studiot

Thank you, I am quite capable of understanding hydraulic lifting techniques. The 'little boat' would not be so little. Rock has a density of around 2.4 - 2.6 so a two and a half ton (tonne) block would be approcimately 1 metre cubed. This would require something like 3 cubic metres displacement to allow handling stabilty, may be up to 5 cubic metres if you include the weight of the raft etc. But all this misses my point. Which is that since time immemorial builders have constructed temporary works they have removed when the permanent works are complete. I listed several possible lifting technologies, available to the Ancient Egyptians, including noting that the Harappans used this on the Indus and Ganges. But hydraulic lifting alone will not cut it for the final placement of the blocks. On a different note the siege of Rochester Castle provides an interesting demolition technology - pig fat. If I was really to play detective and try to determine how the pyramids were built, I would not start at the pyramids. The blocks must have come from something bigger so they must have had the capacity to handle bigger things. So I would try to start at the quarry and see if there were any relics of their cutting, handling and transport methods to be found. Transporting the blocks by raft from the quarry to the construction site would be a good solution.

Done, that will be one beer

Either it is a fact that the falsework is missing or it is not. It cannot also be a matter of belief. I offered you an alternative explanation, not base exclusively on ramps, that I'm willing to bet you had never considered before. I'm willing to bet that the Giza Construction plc woud have had all manner of prehistoric scaffolding, craneage, haulage lines and posts scattered around during construction and would have cleared it all up at the end. Here is another link to simple heavy materials handling in another industry (logging). Whilst skylines were probably beyond GizaCon some is basic and would have been available to them. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr292/1974_studier.pdf You should study it along with the book about Smeaton (he used water) Incidentally why is all the falsework also missing from Stonehenge, Karnak, The Parthenon, The Blue Mosque, The Coliseum etc?

I see no evidence of the constructuion method any more than I do in my quoted examples of later constructions.

For the reasons mentioned!!! The "ramps" point at the bottom of the pyramid. Also because they removed "ramps" (natural ground) even before construction began. I can't post a picture of it right now but the entire north and west sides of the second pyramid at Giza was extensively excavated far below bedrock even before the first stone went in. This was necessary because water had to be able to flow all around the pyramid before they could lift the first stone. That water flowed around it is established throughout the physical record but let's save this. I'm sorry I don't follow this response either. I didn't say they did or didn't use ramps. (I do know the Romans used them in their construction as in the siege of Masada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Masada) But what do you mean by a ramp and what do you mean by pointing down or that they were removed before construction began? It is normal construction technique to this day to create a level 'formation' (the modern word) So what? As a matter of interest in the building of interlocking masonry structures in difficult circumstances by primitive methods, Smeaton's Tower is worth a read https://wordery.com/smeatons-tower-christopher-severn-9780954275099?currency=GBP&gtrck=VmREc2dBTE1tU1BtdG9BWSsxREF6UFpKV0YrQi9YQzdtbWYvSXdacjFYUnpDYXM0YzVhZnNPdVltU1hhbThrdUFVb2hWc24ycWFEYk1yMVU0ZXU3R2c9PQ&gclid=CJX83qjugcECFafnwgodsi0Aig

How would one stand on the top of something before it was built, in order to drag stones up it, to build it? Alternatively if it was already built why drag stones up it?

Indeed yes. In fact modern practice is to construct what is known as 'falsework' in order to build the permanent work. This is a bit like building a giant jig as a metalworker or carpenter might do to fabricate a door or some other work. The falsework is deliberately removed at the end of the construction, because no one want to see temporary support holding up the nice new bridge. How do we know that the ancient Pharoh's didn't also cause this to happen because all they wanted to see was pyramid? We know that the Egyptians, the Harappans and the Babylonians all used temporary works in their respective river management, but often left them in place afterwards, perhaps for the opposite reason ie these were utilitarian works not showpieces.

Cladking, Do you have any idea how the Clifton Suspension Bridge, The Maillart Elastic Line Bridges, The Forth Bridge, The Tay Bridge, the Kocher Valley Viaduct (amongst others) were built? And is there any on site evidence today of this? Oh and I have never called myself a scientist.

Hello Ben and welcome.

I agree, but with several different authorities involved are they each telling the other all they know? Is any one body collecting and collating all the available information?

An electric current is what happens when there is a net movement of electric charge in a particular direction. Charge is regarded as being 'carried' by various bodies, also called charge carriers. It does not exist by itself. Two types of carrier you will encounter in biology are electrons (negative carrier) which are sub atomic particles (smaller than atoms and part of them) and ions which are atoms (or molecules) with an excess of electrons (negative carrier) or a deficiency of them (positive carrier). Positive charges moving in one direction are equivalent to negative charge moving in the opposite direction. Your instructor meant the movement of electrons when referring to charge current and the movement of ions when referrring to ionic current. Ionic currents normally occur in solution, since ionisation is one way that solutes can dissolve in solvents.

These books listed are accessible from middle high school through senior high and onto first degree level, except the last which took me right the way through O level, A level, Degree, Professional Institution and Postgrad and is still going strong. Atkins Molecules. (P W Atkins) a really delightful book described by some as the most beautiful chemistry book ever written. The Mathematical Mechanic (Walter Levi) a brilliant melding of maths and physics. Levi sets out to prove mathematical theorems in as many physics ways as possible. Cats Paws and Catapaults (Steven Vogel). Compares and contrasts the approach by Nature asd Man to the solution of important engineering problems. describes materials science v muscle action and much more. From Calculus to Chaos (Acheson.) The development of non linear dynamics brought to life and a uniquely simple way. The Penguin and Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Geometry. (David Wells) Fascinating reading for a dark winter's night. Did you know Napoleon was responsible for a theorem in Maths? The Day the Earth Nearly Died (Michael J Benton) Wonderful balanced roundup geological study of the five main mass extinctions in the Earth's geological history and more. and finally that piece de resistance A Compendium of Mathematics and Physics (Myler and Sutton)

Regretfully I have to disagree. This discussion has occured several times recently and each time a mathematical proponent have backed away from offering a mathematical solution or route to a mathematical solution to a part of physics that requires a physical process to take place in order to determine the result. I repeat that challenge here. I will tell you as exactly as you like how much coarse aggregate, fine aggregate and cement (or you can tell me it doesn't matter) and I ask for a mathematically exact quantity of water to add to make concrete of desired consistency and strength. There are methods which will get you near, but the final exact quantity has to be trimmed to suit as part of the process.

I doubt anyone's list is exhaustive. Personally I think of structure as being more in the way of the formal axioms eg a space with one binary operation or two. So structure can be induced or inherited. Whereas I think of arrangements in terms of combs and perms or left handed v right handed or a star v convex region and so on. But arrangements just are. So the fruit is hanging on the 5th or the 15th branch of the tree or whatever. But that is no reason to expect every tree to have fruit on those branches. I think mathematics is about analysis and self consistency.

Do I look old? I don't feel old. I don't feel anything at all until noon and then it's time for my nap ajb, my apologies for the humerous diversions. I consulted my trusty shorter Oxford, volume 1 and it had this to say mathematics probably after French "mathematiques". Originally treated as plural, frequently with the. The sciences or disciplines of the quadrivium, collectively. Later these and optics, architecture navigation etc. Now treated as singular The abstract deductive science of space, number, quantity, and arrangement Colloquial abbreviation maths (N America, Math) I think that basically covers everything discussed so far, and shows why the OED is so reliable.

Well I know that the fattest knight at King Arthur's round table was called Sir Cumference, becaue he ate too much pie.

Hello Derek, "It takes two to tango" Interactions require at least two particles or whatever. This thread is about an isolated electron or whatever. Depsite his unwillingness to accept comments by others, juanrga made many good points that should not be lightly dismissed.

I have held off this thread until now in the hope that it could develop in better spirit that in the previous one. Juan, everyone can be wrong. Even you can be wrong, as you undoubtedly are in this piece of basic mathematics, which I did not respond to before as I put down it to a language issue. If psi is not a variable it is either precisely zero or constant. There are no other available alternatives. A constant or zero psi is a pretty useless property to work with. Psi is a varaible, correctly known as the dependent variable [math]\Psi (x,t)[/math] of the independent variables x and t. You undoubtedly know a great deal but have you heard this old (English) saying? "Wise men suffer fools gladly" From your posts I gather you are some kind of lecturer or teacher (presumably at a university). I have never been a formal teacher, however I have often found that attempting to explain in simple terms to someone else (perhaps an assistant or non technical person) has improved my own knowledge of a subject. Rather than leave or shun humanity, join in and be welcome. Several here have offered pointers.