principle states that if you use a large enough wave to see where a photon (or other sub atomic particle) is going - you can not see where it currently is. If you use a small enough wave to see where a photon is, you cannot see where it is going.

Thus, humans are not capable of knowing both where a sub atomic particle is, and where it is going.
Click to expand...

If memory serves it refers to that fact that you can only know position of velocity.

If you know the position you can't know the velocity. And vice-versa. Also the more accurate (or less) one value the less accurate (or more) the other.
 
65535 said:
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. :p

I think we need a third of these. A N(neutron), P(proton), E(electron)

Mine can be in a G10 handle, I like G10. :)

Pretty please.
Click to expand...


4th, I'm in for one too. (No penatrator tip on mine though!)
 
this is sounding very cool... :thumbup: i am looking forward to seeing some pics, once things are in motion...:)

i also think i'm about due for another Fiddleback too...:D i traded my old-school bushcrafter for a 12 gauge...:eek:
 
OldPhysics said:
I'm very visual (a solid state physicist and quantum mechanic).

I'd like to see a picture of the "first off" Talfuchre special ... but then I know I'll be overcome and will spend weeks begging Andy for one.:eek:

I do so try to be practical.
Click to expand...


Physicists?

Fine. I've been looking for you guys. (all others? watch them squirm out of here when confronted with a simple, everyday-guy-type of question.)

What causes gravity? No numbers nor formulas please. Explain. We can whip a satellite a gazillion miles away sling-shoting using math based on the force of gravity, but NOBODY can say..."Well, it's cause these teeny tiny strings vibrate and the sub-atomic particles like the tune they make."

:rolleyes:
 
Kismet said:
Physicists?

Fine. I've been looking for you guys. (all others? watch them squirm out of here when confronted with a simple, everyday-guy-type of question.)

What causes gravity? No numbers nor formulas please. Explain. We can whip a satellite a gazillion miles away sling-shoting using math based on the force of gravity, but NOBODY can say..."Well, it's cause these teeny tiny strings vibrate and the sub-atomic particles like the tune they make."

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Any matter (that contains mass) has a gravitational field, any two massive objects (matter) have gravitational attraction to each other. Gravity is directly proportional to the mass of an object and inversely proportional to the distance between objects.

Gravity is caused by mass. As for sling shoting, I can only describe it as exactly how a sling shot works, as the object orbits a massive body it is pulled towards the object. Like when you use a true slingshot you cause acceleration from centripetal force once the object hits a high enough velocity it breaks free of the gravitational force and goes on its merry way.



Or that's how I remember it. Not a physicist YET.
 
65535 said:
Any matter (that contains mass) has a gravitational field, any two massive objects (matter) have gravitational attraction to each other. Gravity is directly proportional to the mass of an object and inversely proportional to the distance between objects.

Gravity is caused by mass. As for sling shoting, I can only describe it as exactly how a sling shot works, as the object orbits a massive body it is pulled towards the object. Like when you use a true slingshot you cause acceleration from centripetal force once the object hits a high enough velocity it breaks free of the gravitational force and goes on its merry way.



Or that's how I remember it. Not a physicist YET.
Click to expand...

yeah thats all fine and good....but he's asking WHY is gravity there? not what has gravity.....some say its because anything with mass creates a dent, trough or cavity (whatever you wanna call it) in space.....and anything that gets near enough to the massive object, starts to fall into the dent or cavity........or something like that.....thats just one of MANY theories! like you said, string theory is another.....haha
 
Alright guys. Physics aside, I'd like to get a drawing of this idea done this weekend. So. Please sum up what we've got so far in a post that I can print and sit down in front of the tube and sketch something out to show y'all!

Edited to add: Then we'll do a prototype. I'm not going to sell y'all the first off. Though, if it comes out sweet, it will be for sale. Anyway, the second knife in a series is always WAY better. So lets get the design and order summed up, then get a drawing, then a prototype, then a run-0-knives.
 
heavy_-j said:
yeah thats all fine and good....but he's asking WHY is gravity there?
Click to expand...

As was stated in the 1500's by Galileo, you cannot ask this question of a scientist. The Final Cause (purpose) of any object cannot be asked by a person that merely uses observation.

Scientists can tell you THAT something happens by observing it, but cannot tell you WHY something happens by observing it.

So - do things fall? Yes.

Why? Gravity.

Why Gravity? Do you mean to ask me why larger objects simply cause the warping of space/time?

Yes. I have no idea, it simply does.

This is why we have philosophy. To make the conjectures as to why things happen, largely absent of observation, and then allow scientists to make the observations to see if their theorems are supported.

These questions, first principles, can only be answered by the philosophic.


This is why String theory is a philosophic idea, those strings, if they exist, are so small that you cannot observe them, if you cannot observe them, you cannot say you have scientifically confirmed their existence.

Of course, we knew this, the scientific method itself cannot be observed (examples of it can, but not the method itself) and thus the basis for science (that things are as they seem) is unobservable. How could we confirm that things are not as they seem, we have no capability for that.

So, to finish, ask the Physicist IF gravity moves things and how - but don't as him WHY - he isn't qualified to answer that - unless he uses philosophic tools that may or may not be in his tool box. There must be a symbiosis between scientists and philosophers... lord knows I am not smart enough to do the calculations that Physicists do! ;)

TF
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top