studiot

On re reading the OP, you could be right, I may have misread and jumped to the wrong conclusion as to the question. If that is the case my apologies to IndianScientist and thank you John for the correction, +1

You have made some good points but left out all the background as others have observed, even to the extent of not indicating what sort of current you are referring to. Current is a very general term that refers to transport of charge by charge carriers or transport of energy in electromagnetic fields. There are many complications to discuss.

This is just a speculation and you seem to have spent a lot of time here discussing other matters without visiting this thread. Are you still interested ?

I think I am going to buy a dictionary of philosophy. Have you any recommendations, Do you know the Cambridge, or Oxford or Harper - Collins ones ? I'm glad you like my example. It also serves as an example of the point I am still trying to make. This is that some existences can only said to be extant if the extend over a period of time. Burning is a chemical reaction and the house burning occurs over a period of time so for many istants it is obvious that there can be said "to be a burning house" (present tense). However for some chemical reactions for example the reaction between two molecules, say hydrogen and iodine, the situation is different. The beginning of the reaction is somewhere along the trajectories of the two molecules. If they collide they may coalesce to some intermediate compound This itself may either decay back to the original reactants or new products may fly forth. If they decay back, can a chemical reaction be said to exist ? If products are formed how much of the beginning the middle and the end do you include in the statement A chemical process takes place (ie exists) between the beginning the middle and the end ?

To add a little to this The equation (x-25)(x+25) = 0 has integer roots, x = +5 and x = -5 The equation (10x-25)(10x+25) = 0 has no integer roots but has rational roots x = +25/10 and x = -25/10 The equation (x-√2.5)(x+√2.5) = 0 has neither integer roots nor rational roots but has irrational real roots x = +√2.5 and x = -√2.5

All that means is there is no real number solution to the equation. You need to use complex numbers. You are presumably aware of the nesting of number systems or types complex numbers contain all real numbers which contain all rational numbers (fractions) which contain all integers (whole numbers). Mostly we work in the real number system ( symbol R) For this is paired with solutions to polynomial equations, the simplest have integer solutions, next simplest have rational number solutions, then real number solutions finally complex number solutions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_root_theorem

The one thing this question is not about is organic chemistry. The chemistry of clay materials is very properly inorganic chemistry. But I question if this is a chemistry question at all. The term 'uniform' is a very general term that is scientifically meaningless until qualified by some context of application. It means that all objects considered obey the same rule (or set of rules) in some context. So a unform electrical line has the same electrical properties throughout its length in electrical theory A uniform extension refers, in metrology, to a standard rate of extension against gauge length Uniform in mathematics refers to a common prioperty of members of a set, or subset. Geologists also refer to strata a uniform, meaning composition. But, from the reference to a potter's wheel, I think the key usage here is to be found in Rheology which refers to the mechanical properties of viscosity, cohesion and deformability. Such information would normally reside in the discipline of soil mechanics. These are particularly complicated for clays as a clay is made of two components. Clay minerals and water. Both of these contribute to the rheological (mechanical) properties of the clay. I think that potters are like cooks, they supply the context by talking about a 'uniform consistency' which is just fine as consistency is taken to mean 'the properties of interest to me' I have limited knowledge of the potter's wheel but I understand it is important to get the water content correct and this changes during throwing and working the clay, even before dying and eventual firing. I agree with iNow, unform is not the totally correct term as a clay can be banded - ie - have very fine strata - and uniform, because all the bands are repeated in the same way throughout the clay lump. Such clay is not homogenous, a different, homogenous, clay is required by potters. Homogenous means the composition is the same at every point in the lump. There is no banding. Another allied term is isotropic, which means some property is the same in all directions. Bulk clay is isotropic in respect of the mechanical properties of the water content and the random orientation of the clay mineral particles at the molecular level. But the minerals (molecules) themselves are not istropic. Due to inter molecular electrical forces they have very complicated mechianical properties. The water component is mechanicallyboth isotropic and homogenous. The process of working the clay both removes the water and 'lines up' the clay minerals so they no longer have isotropic mechanical properties but they are still homogenous. Does this help ?

Actually no I don't see the relevance, which is why I said "I dont see......." , until such time as you enlighten me. I am guessing but you mean subtly rather than severely ? Quite the opposite of avoiding difficulties I have by trying to expose them. Hence my comments on processes and noting that processes necessarily bring time into the definiton of existance. I had a further thought about this. Consider The fire was so intense it burned the house to the ground. Can a burned down house exist ?

I can't see any relevence of your reply to my post whatsoever. This thread is about existence in general. Any sort of type of existence. Mostly something exists in one type of existence or another. However, as always, it is the grey areas that introduce the difficulties.

Is the driver of a stationary car being competitive ? But he can be deuced annoying if his car is blocking someone else's path, when he himself can't go anywhere. I think zap's example is good because it demonstrates that a driver can be angry, but still comply with the rules. If he has started tailgating, flashing his lights and honking his horn that would have been rage IMHO. So I am saying that rage is an over reaction to a (stressful) situation.

Yes I agree that the angry driver is not necessarily the competitive one. But those that are blithely ignorant and unaware of the needs of other road users and therefore not competitive, can be the cause of anger in those others.

Not all uncooperative drivers are angry. Consider the situation in a busy city street with continuous streams of traffic in both directions. Now consider the driver who wishes to turn left into a sidestreet thereby necessitating crossing the oncoming traffic. There are many variations of this scenario, but all are expedited by cooperation. Sadly some (many? most?) drivers do not cooperate in this situation. They are not angry, they just don't know any better.

The so called big bang hypothesis is based on four dimensional Relativity. The first Law is an conservation law of a 3 dimensional scalar called energy. This scalar is not conserved in four dimensional Relativity. Also applicable are the conditions of the First Law such that we have to decide if the Universe is an open, closed or isolated system. We do not know the answer to this. So all in all it is just our best guess. Another point, I see you are new and have made 3 posts. You are permitted a total of 5 in your first 24 hours as an successful anti spam measure, you will benefit from later in your membership.

Old fashioned London drivers would agree 110% with this first sentence. +1 Responsible for some definitely, but ALL ?

Remembering this thread is about existence not actuality nor virtuality nor reality nor any other 'ality. Processes present an interesting aspect of existence. That of time. Finite processes have at least a beginning a middle and an end. Unless these all occur simultaneously so the process is independent of time, the question arises "Can the process ever be said to exist ?" This is because only part of the process 'exists' at any one point in time ie at any present. One small point. Whilst I am flattered that you choose to be so polite to me, I am not female ie I am not a 'Lady'. I am sorry if anything I have said has lead you to believe otherwise. I often say she did this or Jane did that as well as Jack did this etc, in order to promote gender equality in my small way.

It is not necessary to expect your planet / moon system to create this weather on its own. There could be a conjunction with other bodies in its solar system that shaded it or passed it through a dust cloud every 4 years, or near an eccentrically orbiting body or somesuch. Many succesful SF stories have been built on variations of this from The Dragons of Pern to the short stories of The Unorthodox Engineers.

The thread is about existence and non existence, not whether that is a physical or something else. Anyone who suggests that holes do not exist should invite me to bring my trusty pin to their next balloon party. As for shadows, has anyone tried growing a peach or an apricot against a North wall in the northern hemisphere? The OP, Alex, has a reputation for week long absences between appearance here (probably has better things to do in reality) so we are all awaiting extra context to be supplied. But at least he has provided a worthwhile discussion thread.

Oh ! 🙃

In all fairness that description is self contradictory. No volcanoes are necessary for the formation of granite. The part about slow cooling is iffy at best since the cooling rate determines the grain size so the actual rock formed does indeed depend upon the cooling rate as noted, but if the composition of the magma is not correct then basaltic group rocks will be formed instead instead of the granitic group. The 'liquid' granitic magma is much more viscous than the basaltic group so tends not flow out in great lava flows but remains underground and cools. Outcropping solid granite is then exposed by weathering/duenudation processes.

So you are asserting that processes do not exist in actuality ? Mathematics is a process not a product.

Nothing to do with flipping time, whatever that is. Of course you can work in time units. But that means changinf three axes instead of one So instead of multiplying time by ic, you divide x,y and z by c and measure in seconds.

Starting your speculation with a false premise is unlikely to allow arrival at a true conclusion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock We have no samples from Mercury, Venus, Mars or other Moons or the OOrt.

Thanks. +1 Having now looked at the Wiki article, which thankfully was quite short and not embellished with too much jargon that also needs looking up I can say the short answer to your question is yes but there are some serious caveats to observe. From my applied maths side of the issue I would say that this is about what we call mathematical modelling. That is using the known characteristics and responses of some system or structure to predict the characterisitcs and responses of another system or structure which behave similarly (hopefully identically) in some respect. Caveats No model is perfect except the system or subject being modelled itself. The 'match' between system and model normally extends over some range or another. Attempts to model outside this range are very likely to be misleading at best. This is why interpolation, which means bracketing the output between two ( or more) known values, is considered more reliable than extrpolation, which means extending the known range of validity of the model. In relation to the o p question, the Wiki article mentions Boltzman statistical mechanics and the Boltzman entropy formula from statistical mechanics. This formulation rests on the principle of equal probability of all states which does not always hold good. It is a very simplified assumption, which works in many cases but far from all and the exception have lead to much important modern Physics. This important fact is often omitted from descriptions of statistical mechanics. Before I offered you a simple, but perfectly sound, explanation of entropy, that you will not find in most treatments either. This explanation requires about the mathematics available to an 11 year old ie the understanding that area = length time breadth. My offer still stands.

I note from all these replies that my original contention that the definition and meaning of existence depends upon context has been borne out. This would further imply that there are multiple definitions of the word (as with many words in the dictionary). This bring me to Alex's second question. Non existence must now be much easier to define, at least for words with multiple meanings, or for complex statements. Here are some examples. A single meaning for the word (insert chosen multple definition word) does not exist. In the recipe for shepherd's pie, beef mince does not exist. Ain't complexity wunderful ?

Good morning. I, for one, have never heard of the Helmholtz machine so I don't doubt your information. However a reference would be helpful so that we can learn something more about it. Thank you.