studiot

It is difficult to know what reply as I am surprised you don't already know much of this stuff. Anyway here goes Aristotle was the main philosopher in question. They did not have a well developed theory of limits in those days, but they introduced the notions of Real infinity and potential infinity. Real infinity is what would happen if you actually went on for ever with some process eg adding 1. But they were frightened of the implications of this so they said that in the real universe there are no real infinities only potential infinities, since nothing goes on for ever. So to them the potential infinity is what you would get if you went on adding 1 for ever. But it did not exist in the real universe for them. You could only tend towards it. Now this is not a limit because it is divergent. Limits are convergent. But limits were only beginning to be introduced in the 17th century. The infinity occurs in the indexing variable in a limit "for I = 1 to infinity" When Cantor wanted to study infinities he did not use the term, he introduced the term transfinite instead. How are we doing, am I telling you stuff you already know?

Can you say what you mean by "the philosophical concept of infinity" ?

I'm sure there must be more to it than this, which might be clearer if it was written in proper English, but this line of reasoning fits the given information. John knows the sum and the only sum that he would be able to declare I know the answer is if the answer is a = b = c = 0 so that the sum = 0. This is the only way the sum of zero can be achieved. Once John has said he knows, Jack knows this as well as the product (which must equal zero) But before he knew what John knows ie they are all the same, he could not know how many zero's there are making the product zero. Jack of course knows that all the digits are the same because he knows the range is zero but does not know which same digit it is.

So are you saying Darwin did not write the treatise I posted the frontpiece from?

At least they weren't fiddling the figures, like they do so much of in this country. Do they have anything like I, Daniel Blake in Finland?

Now you are directly contradicting yourself. If your beef with style was not about writing, what was it about ? And what other presentation method is there for formal dissemination of scientific theory?

The BUI experiment in Finland recently ended as being classed a failure. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47169549

As I understand it you are partly correct but there are further levels of sub classification the experts are still discovering facts and arguing about. You and I and indeed everybody on this forum are classified as H. sapiens sapiens. There is at least one other class of H. sapiens. If you do not know this look it up before you have an opinion.

Standing back a bit I would observe the following. Of the Sciences, the disciplines associated with Biology and Geology in particular like classification schemes based on a few coarse grained categories, each subdivided into sub categories, each subdivided again into finer and finer sub-sub-...categores, all in a spreading tree like fashion. None of the categories are overlapping So the idea is to be able to place any specimen or sample in one particular box and only one box. Most other scientific disciplines make far more use of overlapping categories, so in Chemistry a compound can be aromatic or aliphatic and and an aldehyde or a ketone or branched or straight chain or cyclic whatever. Perhps there would be fewer classification wars if overlap was allowed in Biology.

I think it is a pretty harmless misguided obsession, especially compared to some religous or political ones I could mention.

What exactly did you mean by that? Please be more concrete. That's a fair question (my emboldening) that deserves a fair answer. Your original proposition, which you have generalised over all Science, to mean that some scientifc work is better written than other scientific work and that some is extremely poorly written is not in dispute by anyone. The problem is you have chosen to apply this to attack Darwin's theory from 120+ years ago using different definitions of the terms he so carefully defined. So you are, in effect, attacking a different theory, whilst still blaming Darwin. Further at least one of your different definitions founders since even in Darwin's day it was necessary to provide means of identifying different forms of selection. Claiming everything is Natural is too coarse a filter. Consider the following selection process to determine a winner of a tennis tournament. It can clearly be seen that the selection process for contestor I is different from that for all the other contestants. I merely has to be present to participate in the final and if he wins that it will be the only match in which he has participated. A on the other hand has had to win 3 previous rounds to get to the final. Darwin acknowledged this effect in seeking out isolated south sea islands for some of his studies. He also chose to separate out selection processes used by (the rest of ) Nature and by Man (he did not use the term artificial, that word had a somewhat different meaning in his day) so that he could compare them. Some of his reasons for doing this were supplied as the difference between certain plant behaviour statistics from the wild (Nature) and statistics from horticulture (Man). He did his homework thoroughly, which you have acknowledged here that you have not, despite claims to be a naturalist and evolutionist. Was Darwin ever wrong? Yes, indeed. He had to recant his first paper (Glen Roy Roads) which won him initial fame, in the light of better later knowledge. Did you know that? So do you want to discuss style or Darwin's most famous paper?

It is fine to use the same evidence as someone else and interpret it differently, so long as you make it clear that this is your interpretation. Naturally you need to then acknowledge that others may have yet different interpretations. What is not fine is to claim statements and definitions by others as supporting your interpretation when in fact you need to change their definitions in order for that be self consistent. However few discussions that cannot agree common ground or definitions get very far.

Strictly, the OP is only about Christian numerology, by initial definition. Not any other sort of numerology or any other subject you care to mention. So I will be reporting any discussion about other things as off topic.

Thank you for the upvote. How about trying my question at the end? It was not a trick but meant to lead to more help.

Hard science is moving ever further away from cut and dried determinism towards probabilistic theory. Statistical methods have long played a major role in evidence based Medicine generally and this is increasing. For Psychology in particular such methods are even more important in the relative abscence of a comprehensive hard science theory base. We are a very long way from the famous "Second Foundation" status, envisioned by Asimov.

Yes short and sweet and poignant. +1

The OP also asked about orbitals. When I did my A level Chemistry in the 1960s, we started with Bohr orbits as this leads easily to atomic spectroscopy. But we did move on to orbitals, where one has to leave Bohr behind so that we could look at bonding and molecular structure. The modern A level is much weaker. Atomic and molecular structure were not covered at all in the 1960s A level Physics and spectrocopy was something Newton did with prisms. I can't say about today.

I feel I am wasting my time here, since you have not replied to my posts. However one last comment. It is not possible for the emission ( or detection) of this photon to take place at a single point in time.

That kinda depends upon what you mean by a wave. Mathematically a wave is a solution to the wave equation. But which wave equation? In this case you mean the Schrodinger wave equation. The classical linear wave equation only has periodic (repetitive) solutions. These are responsible for the well known repetitive patterns we call 'waves'. The Schrodinger equation can have non repetitive solutions which would occur with a single isolated particle. More advanced, non linear 'wave equations' can lead to non repetitive solutions called solitary waves or solitons. It is possible to model the actions of a single particle upon these. This is done particularly in optics with photons.

It is also the easiest to model and talk about so most courses start from there to explain the ideas.

This looks like you are asking about burettes and titrations. A general rule of thumb in Science (and engineering) is that accurate measurements are made when you 'measure by difference' For a burette this means you never empty the burette. So when you draw off a desired volume of liquid the amount drawn is the difference in readings on the burette. You should always measure from the same part of your meniscus and the most suitable part is the centre of the curve, away from the sides of the burette. You want the centre because it is difficult to visually estimate where the top of the liquid actually lies at the edges. This is partly because the triangle becomes thinner and thinner and you can't tell exactly where the top lies against the glass sides. And partly to avoid a phemenon known as parallax. Parallax is where you get the reading on the scale slight wrong because you are viewing at a slight angle (to the horizontal in this case). So if you open the burette tap until the bottom of the meniscus at the centre reads 21 in your picture, you will have drawn off exactly 1mL as there is still just the same amount of meniscus liquid above that line as before. Finally I commented that colour has a minor impact. Some liquids are hard to distinguish from the background because of their colour. Good practice would suggest holding up a card (usually white but a contrast colour) to improve the image. So can you think of a situation where we might want to do things differently and so minimise any other characteristic of the meniscus?

Good morning and welcome. Yes it is true that too many folks talk of proof when mean something else. The meanings of proof and evidence are pretty much the same in Mathematics, Science, Philosophy and the Law. Proof requires a proposition, evidence does not (although evidence may be offered, rightly or wrongly, in support of a proposition). Consider the equation a + b = a * b Now the statement a = b = 2 is evidence that the equation is sometimes valid, but it is not true since for example it is not true for a = b = 3 So the proposition that the equation is always valid is false and cannot be proved. But the proposition that the equation is sometimes valid is true and is proved by the evidence of the eaxmple a = b = 2. But consider the forensic science statement "Mr B died at 8 pm" This is just evidence, there is no associated proposition. By itself it is not proof of anything. Proof finds most use in Mathematics and Philosophy since it can be taken to mean, "The proposition is consistent with the axioms or premises" Since most parts of maths and philosophy concern abstract constructs this does not mean that a proof has any substance or validity in 'reality' or the observable environment. This also confuses many. Other areas of scientific thought and the legal profession tend to consider "The balance of the evidence" , rather than proof. So we have no absolute 'proof' of the Laws of Thermodynamics. But they have never been observed to fail so every instance is supporting evidence for them.

We should be precise, even if the OP is not. :) and why do these smileys not work any more?

Is it not? Surely the whole point of the experiment is that the observed (average) decay time varies with observed muon velocity in a way predicted by Relativity and not by other Physics? Energy is not frame invariant. I seriously suggest that since you wish to discuss the subject of 'what is time', you concentrate initially on the easy stuff, rather than getting bogged down in the difficult (if more glamorous) modern stuff like Relativity. Unless you can successfully apply your ideas to the easy stuff there is little point trying for the difficult.

I have shown several of your claims to be incorrect. Others have shown yet more incorrect claims in your working. So I will offer you that wonderful post by Taeto in another thread where someone is asking for his proof to be checked. However you are not the only one to have made mistakes. I agree that observations on muons is one experimental confirmation of the time dilation part of Einstinian Relativity, indeed it was one of the earliest confirmations. However it would be entirely wrong to say that the observations do not depend upon movement. Without movement there would be no experimental observation to discuss. However I think anyone would be hard put to it to use their motion as a clock.