studiot

No that is not what I said. Mentioning the most dangerous (to life ingeneral and humans in particular) was my mistake (although others seem also to have followed suit). You question was clear enough. However after I realised my mistake I added the part about finding the answer to your question at the bottom of the oceans. Since this is homework I cannot mention the landform explicitly. But look at the bottom of the oceans for one of the largest landforms on the planet that has been volcanically active for hundreds of millions of years (and still is), yet poses the least threat to humanity.

Good point, +1 However I was not thinking of a single volcano and the question did ask for which landform. I am also assuming that we are discussing an active volcanic landform. There is a particular landform that only occur at the bottom of oceans.

I still maintain the least dangerous will be found at the bottom of the oceans. Did you understand this comment ?

Thank you for your explanation, which is true mathematically. But the way that this is being presented is not, since it hides the fact that the constant of proportionality has units of its own to make the expression of proportion dimensionally correct. Also not being made plain is the fact that this is also the correction for curvature alone. A suitable correction for refraction also need to be made or accounted for in the methodology. The refraction correction is of the opposite sign to the curvature correction. We went over all this extensively in the last thread that was closed and FECORE are repeating their misunderstandings from 2016. +1 I also went over effect this in the last thread, my experience in the Arabian desert being the one where two theodolites were performing reciprocal observations (observing each other) and both recorded a small positive vertical angle, thus suggesting each was 'above' the other.

I seem to remember you are studying Environmental Science ? This is heavy geological stuff for that subject. Certainly explosively eruptive volcanoes offer an immediate candidate, especially the biggest ones. But these are still single point activities and the level of danger must depend upon where they are located. Under Tokyo or Mid Pacific ? Then some eruptions have put so much material into the upper atmosphere that world cooling for several years even to decades have resulted. Accompanied by noxious gases one of these could affect all humans. Finally some eruptions, such as the recent one in Iceland, are just large outflows of basaltic material. But there have been at least two such eruptions in the past that were continent wide in scale. The Deccan and the Siberian traps. Another such eruption from Xianging/Mongolia could wipe out most of Asia. Finally here is a good reference book for you Cambridge University press 2011 I'm very sorry I just re-read the title. You said the least dangerous. My mistake. The least dangerous will probably be found at the bottom of the oceans. I will leave you to investgate further as this is homework help.

Utter mathematical rubbish. It is devaiting with every single micrometre, picometre or attometre. Did you not read or not understand the formula I gave and subsequently worked out for you ? The deviation is measured in length units not area units. That is all there is to it.

What's this nonsense that is confusing everybody ? I already gave the correct formula Radius of Earth = 3959 miles So the offset from a circular curve is [math]\frac{{{{\left( {1mile} \right)}^2}}}{{2*3959}} = \frac{{1*1}}{{2*3959}}miles = \frac{{63360}}{{2*3959}}inches = 8inches[/math] Miles squared are a figment of someone's misunderstanding. Also what's this greatest laser experiment in history stuff ? Surely the first experiment to successfully make a working laser was and always will be the greatest ? +1 John, although I fear that level of sophistication may be beyond FECORE

The standard surveying (perpendicular) offset of a circular curve from its tangent point with a staight line is [math]\frac{{{{\left( {distance\;along\;straight} \right)}^2}}}{{2*Radius}}[/math] This formula is developed by truncating a Maclaurin/Taylor expansion of the geometry.

Glad to hear that you are making headway. 🙄 Superposition has been extremely successful as a method in a wide range of Sciences and Mathematics. Classically 'The Method of Superposition' is to be found in structural engineering, electrical engineering, Zoology and biology, optical engineering, mathematics (differential equations to name a few. So it was quite natural to extend the method to quantum mechanics in the study of chemical bonding. Pretty well all classical applications use what is known as linear superposition. This means that the various parts of the superposition can just be added together (each perhaps modified by a single constant) In fact they actually involve the opposite of superposition ie decomposition into the individual forces, curents, voltages, images etc and the effects of each calculated individually, before recombining them to solve the system The first use of quantum superposition was called the linear combination of atomic orbitals (LCAO) method to describe what happens to the orbitals when two atoms bond together chemically. This is where the subject introduces a joker because the pair of electrons become quantum entangled as they obey the Pauli exclusion principle. Superposition should not be confused with entanglement. Indeed the blue block and the red block I referred to earlier as not in superposition in their box are also entangled (this time classically) since if you remove one you atomatically know which one is left in the box. But remember they were never in superposition. The most modern studies are conducted into non linear superposition, which is a much more difficult subject, that needs full mathematical rigour to progress. There is only one nonlinear differential equation - the Riccati Equation - for which superposition solutions are known. Here is a paper from guys at CERN describing its application to Quantum Theory http://cds.cern.ch/record/347632/files/9802041.pdf If you want an expanded explanation of any of this, just ask.

Thanks for the comment I you want a laugh look at the lengths we went to to try to engage with the Balaton guy (Sandor Szekely) and his laser video. Mercifully this vid was rather shorter than 1 hour. The attempts at the mathematics of the geoid https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/98386-laser-curvature-test-on-lake-balaton/comments?ct=1620073192 The last lot of 'failed mathematics' in relation to the geoid spawned another thread all by itself. I look forward to you 'expert' maths in relation to this. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/98891-questions-about-the-geoid-split-from-lake-balaton-thread/page/2/?tab=comments

Please, Please, Please Not another Flat Earther ? Does anyone remember the one from Lake Balaton (Hungary) ?

I still disagee with the others here about the answer. Yes something (for 12 year olds) eg a system (for you) is in superposition or it is not. If it is not in superposition it does not mean that that not being in superposition is the opposite of 'supersition'. 'The state of not being in superposition' is the opposite of 'the state of being in superposition. ' However 'superposition' by itself is also a process; the process of supersition can be illustrated by the following examples. A single frequency sine wave cannot be in superposition or not in superposition since there is only one of them. We can construct a waveform by adding together different sine waves which are said to be 'put in superposition' We can also deconstruct the same waveform into the component sine waves, a process that is the direct opposite of the construction. Another example might be the mixing of two gases, say oxygen and nitrogen. Individually each gas exerts a pressure, known as the partial pressure, When these two gases are mixed, they are placed in a form of superposition, the mixture now possessing a new partial pressure which is the sum of the original two partial pressures. Equally such a mixture may be separted out of superposition into two separate gases, each with its own original pressure. However simply placing two objects into the same space or container, (this is the literal derivation of super-position = to position over) does not necessarily place them into superposition. Something new has to result from this placement for superposition to occur in Physics. For example placing a red block and a blue block into a box does not place the blocks into superposition, although they both occupy the box. This last part should help answering your comment about 'super' (latin for above)

I think it rather depends upon what you mean by superposition. Physics uses the term is a different way from mathematics as it introduces the idea of 'interaction' or if you prefer 'combined action'. So two sound waves from two separate sources in the same room (superposed) will interact to produce one single mathematically describable wave. But two light waves from separate sources will not.

Partition

Hi Moon, glad to see you are keeping yourself busy after your bereavement. 🙄 Depends on the 'plywood'. Working to 5/64 of an inch means you would normally cut oversize and sand to finsh. Also depends if you are going with or across the plies as plywood can be 'micro flaky' MDF is better in that respect. But if you are cutting concealed fitting joints this may not matter as slight imperfections will not show. However accurate hand cutting of such joints takes years of practise, jigs help, but sanding to fit is the most dependable method for the occasional woodworker.

What I don't understand is why after extensive explanation and help (from some very knowledgeable people) asking this very question at PhysicsForums you seem to be looking for some different answers here. It should be noted that electrolytic capacitors are not the only components with a definite life. They are just the most notorious offenders. Personally I have mostly been lucky with them. The last capacitor that died on me was last year in a high end CD deck. It was a resin encapsulated super mains filter capacitor. The problem is that for some unlucky folks their mains supply is very 'dirty' (has many spikes and transients). Capacitors are meant to absorb the energy of these, which they do, But each time this happens a small amount of damage occurs to the capacitor until eventually it burns out and needs to be replaced. As components become smaller and smaller this effect has become more marked as the energy density is necessarily greater in a small component.

I am referring to this issue. The most relevent paragraph is indicated by the pink bars.

In Fig 2 seems to be suggesting that the photon travels the distance between distance between two wave peaks in the same time the electron makes one orbit of the atom. Since the orbit circumference is much larger than that of this distance it seems to be suggesting that the electron (with mass) is travelling at many times the speed of the photon. How can this happen either classically or quantally ? This is a key statement. +1 If you illuminate a barrier with one slit and direct the output light from the slit onto a screen on the other side from the source what will you observe as the size of the slit is reduced ?

Have you considered how far a 'photon' will (must) have moved in one second or even one attosecond, in relation to any reasonable 'size' one might attribute to it ?

She could OR she could not. . .. It is not for our scholastic presuppositions to determine that . .. It is for the Lady Gorilla herself to decide for her own stomach . .. . I'm sorry to tell you that your command of the English language has failed you, for you have not answered my question, even though I emboldened the important words. The issue of the banana and the gorilla was an example of my meaning set as a rhetorical question, and not requiring an answer in itself. It would seem that you did not read my mathematical post either because in your own words this is If you wish to take issue with my mathematics, you should say so, not plough on and ignore it as though I had not bothered to write anything.

Why before ? what is wrong with if ? If there was a hundred foot banana could a 500 foot gorilla eat it ?

In fairness, I take this as a slip of the pen on Reza's behalf. The limit of the scalar total energy of a particle as its velocity, u, tends to zero is m0c2, which is of course, the famous Einstinian mass - energy relationship Sensei has referred to. But I think a slip of terminology also occurs here since c is the speed of light - a scalar invariant constant and is included in the equation. To see this it is necessary to use the correct quantites and equations. In terms of the scalar invariant, m0 (rest mass) The variant scalar speed of the particle, u The invariant scalar c, - the speed of light The total scalar energy, W may be written [math]W = {m_0}{c^2}\left( {1 + \frac{{{u^2}}}{{2{c^2}}} + \frac{{3{u^4}}}{{8{c^4}}} + ...} \right) = {m_0}{c^2} + \frac{1}{2}{m_0}{u^2} + {m_0}\frac{{3{u^4}}}{{8{c^2}}} + ....[/math] If we take the limit as [math]u \to 0[/math] We find this is [math]W = {m_0}{c^2}[/math] If we look the other way (u increasing) then the series diverges rapidly as [math]u \to c[/math]

That was a great start to your membership. +1 Looking forward to more bang on stuff.

To supply some real hard information and equations to discuss here are details of a specific gravity balance available well before WWI, let alone WWII (ca 1890 to 1910). It also shows why you are incorrect in you statement about density. I apologise for the poor quality of the scan, but the book it came from is rather old and thick and I can't lay it flat.

No you most certainly do not. You even commented the opposite yourself either backalong in this thread or its parent. And you still have not addressed my comments here about the differences between objects and substances and their densities and specific gravities.