studiot

I have already told you how such a task was achieved in the past. However implementing that method is likely to eat up most of the prize money. I seem to remember that Ronan point was a pefabricated panel construction, whereas the twin towers, I believe, were post and beam type of construction.

There are other ways to 'scale'.

Well sort of. A mathematical space is a more general classification than a plane. A 'space' is contains enough sets of objects to define all the mathematical structure you want to display. So the space you are talking about contains not only a set of all the elements of your space, another set of all the numbers (scalars) you want to use but also a set of all the things you can do with them according to a fourth set of all the rules and axioms you want to assert. I have highlighted the all since it is the property which guarantees that any operation will yield a known result. Your space would usually be called a vector space and the elements vectors. There are only a few rules which are about about combining vectors with each other and with scalars from the scalar set. Other axioms give you a zero and unit vectors. A plane is a restricted set of vectors which have all the properties so is a 'subspace' in 3Dimensions, but a space in its own right in 2Dimensions. There is no combination of plane vectors which can produce any vector in the 3rd dimension, but any pair of non parallel vectors in the plane can be combined in such a way as to create any other vector in the plane.

I was student working at the Building Research Establishment (BRE as it was called then) when the Ronan Point collapse occurred. I remember how the tests that were done then in the structures lab, colloquially known as 'the cathedral'.

There is of course mathematically more than this. One alternative view of geometry in general developed during the early and mid 20th century has come to the fore in more recent years. The idea of instead of patterns of points in space forming the basics of geometry, the idea of simplexes as unit building blocks for these patterns. So complete geometries have been buit up using a line segment, a triangle, a unit cuboid and so on. Whilst there were earlier workers, the current heading is Finslerian Geometry and Johnson Polyhedra.

These pictures might help. Tangent covectors, (cotangents) are also called one-forms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-form

Well the question is a simple application of properties of materials or strength of (solid) materials. What do you know about the definition of the shear modulus? (The figure quoted is about right for brass)

Why would you expect the sequence function to converge to other irrational numbers than your parameter? Irrational numbers are not, in general algebraic expressions of other irrational numbers.

Why do clever people, holding down responsible jobs, hand over their credit card/bank details when someone rings them up as says I'm from Amazon, even when they haven't got an Amazon account?

For the third and last time, You have a pair of wires in a T shape dangling unsupported in space and apparently unconnected to a source of electricity. There appears to be a magnetic field magically confined to two triangular areas also from some disembodied source unconnected to anything else. How does this arrangement drive a (motor) car? That is how does it push the car along the road?

I didn't ask how the thrust was generated (actually I did but you didn't answer that either) I asked specifically how this is transmitted to the body of the moving body? You know the sort of thing in the song your leg bone is connected to your thigh bone and your thigh bone is connected to.. etc etc Purely mechanical stuff.

You would be the second poster recently to try to create an electromechanical device without paying proper attention to the mechanical part. In particular please explain how the 'thrust' is transmitted to the frame or body of the vehicle. ?

I don't see any mention of mass in the opening post. Where does this mass come from? Are you proposing some kind of rocket or jet engine?

From the title of this do I understand you are trying to design/build an electromechanical device capable of providing sustained motion of an object with mass and yet be part of that object? Rather like an internal combustion engine or an electric motor in a car which moves along with the car?

Bristol has a very proud tradition in the aircraft industry. Sadly it will probably be the last part of our aircraft industry to be indescriminately destroyed by successive governments of both colours. My personal opinion is that at this time hydrogen fuel is a step too far. We would be needing too develop on too many fronts to make your proposal work. More effort should be directed towards far better batteries. I wonder if £100 billion would do the job? If so it would be a better investment for mankind than HS2.

It is disappointing to say the least to put thought and effort into answering someone's questions at a sutiable level and find they can't be bothered to respond. Especially when they are attempting to meddle with super advanced theory, whilst not understanding the basics.

This report may be of particular interest to those down under. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-51289897

Surely the proposed scenario demonstrates exactly why there is no universal 'now'. Now of course equates to 'the present', whatever that may be. My (or that of any observer) 'now' is made up of an enclosing or envelopeing 'bubble' around me containing signals from an enormous number of sources. Depending upon how long it took each signal to reach me all those signals are of different ages.

Hello Daren and welcome. +1 for thinking seriously about this subject. There would remain many difficulties to overcome. The main one would be the rate of chemical reaction to overcome. Obtaining hydrogen by electrolysis is not a rapid process and unfortunately by far the maximum rate of usage of fuel is at takeoff. It is certainly not a 'chain reaction' nor do you want such a reaction which by definition rapidly goes out of control. I have trouble visualising an eletrolytic system capable of splitting off hydrogen at the rate required for this. So you would need (temporary) storage of some hydrogen and a compression system to place it there. Just what you want to avoid. Aviation has not had a happy history of hydrogen based fuel, from the Hindenberg through to american space rockets (and it is believed Russian ones as well they will not admit to). The rockets fuelling is based on hydrazine, a hydrogen compound, not hydrogen directly. But still sadly dangerous. Interestingly modern aircraft can store fuel in underwing pods rather than directly in the wings themselves for a number of technical and safety reasons. One of my more distant relatives was the Fire Officier in charge of the Buncefield disaster (note the correct spelling if you want to google it). So keep thinking.

A simple way of putting this is "There will always remain something else to discover"

+1 What more is there to be said ?

Haven't we been through this at least once before ? But in the light of your claim about mathematics, I would say their eyebrows would not twitch half as far as they did when Godel introduced his incompletedness theorems. Are you aware of how far Godel, Turing and others subsequently limit the scope of Mathematics?

You also need to be aware that there is already something called 'universal time', that has nothing to do with relativity. It is based on what are called 'the fixed stars' which are so far away that their positions are 'fixed' (ie does not change over human life timescales) on the 'celestial sphere' we base our astronomy on. This is imagined to rotate at a fixed (average) rate around the Earth descibing what is known as universal time. All human time measurements used to be tied back to this as a standard, but I think swansont may use something different nowadays.

It is more subtle than this. The 'Universe' for such an observer would be quite different from the 'Universe' we can see. In fact any observer would see different parts of the universe form any other observer. We can only see so far and can only infer what is beyond that. The point is that what we can see at the edge of our visible range is not so very different from what we can see close up. So we can only asssume there is more similer 'Universe' beyond the range of our vision because it were very different it would affect the conditions at the edge of what we can see and cause that to appear different. We do not know of any observer (star etc) going at sufficient relative speed to us to observe 30 billion years.

There is more than one sort of curvature in geometry. Curvature is also a measure of 'twist'. (called torsion). Think of a line of cotton reels strung together tightly on a string. The string as a whole can snake about on 2 or 3 dimensions but is still a string of reels. But now imaging we start with the string stretched out in a straight line and every reel has a line mark (just like on the dial of a cooker,) and that every one of these lines is pointing the same way. Now twist the string so that the lines point in different directions, yet the string is still straight. This is torsion and the curvature is measured as the angle between two adjacent cotton reels. There is thus no sideways displacement associated with this form of curvature, as there is when the string curves around a bend. Finally I should mention that one dimensional beings on the string will be unable to measure anything to detect this torsion curvature, that is left to a two or higher dimensional being. Torsion is still extrinsic.