Acme

You're welcome. I'll try a little experimenting here if it's OK and maybe we can get it fingered out. Will start by posting the examples given and see what that gets us. This: [ta=left] [tr] [td]Hi[/td][td]there[/td] [/tr] [/ta]Gives this: Hithere This: [ta=left][tr][td]Hi[/td][td]there[/td] [/tr] [tr][td]Hi[/td][td]there[/td][/tr] [tr][td]Hi[/td][td]there[/td][/tr] [tr][td]Hi[/td][td]there[/td][/tr] [tr][td]Hi[/td][td]there[/td][/tr] [tr][td]Hi[/td][td]there[/td][/tr][/ta]Gives this: Hi there Hithere Hithere Hithere Hithere Hithere

There are BB codes for tables, though I haven't used them and can't say if they meet your needs. Scroll down at this link: >> Science Forums BB codes

Fantastic! http://new.livestream.com/ESA/cometlanding

As the staff seems content to consider Dekan's post suitable I'll take up the theme in Mike's context. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then Dekan's 175 words are indicative of a small, flaccid, and unsatisfyingly incomplete scientific intercourse on the bone of contention. A line by Mr. Emerson seems fitting to the topic: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

What I see is you habitually whining over how balderdash is received here. That is not limited to this thread but others you have initiated as well. Inasmuch as you have to be aware of people's reactions to your postings I find it is you who is stirring the pot and provoking hostility overtly and covertly. Pretending otherwise is not going to fly IMHO. Please spare me/us any further rebuttal as I have had my say and I know you won't leave off this inane complaining regardless of what others have to say.

As has been pointed out this is pretty much the approach taken. Also as pointed out it goes ignored, much as you ignore what others are telling you now. Your response is to amp up the rhetoric with your endless provocations and argumentation. Whether you or others are proud of the gobbledygook you and they write up is immaterial to the content. Y'all make discussion useless and achieve nothing but discord and trashing up the board to a degree that makes finding legitimate discussion here an exercise in futility. If anything I think the patience shown to you & others by staff here in Speculations is overdone.

It is you who is the aggressor here as you decry math and rigor ad nauseam. You not only do it in your own specious speculations but encourage others to ignore math and rigor on this board. You should not be surprised at the push-back.

Balderdash. As Strange pointed out, measuring time is a mathematical construct as are ratios. Your blatherings are a disservice to science and this board as well as to any youth who read your postings here.

We are not children and you are teaching us nothing. (Save perhaps what a monumental load of crap one person can pile up.) ... Again no. It is not that rigor can come but that it must. Galileo put the meat on the bones with rigorous math. >>Galileo ramps Why do you insist on continuing to irritate and provoke us? Good grief again and again.

No; this is a misunderstanding of science. No matter how much you squeal & squirm there is no making a silk purse of a sow's ear. That is to say their is no making a scientific speculation of a wild ass guess. (Notwithstanding the fella that boiled down a sow's ear and made fibers of the result.) The material you present here and that is presented by those you ostensibly support belong in a personal blog and not a science discussion forum. It's all nothing more than a royal waste of time. Good grief.

You can make yourself a little sandbag or beanbag to support your camera for next to nothing. When you sew the sack, shape it to fit the camera, e.g. L-shaped sides might be better for a cell phone camera. If you use sand, choose a fine fabric that won't leak. These bag supports are easy to carry and also great for low shots outdoors where regular tripods often work poorly.

I don't have a smart phone but I have the Andy Android emulator on my PC. Will your app work through that? If so is there anything special I need to know about installing it to Andy?

I checked on the Peterhead plant and while it has gone through a variety of system configurations it appears it is now only operating as a gas fueled combined cycle station with an efficiency of 57%. (So it's not using kerosene.) They have a limit on what they can produce because of the transmission system. Peterhead Power Station

Nice setup Moontan. I had a grandpa in Nebraska that used to catch bullheads in gravel pits and he put the undersized ones in a big steel tank under his windmill. I can't remember what he fed them & not sure if they were yellow bullheads or what. Do you eat any of the fish you catch? . Americans feed more people outside of their own country than any other nation on Earth, though as a percentage of gross national income Norway ranks #1 and US is #20. Since Norway has no shortage of fat folk I don't think one can draw a legitimate correlation between obesity and charitable donations of food. List of governments by development aid Overweight and obesity in Norway - fact sheet Do you know why fish don't get fat? Because they eat fish. (courtesy Jerry Seinfeld)

I think you should find out exactly because if the kerosene is being used as jet fuel in a turbine [jet] engine as opposed to a furnace fired steam boiler driving a steam turbine then the station (if using a jet engine) might be more efficient. I say this because we have a natural gas power plant in my village in which the gas fuels a turbine engine and then the cooling water drives a secondary steam turbine [on the same shaft] before the water goes to the cooling stations. This two stage generator gives added efficiency as it was explained to me when I toured the plant when it opened. Edit: I had the term incorrect. It's not two-stage, rather called combined cycle. Here's a Wiki: >>Combined cycle generators

No worries. At next opportunity I will move to the 2 mirror scenario, make my measurements, and post a photo. I noticed Mordred listed symmetries and I recall that M.C. Escher has -in some sources- been credited with classifying symmetries before any mathematicians. (I was challenged here on this anecdote before and I have no interest in debating the subject again; it's not germane so don't start it up.) My point about Escher is that his classification came after his experiments and that seems in line with your methods. In the spirit of your work and I believe within permissibility of copyright I post this scaled reproduction of an image of Escher's from 1935. Source

The problem with inputting power to the house as an EMP would do is that the effect wouldn't be temporary. The equipment burned out would remain burned out and the combustible surrounds -such as the house itself- may well burn. Ooops! For a temporary effect I think one would want to draw off incoming juice to reduce voltage to a point where the equipment in the house would cease to function. Short of a mechanical connection to the feed line the only means seems to me to be a transformer. So a coil brought into suitable proximity & arrangement with the feed line and connected to ground so the incoming juice is diverted. 'Portable' being a relative term I don't think any 'small' -that is inconspicuous- apparatus/transformer would suffice. Maybe just talk to your neighbor about the loud music?

But I did not deduce the 7.5 cm, I measured it with the rule. After I made the measurements I recorded them as you said and I took that 'record it' to mean write down the measurements. While I see that saying 7.5 is 75% of 10 I did not make or record that deduction. But the camera had nothing to do with the experiment. You said nothing about a camera; as an afterthought I decided to take a photo and post it to witness my setup. Adding my recorded measurements to the photo was another afterthought. Would my experiment have been wrong if I had simply posted my written recording of the measurements? But as I say; the photo was an afterthought and I did not take any measurements from the photo. I can understand that my point of view by-eye certainly altered my perception of the setup. I looked at it from innumerable perspectives as I moved around setting things in place and taking my measurements. It was all that looking that satisfied me that I had followed your directions. I also did some looking just to see what it looked like from different points of view. Acknowledged. Acknowledged on natural consequences. I'm still unclear about where the camera is 'supposed' to be and if I had used no camera is that the same place my eye is 'supposed' to be. ? Very good. I have experimented with this a bit myself as well as studied some of Hofstadter's screen stills and classifications of different setups and resulting patterns. As an aside, are you familiar with Hofstadter's writing? Thanks for your consideration & don't hurry any response on my account as you have the others to respond to as well as the work you want to present. I am if nothing, patient.

Philosophy solves the problem of generating unsolvable problems.

No worries. So much for the implication that brevity breeds clarity. I think it may be an advantage in this context. As an aside, it's a disadvantage in most contexts. Gotta play the cards as dealt. As pertains to the topic context, what specifically do you see as an advantage? Something that would improve my results? Is there some part of the experiment that would prompt you to close/cover one eye? I am of course still interested in any thoughts on the issue from naturephysic2345, particularly if it's going to skew my results. (A bit of geometry humor there. ) So I can use the cube block and mirrors whenever I want now so I'm in no hurry to try the two mirror setup before I hear back from naturephysic2345 on how I did on the first part. No point in compounding any errors. So naturephysic2345, as I earlier alluded to Hofstadter I want to ask you if using a video camera pointed at a screen that the camera is feeding is an equivalent experiment to the 2 mirror setup. Any commentary on the equivalence or difference would be appreciated, particularly if it has some bearing on where you are going with all this. That's all I got.

Danke. Besides the mathematical framework of the sequence, I am familiar with it in nature through botany. On to the experiment. I have done the first part and thought I'd post that before moving on. (Also I had to yield the lavatory for more mundane purposes.) Revisting your instructions: I took a photograph and annotated it with my measurements. Clearly the face remains four-square in the reflection, however the top does not remain four-square as we would expect foreshortening in both the reflection and the real cube. To measure the reflection I held my rule to the mirror. When I changed my point of view the rule end no longer aligned to the reflection end. (I'm not sure if it's germane to any of this but I might mention I only have sight in one eye and so have no depth perception. Please advise me if this is going to be a problem.) So here's my annotated photo of the setup. Let me know if I've done it right before I move on to the second mirror. PS The cube face is 10 cm from the mirror face.

Well, that's all very interesting in a personal sort of way but as the last article made clear, the inner core has in the past -by all indications- rotated West. The offset I presume you are still taking from that Martin Wolf paper and I thought you understood that that work is speculative and not supported by any consensus. None I have been able to find at any rate. His references do not draw his conclusions; he merely takes bits from them and cobbles them together for his conclusion. If you have some such endorsement by all means present it. No, it has not added to the heating. The core(s) are -and have been- cooling since Earth formed. You don't seem to get that the Earth's heat flow is from inside out. Earth is and ever has been loosing its heat to space. The core heat is a residual from Earth's formation and the decay of radioactive elements. I'll just post a link without quotes as it is late, but I expect you to read the article. >>Probing Question: What heats the earth's core? @ PhysOrg The Sun does not create Earth's magnetic field, Moon or no Moon. Again, the Sun does not create or add to Earth's magnetic field. The Earth field is from the inside out; a geodynamo. The pole reversals have been reproduced using computer models and to do that the generating actions have to be understood well enough to program the computers. I thought I posted a link on that but I may just have referred to it. I'll look tomorrow. So too are there models for how the Sun changes poles, though it's far different to Earth. It has to do with unequal rotation rates twisting the magnetic field lines until they 'snap' IIRC. I think Spaceweather.com has an article or two on that. Again I'll have to look around, but rest assured I have read about it. EDIT: Here ya go. SUN’S MAGNETIC POLES FLIP:Posted on 2014/01/02 In no case are amateurs proposing explanations/theories that the professionals will take seriously. It just doesn't happen that way. Spare me any harping about thinking-out-of-the box or stodgy orthodoxy or some such arguments; we have separate threads on that.

I'm anxious to read yours as it is more recent. It seems it affirms the faster inner-core speed as delineated in the study I gave, and adds that the outer liquid core is moving 'westward'. I think they mean relative to the mantle and crust as you had suggested but I need to reread both to get it straight in my head. Me? Argumentative? . Addendum: OK. Finished my gaming and read the University of Leeds article pointed to from Science Daily. [Your original link pointed to the Science Daily article.] Here's that Leeds link and some quotes: New insights solve 300-year-old problem: the dynamics of the Earths core So my source would be one of those that, "In the last few decades, seismometers measuring earthquakes travelling through the Earths core have identified an eastwards, or superrotation of the solid inner core, relative to Earths surface.". Note that the evidence suggests the directions appear to have changed historically and this being due to magnetic influences is very unlike your [bobbitty] bowl experiment. It also discounts the argument that the Moon's tidal force is driving the rotations. Also, while there may likely be heat generated at the boundaries as you have suggested, such heat does not go into the inner core. At best it is just slowing the cooling of the core(s). I would also point out that Earth's overall Eastward/counterclockwise rotation is an artifact of the solar system formation the same as the Sun & other planets. [excepting Venus, but this is believed due to impact.] As with Mars, Earth's core(s) will slowly cool enough to shut down the geodynamo and so our magnetic field will cease. None of this changes the fact that the OP is far off the beam. PS Here's the full paper that prompted the pop-sci articles. >> Electromagnetically driven westward drift and inner-core superrotation in Earth’s core