studiot

Well I don't see that a negative vote is a good welcome to a potential new member who might have other worthwhile comments to make. So I have balanced it with a +1 Thank you jeremy. I believe it is legitimate to post links to sites which offer a free calculator or other processor or data even if they would like visitors to venture further and buy something from them as with your link. Google will alo find many free plotters.

Pour evaluer le AI vous avez besoin de travailler en francais. 😀

Here is an easy experiment you can try. Equipment 1 sink of water 4 dinner plates 1 washing up brush Immerse the stack of plates in the sink of water, make sure they are completely submerged. Take the washing up brush and make a swirl in the water above the plates. Report what happens when you go faster and faster. Where did the force come from ?

The discharge pipe went straight up from the airing cupboard containing the tank into the attic and curved over the header tank to discharge into it. Straight into the block of ice at the top of that tank.

Not quite, if I understand the mechanism of your thrust correctly. Since you have drawn a circular boat ( ie a coracle) I have also indicated one. Fixed on the edge is a stator', in my case with the North pole facing inwards, As the centre rotor rotates the axis of its magnet always points along the radius, with its south pole at the put end of the rotating arm or rotor. As the rotating arm approaches the stator. the stator (and therfor the boat) will experience an increasing sideways pull towards the end of the rotor. When the rotor passes the stator the pull direction will reverse. This induces a left - right wiggling to the stator. However the vector of the force has a component along the line between the wiggles as shown. ~This is your thrust. So there is a polarity ( in direction) reversal involved.

I'm glad you understand that your are trying to create a model. However you are relying on two features, present in the model, but not present in gravity. Firstly polarity, as I have already said. Your vibration relies on alternate attraction and repulsion to work Gravity has only attraction, but never has repulsion. Secondly, again as I have already said and you have now ignored twice, the distances over which gravity acts effectively are very different from the distances in your model. So your model is inappropriate.

Polarity means positive and negative, as with electricity and magnetism, (though we call magnetic polarity north seeking and south seeking) Gravitational attraction is always positive. Please note that the force of electrostatic attraction is vastly stronger than gravity at atomic and molecular distances. Please note that most substances (matter) occur as molecules not individual atoms. You have drawn the typical 'miniature solar system' representation of two atoms with several or many electrons, also called the Bohr atom. This is perfectly adequate for this discussion. You can consider the electrons as little balls moving round so fast that they can be considered 'smeared out', over the shell and take an average. But I also commented Hence my offering about shielding.

My comments only take into account the effects of rotations of not the direct effects on quantities (differential or otherwise) as projections or components. Rotations by themselves do not lead to the cross products involved.

Indeed the electrons in both the Bohr orbital model and qhantum models suffer the opposite effect, which has significant consequency in the chemistry of atoms and molecules. It is called the electrostatic screening or shielding effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shielding_effect Folks so often forget the effect of the other electrons in an atom or molecule when considering the actions of one single electron.

Interesting, you have taught me something. +1 It the dangers rather depend on where the freeze up is. Some years ago, when we had colder winters, we were away for a holiday and when we came back there was no water coming out of the hot taps, except for an initial flow. These taps were fed from a DHW copper cylinder, with an attic header tank and gravity inlet feed. The attic tank had frozen, blocking its outlet to the DHW tank, causing a vacuum to prevent water exiting the hot tank. I found this when I heard a crumpling sound and investigated. The DHW tank had crumpled inwards because of the vacuum. I was so relieved when the soft copper popped back to shape, but remained watertight. after the attic tank was thawed.

There is no polarity involved in gravity.

This contains a fundamnetal inaccuracy mixed up with correct statements. exchemist is correct about the principle of induction heating conductive material. You are correct that this is not the cause of melting deep within a planet. Solid materials from ice to carbon dioxide to methane to iron can melt if the pressure is high enough. The pressure can be high enough due to gravity. If, only only if the resulting liquid is electrically conductive, convective currents within the liquid will generate electric curents according to Faraday's Laws. These curents will in turn generate magnetic fields. Even within the Earth the exact circulatory pattern has yet to be resolved.

Thawing pipes containing frozen water can have unwanted consequences; how to go aout the job needs careful consideration. Also a hair drier or other hot air blower is better since you won't have wet pipes to cope with. If you must use hot water, soak a cloth in the water and wrap it round the pipe. Rinse and repeat.

Obviously not well enough known to be noted here. The issue is a practical one, that both GR and QM share since both assume infinite divisibility of space. The issue is that the smallest particles we have identified are about 15 orders of magnitude greater in size than the planck length and 20 orders of magnitude greater than we have successfully been able to probe. ( note I am measuring size by L units, not M units ie diameter not mass). If you want to probe the mathematics of the region between this sizes I recommend this book which take you from Brirkhoff and Von Neuman (1936) through Segal (1947) to Kakutani(1948) and Gleason (1953) and Bogachev (1998) for mathematical models of what happens with Borel sets in (possibly infinite Hilbert spaces (manifolds). The question of the meaning and existance of A*B and A + B and A-B and commutators is examined in great detail leading to Segals axiomatic statement of QM. It is how ever admitted that (axiom VII) the justification is 'that it works'. As my last reference indicated work has proceed since Mackay's 1963 original.

Sadly the world seems besotted with AI at the moment, to the detriment of all other sciences and technologies.