studiot

We do ?? The frame of reference has nothing to do with whether the analysis is Cartesian or not. The same frame can be used to consider a problem in dynamics in two different ways. 1) Newton's Laws of motion (N1 to N3) can be applied to the real forces that are acting. The system is then not an equilibrium system. 2) An equal (but opposite to the resultant of the real forces acting) imaginary force can be introduced to reduce the system to an equilibrium one The system is then solved by means of the equations of equilibrium not N1 - N3. In your case this imaginary force is called the centrifugal force. The method is quite old and was introduced by D'Alembert.

Incorrect photons has two measurable polarities in its transverse wavefunction. Thank you for you comment Modred. +1 Since photons do not carry charge; I assume you are referring to what I call polarisation so thank you for calling attention to what may be a difference of usage of terminology. This will benefit all readers.

What you don't know and more importantly can't know is one of the keys to understanding entanglement without advanced maths. There is also 'classical entanglement' which you are describing. This is entirely deterministic (and therefore unsuprising) as you point out. The point about quantum entanglement is has a probabilistic aspect which makes it different. Note photons do not have a polarity. The weirdness is in the part we can't know. Another one is to understand the requirements for particles to become entangled in the first place. This is part due to the inherent properties of the particles and part due to the environment/circumstances. Both are required. For example two electrons in the same atomic orbital are entangled. Their environment (the Pauli exclusion principle) requires them to have opposites spin quantum numbers . Two electrons in different orbitals may have the same spin, but are not entangled. But if one of the entangled electrons is removed or promoted to another orbital it can end up with either spin. A practical result of this occurs in spectroscopy with so called singlet and triplet states. I am trying to work through this without advanced mathematics, in deference to your other thread on linear algebra. However please ask for expansion of any of these points. Entanglement is a difficult and complicated subject. On this how did you get on with my first post in this thread ? I am also working up to recommending Susskind's 'Theoretical Minimum' three books. These would take you well into modern physics - he explains the (sometimes advanced) maths he introduces, but does not overuse. The middle book Quantum mechanics The theoretical Minimum is really very chatty about entanglement as well as the maths. It is perfectly possible to understand the words only on first reading and cut and come again to the maths later. Unfortunately there are two chapters worth of discussion, far too much for my usual posting an extract.

Substances don't 'absorb force'. It is possible to build a mechanism that sort of answers your requirement using a dome shaped piece of spring steel foil set against a ring foundation. But the foundation would have to be set against something to ultimately resist the applied force.

The best book for your purpose is Elementary Linear Algebra by Howard Anton. There are several versions The basic one and the expanded one called the applications version or with applications. There are also complete solutions manuals to the exercises. I think they are up to the 11th edition now, but any edition is fine and you can get some very cheaply second hand. Beware that many 'linear algebra' books were written mostly to teach the solution of sets of linear equations and not much else. These will not suit you. Othere books are probably too advanced eg Nering Hoffman and Kunze. Linear Algebra is a very wide field so come back and ask again when you have grabbed the basics and have a better idea what you what to do with them.

Something like this ?

Thank you for confirming my growing impression that you are not willing to discuss in a rational and Scientific manner. In my opinion, this is a great pity because this could have been a most enlightening thread with its starting position that far too little of the coordinated action necessary to combat clmate change is being enacted. The pity is all the greater since common sense suggests that these measures are what we should be doing anyway for several equally valid reasons against other real and potential dangers to our society and way of life or even perhaps our very existence. Sadly climate discussion seem all to often to degenerate into petty point scoring. I cannot therefore see any point continuing this thread.

You could be right about the exact wording. If so, thank you for the correction.

You have your code, but do you understand it ? Why do you think so many people are now installing heat pumps? Have you heard of coefficient of performance? To quote the OP of this thread, "I don't have to explain ......." Have a nice weekend camp and relaxation. Perhaps when you return next week you might be prepared to take some notice of what others are telling you.

So how do you explain my electricity consumption figures? BTW my heat pump runs off a new (ie additional) 32 amp breaker. (remember UK mains are at 240 volts)

It came as a great and hard suprise to the world when Benoit Mandelbrot showed the world that nature is even more peculiar than that. You should get hold of his book; it is quite accessible to amateurs. The Fractal Geometry of Nature where he discusses the easily observable fact that dimensions in Nature are not whole numbers. Mandelbrot coined the term Fractal to describe this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fractal_Geometry_of_Nature Essentially he explores the question What do we mean by length, area and volume ? What happens when we look more and more closely at greater and greater magnifications ? His famous question was "What is the true length of a coastline?"

You say you want to discuss solutions, but I don't see any solutions in your posts. All I see is moaning about the problems. I consider that the solutions will not come from any one single direction or action, but from a combination of sevaral, if not many. So we might reduce consumption, perhaps by efficiencey, perhaps by removing the need for some goods or services or by reducing waste, or by better technology. See we are already into combinations of multiple actions. In Europe it is already mandatory (forbidden) to install fossil fuel heaters in new housing in somecountries and it is proposed for the UK. You are worried that will throw an extra unacceptable load onto the electricity supply. But will it? Here is my experience. In 2016 I replaced my aged and failed gas boiler with an electric heat pump. I have been monitoring performance since then so I now have four years of performance data, of the heat pump and a 30 year previous averaging to compare it with. Not only am I now using less energy than the previous combined electric and gas total, I am barely using more electricity than before. (This was a pleasant suprise) Certainly my demand is still well within the parameters submitted when I signed up for this electricity supply 30 years ago.

Perhaps a simpler version might help. We start with a single wavefunction describing a system of two particles isolated from the rest of the universe. We then allow the system to interact in some way with the rest of the universe. We call this interaction taking a measurement. So why are we suprised when the wave function changes following that interaction. We call this collapse of the wavefunction. I am sorry the florid language (measurement and collapse) obscures the Physics

Support information ? Hmm let's see. The first link is a self confessed advertisement from a an electrical facilities design company. The second is largely journalistic fluff, heavily economics biased, but they also acknowledge that So they are saying what I said. So no real facts or figures and no answers to my questions either.

So if it is travelling its natural course, in what way is it deflected? I don't mean by what agent deflects it. We agree that is gravity. But 'deflected' implies passing through a different sequence of coordinates in some manner. Do you really mean this? I think the 'deflection' occurs in 3D space only and in Eddington's case can be reduced to a 2D analysis.

Sweeping generalisations are so much hand waving if not founded in fact. They are certainly not scientific statements. I have presented facts concerning your claim that every electrical vehicle adds to the grid load its total energy use. You have not answered this. Perhaps as an american you can resolve this conundrum. This site claims that in 2010 there were 125 million housholds connected to the USgrid(s) https://sites.google.com/site/theuspowergrid/ This site claims that in 2010 there were 117.5 million households in the US How does this arise? In any case are you telling me that there are not many ranches, lineshacks, cabins, individual homes of all sorts in say Alaska, Texas, New Mexico, Montana, Idaho, etc that do not have their own generator ? Secondly you claim that the existing grid cannot absorb the extra load. Where is your engineering evidence for this? Such a claim is untrue in the UK and Europe generally. Some countries are already making specialist charging points compulsory and they are optionally available in the UK. Are you telling me that the grid needs to be upgrades to service these? What about housing estates? Are you telling me that new lines have to be laid all the way back to the power stations? I don't think so +1

That is a statement I am challenging, more especially in the US than the UK, although I have given a UK example of local use. You need to provide figures to back your statement up, just as I provided figures to back up my statement about all electric v hybrid cars. Australia has recently announced plans for 'snowey 2' This would be a copy of Australian version of the TVA project in the US.

A 'deflected' path is surely longer ?

I suspect even these figures are incorrect. Do you not have hybrid vehicles in the USA ?

I thought your thesis was broader than that. I thought that you were adding to grid requirements all energy uses transferred from other sources - you specifically mentioned cooking and, I think heating did you not? I also think that the UK grid is much more universal than the US one. I think there are many local generating sets in isolated locations, there are plenty of these in the US since it is so much bigger. Of course these generators develop grid compatible supplies so that they can drive standard equipment. In fact it makes little engineering sense to collect together large quantities of widely distibuted low density energy into a grid at all. Better to use it where it is collected if possible. And yes that is not always possible. Engineering is about compromise between competing, sometimes opposing, factors. As to extra grid capacity consider the position of our local nuclear power station. They are building a third nuclear power plant on the site of the first two that are currently being dismantled. One would have though that the distribution infrastucture was already inplace after two previous nuclear power stations? But no, there is currently a battle going on because they want new pylons cables etc to transmit the new output to cities within a 100 miles radius. Again politics intervenes over engineering common sense.

I don't follow how this is beside the point of the particular post I responded to. However I do think we are beginning to loose the wood for the trees.

Efficiency is not the only consideration. Local use of the 'sustainably' generated electricity will not add a single kilowatt-hour to the transmssion load on the grid. Surely the point is that there are lots of points all intertangled about this subject ? That is why it is so difficult and , sadly, many use a single isolated point as a weapon in an argument.

Yes of course, you have energy. It's only more if it is not substituted for an existing source. Surely an important thing we are trying to achieve is to substitute less damaging sources for more damaging ones? Did you also pick up my point about using solar adds to the warming budget now, whereas letting that solar drive natural biological processes may add to future warming.

All forms of handling and/or storage involve losses. Further solar cannot be directly connected to the grid or mains in general. Most equipment has to be special purpose to use it directly.

Yes can we trust our politicians ? +1 I think not. Here is a prime example form the BBC publication Radio Times. I am posting an extract only for copyright reasons and I have indicated two worrying points. Firstly our politicians want us to have electric cars but could remotely turn off their chargers at zero notice. So a parent charging their car to fetch the children from schools ( many are making uneccessary long journeys as I have already indicated) could find their car not charged. Secondly 3 million failed smart chargers. Who is getting the blame. Guess what, not the politicians. The finger is pointed at Science and Technology. That affect all of us here.