studiot

That also applies to understanding probability, which is a very misunderstood subject. (nearly) Agreed. Formal probability is a limit to infinity of the effect of a number of trials. Yes some trials can only be performed once and some have never been performed. Further certain p values, particularly 0 and 1 lead to some bizarre results.

If you have an equation, then post it for discussion. But start your own thread - I suspect the mods would rule it off topic here. The first thing I would look for would be the situation where the balls you describe were at rest and how you think mass affects their time and space.

Well yes if the hexagons were infinitesimal, I don't see it would matter what shape they were, you would need an infinity of them(even for a finite area) and be into topological continuity and one of the analytical covering theorems. https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=HpdHXKWnJ6mCjLsPj5eXiAM&q=mathematical+covering+theorem&btnK=Google+Search&oq=mathematical+covering+theorem&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i160.2921.10711..11155...0.0..0.205.2192.24j4j1......0....1..gws-wiz.....0..0i131j0j0i10j0i22i30j0i22i10i30j33i21.LOeUaUKhbHI Yummy, Belgian Chocolate. I admit here I was just thinking of straight lines and boring British rectangular boxes. But yes one tile is sufficient.

Of course I didn't mention them again. They were an analogy that you asked for an alternative to. Why would I just repeat the analogy?! Then you really must be a wizard indeed since your only refence to those springs was three posts before my question. For your information I identified it as a question in the conventional manner by placing a question mark at the end. Prior to that I had made a comment endorsing one of your claims in principle, but offering a tad more scientific rigour. That was the comment you were so rude about. Yes I only responded to two of your many points, so far. I certainly haven't wasting any time listing all the self contradictions in your lengthy postings. But if this thread survives I would expect to highlight them. It seems that was a wise decision, considering the difficulties with just two points, one which actually endorsed a paragraph of yours. How is that an ignorant attack or insulting? I said I could not understand it and asked for further explanation. Please do not attribute to me words and meanings I did not post.

Surely, Sensei, you also have to specify if the user is a Siberian microwaving his potato in -35oC or a Sudanese in +35oC ? +1

The main point is that I can find no further reference to your magic springs that can be measured as providing different distances between the same two fixed points in space. So this is just so much stuff and nonsense. Since you refuse to explain or backup your assertions I am reporting this thread.

Which makes it all the more disappointing that you wrongly and completely mistakenly answered a point I did not make whilst completely missing the point I did make. Furthermore you arrogantly ignored the actual quation I did ask, in total defiance of the rules here. If Einstein actually said that, you made no reference. In his defence I would point oyut that there were many things that were unknown in his day - you should fast forward a century or more. There are indeed measurable properties of empty space he did not know about. Do you?

Both isotropy and homogenity do indeed underlie Special Relativity and many other pillars of Physics as well. It is more than convenience. I am having great trouble making head or tail of this. It appears to me to be meaningless self contradictory waffle. Perhaps if you were to rephrase it to reflect what you actually mean ?

I don't know if you were adressing my post but Can you read them? When my learned friend retired from the Bar he decided he wanted to study the Bible so he took an MSc from London University. In order to read the existing documents, he had to learn both ancient Greek and Ancient Hebrew forst (he already knew Latin) Meanwhile my Dutch Uncle told me when I was about knee high, he said "Did you know the number 6 is special ?" Look it is the only number that is both the product of all the preceeding numbers 1x2x3 = 6, as well as the sum of all the precceding numbers 1+2+3 = 6 The moral of this is that there are loads of coincidences in number theory. Great fun what? But Numerology is for charlatans, as already said. I already told you where a good value for Pi is stated in the Bible, and it is not in Genesis.

1) Exactly the point I was leading to. There are many 'Bibles' The one we commonly refer to was introduced over 2000 years after the first words of the Old Testament were written, although I'm not sure how much was written and how much oral tradition. I will have to ask my expert friend. Any 'Bible' version is really only a floder for a series of differnt documents from many eras and sources within that time. 2) There were two versions of the 'original' text, that did not always correspond. This was because it was written in two centres. Alexandria in Ancient Greek and Jerusalem in Ancient Hebrew, which were a long way apart in those days. So news and versions took time to compare. We are still deciphering scrolls today. Our King James one came from the Alexandria documents.

That will be welcome. But when you do, consider the smaller local map I posted in my second post, entitled The World Structure. Kamchatka is currently located along a sensibly North-South axis. If, as you claim, it has rotated bodily through approximately 90o, it must have originally been located along a West-East axis. This would be clearly reflected in the structural geology and the trend lines shown in the nearby land masses the map. I woudl be interested to see your presentation of where these lie?

Hexagons can only tile an infinite flat surface. They can't tile say for instance the top of a chocolate box (yum). What I was referring to was that triangles and squares and some rectangles can (and of course straight lines, though that is usually referred to as ruling not tiling, though the process is identical) Of course if you allow more than one shape onto the pitch (or bend the pitch) you are into Escher and Penrose tiling.

Yes and getting free energy by time reversal will get you a perpetual motion machine. But I don't think that happens in Physics either. However I do see your point about continuous v fragmented reversals. I just don't accept it is confined to living systems and offered the first non living example that came into my head. As a matter of interest, how does being born and living and dying backwards work? (I saw the film - did you) That gives interesting pause for thought.

That happens also in all my work reports. Chapter 1.1 is the beginning. I have no report beginning with 2.3 (for example). Well think the lady is being fed more stuff and nonsense. I don't think they had a decimal system in 500BC, when this was written. Perhaps coming from Greece, you could confirm how the Ancient Greek number system worked?

I waited to see if you came back before replying, Marie. Remember that none of the later developments in Mathematics and Philosophy (that is after 200AD) will be in the Bible. Most of the references to these subjects are just fanciful nonsense (eg 'The Number of the Beast'). In 500BC however, They did have a surprisingly accurate value for Pi. This appears in the Book of Kings.

I'm sorry run that past me again.?

I haven't noticed fusion or fission reversing itself anywhere.

Well I think that some actual physical evidence has been presented, but the hypothesis and theory built on it are not inevitable sequiteurs. But there is plenty of geology yet to discuss. For instance Moontanman's video omits some of the most telling observations at variance with expanding Earth, some of which have bearing here. Further there are plenty of standard geological techniques yet to be considered by the OP.

+1 M

Lovely example I must remember this one. +1

Does it matter which alkene or which glyc , poly, -ol it is in this instance? Would you want your child swimming in any of them? https://orgchemboulder.com/Spectroscopy/irtutor/alkenesir.shtml Though I would really like a specialist to come up with a significantly better suggestion, I would also like more background information.

I think we are guessing as to the circumstances around the OP desire to measure these parameters. One off or a future continued programme? An individual or a large organisation with multiple pools? Location in relation to possible testing laboratories?

You still need to show that the rock types and ages conform, particularly at your proposed match points. You have steadfastly avoided this question. This is even more basic than expanding Earth proposals. For instance this statement is false. Geologists acknowledge the sedimentary fascies you are ignoring in Kamchatka. Here is a description by geologist Susan Hough about Japan Sediment again! Also in your tilt against plate tectonics I certainly understood your opening post to include a direct refutation of plate tectonics. But again we come back to the age (and type of rocks) Folding action of the type you describe would leaves its mark in evidence, just as ancient folds, erosion surfaces, beaches and other features that are buried today, can be detected by seismology, boreholes and other means. There is a significant problem you face in the dramatic difference between the oceanic crust and continental crust, both in age and nature. You cannot close your eyes to all the other evidence and expect to be taken seriously, even though your shape alignments could be quite interesting.

I agree that's conventional wisdom, but how about this gadget? https://www.bruker.com/applications/environmental/special/analysis-of-aqueous-solutions.html

I said samples because there is no guarantee that distribution would be uniform in a large pool. I assume that the contaminant arrive from machinery in the inlet or outlet so would suggest paying particular attention there. I suggested IR because the equipment is cheap, widely available and long and well understood. It also works in a non volatile situation, unlike gas chromatography. I would also suggest that once initial calibration is done it would be easier for continued monitoring/quality control purposes. However it is a long time since I have done any of this so perhaps the analytical chemists amongst us have better ideas.