Mellinia

In addition, the energy will be conserved but the force applied on the wires(Very hard to discern from your images) will not be conserved, so thinking that it will be halved might be wrong

I believe you know that a higher water concrete mixture leads to less shear stress handling from experience? But I digress. My dear, nobody said that it was a very accurate ratio (it gives the ratio, only with all those ingredients(HRWRAadded) for a 170mm Slump) , but as I said earlier, Science is never sure but it strives to improve. And that's why we need professionals like you to hand in data to the researchers.

Well then, at least the last guy showed us some "maths" and explanations. Why don't you try to flesh out further of your theory? Though you want to check if it approximates to Newtonian gravity (for simplicity) first because it was right for some approximation.

Note: There's game theory in maths that model game behavior which you can look up under maths. A classic example was the prisoners' dilemma

LOL I think it was in the trash can. Something about TOE with rotational concepts and force particles. You'd better by reviewing current physics in depth then criticizing it.

There's always a revision of fluid dynamics(i.e. air currents) at your mouse tip, without reverting to another failed concept (that I have met in another locked post before, with exactly the same mechanism as yours)

I have shown an example of research and formula of one of the mixtures for that desired workability. (ps. it calculates a 0.35 water cement ratio for that type, with zone 2 sand) It is possible to specify the amount of water. Also, I have linked you to another link to calculate the stress you want your concrete to handle, and use those fluid equations(along with heat of hydration and crystal formation from chemistry) to calculate it. My dear, the question is out, the equations and tips to solve given, and you're still asking me to do the maths homework to show that maths cannot produce a model for shear stress handling of concrete?

My dear, that was one type of mixture. I believe you did not read the discussion of the paper. Experience is not inheritable, but information is, my dear. Experience that is written into concrete information has real value, and that is what maths and physics aim to do. Chinese traditional medicine has that very flaw of not being able to translate experience into concrete information, but modern medicine has.

Exotic matter of what properties?

My dear chap, isn't it your job to find the relation between the concrete, aggregate, sand and water, so that anyone after you can make the same high quality you made? But then again, knock yourself out. http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1516-14392011000400001&script=sci_arttext The real deal of math modeling can be found after seeing this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_mass_plasticity

My dear, science is never sure, but striving to improve. QM is the current model. That beside the point, what does this have to do with time?

For every type of 'consistency', there is a correct amount of water. For every type of phenomena, there is maths to model it. You do approximations because you don't lug a super computer with you all the time. You might want to look up on how a plane is designed to ensure it's safety. The engineers don't make it by "feel" or simply Trial and Error, my dear chap. You don't feel that maths is important when you don't need high precision.

My dear, you have to learn to walk before you fly. That's why you need to learn basic sciences before you advance. Also, if you are not aware, atomic physics do have a simulation model of the nucleus and electrons.

You do realize that there are set proportions for the amount of water in that example, with specific instructions to make it? Not knowing something does not make it nonexistent.

My dear, clocks measure time, not produce it. You might want to google "second" for the accurate definition of a second.

What is our universe heading to, exactly?

So....I guess what you're saying is that nature just work the way it is? Like the principle of least action, etc?

Yes,it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon No, I don't.

You talked about how string particles interact with their surroundings and then you mention phonons...? Your point being?

Essentially what you have said is the laws of thermodynamics, with an added "string particle" which you have not explained.

Not all particles are held together by the electromagnetic force. And that "charge in circles movement" was proven to be wrong. Look up on Bohr radius.

Yup, the question indeed is how much light will diffract. Would most of the photon energy prefer to go through the slit instead of the glass, since the slit is a vacuum?

You might want to review Faraday's law and Ampere's Law for that.

If I had a perfect glass(completely transparent) pane, with a slit cut into the center, that has a length lesser than the wavelength of photon A, and I shoot a stream of photon A perpendicularly to the slit,(the whole apparatus in a vacuum), will the photons show the single slit diffraction phenomena on the other side, or would just it pass through the transparent glass?