studiot

I just have visions of megalithic mercury man scratching his head when he came to this signpost. Today, of course, he would just use a Falkirk Wheel. 🙂

Don't you think these are rather adversarial ? I agree that stone age Man knew nothing about the core of the Earth. But serious work began in the rennaisance with studies of gravity. Later work by that reclusive genius Cavendish was able to establish that it must be made of something very dense by careful gravitational measurement. The late 19th century brought new tools to bear with the beginnings of seismology by Ernst yon Rebeur-Pasebwitz, techniques that have continued to develop ever since. Current work in Canada, Sweden, Antarica, out in space and elsewhere continues to probe the working of the core via the Earth's magnetosphere, which can only be generated in the core. A good book to read here is 'Aurora' by physicist, Melanie Windrush who specialises in this stuff.

I didnt say it did or that it didn't. I said This, for your information and in accordance with the rules of the English language reffers to the last named nound, this this case "thread" I even added, for clarity, the reason why this thread is not about consciousness. Please read the postings of others before you react. I have other mundane things to do this evening, like the wahing up, before the evening film.

I'm sorry you have completely missed the point of this thread. This is not about consciousness I carefully separated it out from a thread about that subject, because it is not about consciousness. You were having, let us call them discussions, with the moderators in that thread. This thread is there to help you understand what they and others are saying to you about Science.

Fair questions. Jasper said "all sciences" , in which I include Mathematics. The point is that Mathematics is (or would like to be) axiomatic based. Whereas Physics has no axioms, only principles. In fact whilst is is a requirement of a system of axioms in Maths to be self consistent, Physics (and many other sciences) is a study of the opposition of different agents and what happens when the result needs to satisfy both (or them all) in some way. Does this answer your question ?

I have started another discussion thread for your benefit to discuss this idea.

I have started this thread to help jasper better understand science as a result of this comment. I have placed the discussion in Philosophy to be even handed to both Sciences which I propose The underlying approach to their subjects by Physics and Mathematics are the antithesis of each other, curious because Physics relies so heavily on Mathemstics.

Really ? And I object to someone claiming a Masters in Physics (note there are PhD's and above here) producing no Physics at all here. Please read the rules about needing to go offsite. In any case Seth has already pointed out the simple fact that Archimedes does not apply here. Archimedes applies when the bouyant object is musch much smaller than the immersion medium. So the state and geometry of the immersion medium (ocean. lake, atmousphere etc) is not changed by the immersion. What does apply is used in foundation engineering where fluid pressure is an important consideration. It is emminently possible that fluid pressure could be applied to reduce the burden of horizontal force required to drag the stones along. After all fluid pressure has tipped over our concrete dams and othere structures in the past. Finally a question for you. If you did manage to float a large heavy stone in an even larger and heavier tub of mercury; how would you move the whole sheebang, given that you are floating it in the mercury to get over its weight in the first place ? Please provide a specific Physics answer not hand waving.

I really can't see the interest in this idea. Cladking's hydraulic system at least made mechanical sense and could have been implemented with the technology of the time in ancient Egypt. If you are going to make a containing channel strong enough to contain the pressures involved in supporting a 100 (remember the OP actually said hundreds) tons block you have to ask how would neolithic Man have constructed it ? It would surely have been a more onerous task then making the block itself. Having consrtucted the channel how would the stone have been lifted in and out ? And of course how would they have made 180 miles of channel ?

I was under the impression that there is a religion section in this forum for discussing the scientific aspect of religion, not for expounding individual religous beliefs.

Yes there are different ways of specifying many things in Mathematics, but in the case of a Field they all specify the same thing. However a Field in Physics can be shown to directly contradict any of these specifications.

Yes agreed. +1 to mrmack who originally pointed it out and to exchemist for confirm it. But also seth (+1) has noted that it might be a lubricant, which uses different mechanics. However I know nothing about the possible use of mercury as a lubricant. I do know its meniscus is the 'other way up' as it doesn't wet many materials.

Paradoxically, it's very difficult to define a field in Physics without some mathematics! +1 I would say that in Physics if, in a simply connected region of space(either abstract or physical), some quantity (again either abstract or physical) has a defined value at every point in that space then a Field is said to exist in that space. thjis means that a Physics field may be either abstract in the sense of a direction field or have some physical presence as in a stress field. Mathematiclly a field is a non empty set of elements equipped with two binary operations, usually called addition and multiplication.such that the set is a commutative group under addition and the set, with the exclusion of the zero element, is a commutative group under multiplication and that multiplication distributes over addition. This makes some sets of numbers to be fields and other sets of numbers such as the integers not fields. The smallest mathematical field has two members 0 and 1. But they don't have to be numbers, they could be other symbols such as T and F or H and C or 'square' and 'circle' or 'facing forwards' and 'facing backwards'. However it is conceivable that an (infinite) Physics field variable has values running through all the integers, but is still not a field in the Mathematics sense.

I like the connection between coarse/fine graining and fractals, I had not though of it that way. +1 But connections to number theory ?

So you can't support your claims, you are only dreaming. I am self consistent in my like of lasagne, so I am pleased to eat some. I don't see any mathematics in that unless it is in the 10 of 10cc in their words "Life is a lasagne." Go well.

Can I borrow your rotating microscope ? You will get more help if you 1) Post a large enough trace to read 2) Post it the right way up 3) Post any thought you already have as to identifying the peaks ? This is, after all, a university level question.

Yes the title refers to number theory and 'the field'. Both have very specific definitions and places in Mathematics (they are mathematical terms). Some of their properties are borrowed for (extensive) use in Physics and other sciences, but, and I have already pointed this out, The type of field you are referring to is not a field is the mathematical (algebraic) sense of the word. The Physics definition is not compatible with the formal algebraic definition.

Looks like a corian worktop. They suggest ammonia, (you mask will come in handy and wear gloves) https://www.corian.com/-use-care-

If what you say as gospel is actually true you will be able to support it with mathematics won't you ?

+1

Go easy on the poor soul, PHI, he's just been watching too many marvel movies during lockdown. +1

What on earth does this have to do with number theory ?

Contrast this statement With this one If you don't/can't read responses how are you going to be able to respond (anywhere) to them ?

Short and sweet again. +1 Lack of Gravitation was the reason Einstein moved on from SR to GR.

Thanks for the reply, yeah it is beginning to look like a dodgy connection where the lead enters the back of the plug.