studiot

I don't believe I ever said you couldn't. I did dig up a paper (I think it was Virginia state U.) that is no longer available that had some interesting tables and diagrams for the US. I am not using the computer I stored it on right now but can see if I can find more if you wish. The bottom line links in with Moontanman's ground water data and suggests that in the US the cooling available might be less than further North.

This is wrong.

I don't agree with this. Examples from statistics come to mind. Whilst I liked the style and presentation of your paper, I don't endorse everything in it.

Pay a lab to do a proper sampling and perform IR spectrum analyses on the samples.

Sure thing. No disrespect is meant, and no Scientists/Engineers were hurt in production. MigL specifically said that if you look (at any quantum) phenomenon for a wave activity, you will see it (but not a particle activity) But if you look for a particle activity you will also see it (but not a wave activity). I disputed that since the activity discovered by Herts and named "The PhotoElectric Effect" cannot be produced by any known (including EM) classical wave. It is the fact there is a threshold frequency that is important here. It is not an interference phenomenon like the slits as you described. With the slits if you look for waves you will see them and if you look for particles you will see them - the interference pattern will build up over time in the second case.

Surely it's time someone (me) reported this whole thread activity as meaningless, but time wasting trolling.

Or perhaps I would simply repeat Hertz' experiments with several metals as suggested here. The important description is between the margin marks.

How would you set up the photoelectric effect to look for wave behavior? Well I would illuminate a suitable metal surface with a range of frequency and intensity EM waves, both above and below the critical frequency, and observe the effect, just as I believe it was Bequerel who first did it this way. This is at cross purposes with my comment. It is not the sort of thing we are discussing.

Hypothetical or otherwise this is not a simple question. Philosophers have wrestled with it for millenia. Personally I think that the question is unanswerable out of context. And here's the rub. The full context is necessary. It's much easier to define and discuss something eg a football than nothing (at all).

Even in the photoelectric effect?

That was already answered satisfactorily by the moderator. I saw no need to elaborate. A null set is valid. I'm not quite sure where the confusion lies. Nothing is quite literally, nothing. Applying a finite value of 0 to nothing does not make it two things. Labeling it the state of the universe does not make it two things either. Nothing is nothing. Yes, I also agree, you have a logic problem. 0 does not equal 1 or 2. 0=0 It's a very simple question.  It is clearly not a simple question since understanding it eludes several people with higher degrees and from different continents. If you must introduce set theory then you must also distinguish carefully between the set and its members. They are not the same thing. Therefore using set theory, you always have more than one thing. Actually, it does and this does not have anything to do with set theory or whether you use it or not. A thing and a label you chose to apply to that thing are necessarily different things. That is basic English. Similar basic English implies that if you use the word value for something the value is (in principle) transferable to something else, or changeable. So if something has a value of zero it could become a value of 1 or 2 or some other number. But you then have to prove that the thing ceases to exist (if it existed in the first place) after its value is changed. What you are doing is trying (unsuccessfully) to combine two subjects with different properties into one. That just doesn't work and is the downfall of many a proposition.

A set needs more than 1 value or thing, so I don't think the term "null set" would be applicable. Exactly a null set would be inapplicable yet you include an incorrect statement about sets. You also seem unclear as to whether this universe of yours has 1 value or no values, since you have contradicted yourself by saying both. If it is a universe with a single value, finite or otherwise, it is automatically two things. The universe and the value. Yet another logical contradiction. Yes I agree, you have

I asked for an explanation, in my roundabout way. Please provide it as per the rules of this forum.

Actually they are not. They are related to the oft missed dimension of number N - in the case of non physical 'entropy' - the number of states. However it still falls to you to answer properly my comments about the rest of the dimensional analysis and the question of circularity of definition.

I am having more trouble following than both of you put together. So If that was the first question, please dont ask the second one.

I can't see how your first equation is dimensionally consistent. How do you achieve this? The dimensions are G is ................M-1L3T-2 h is ................ML2T-1 (velocity)4 is...L4T-4 r is .................L S is ................ML2T-2K-1 In any case four out of the five right hand side variables require time in their definition so your argument is circular.

Yes this is the most important bit. What it is telling you is that all the posh language and fancy terms are really talking about a glorified graph. Just like we drew in junior school, but perhaps a bit more complicated. All the fancy maths is doing is enabling us to pick out or read values from this graph. This is an entirely geometric process in the junior school meaning of the word geometry, and is used by millions of Engineers every day for this purpose. I fully agree. Short and sweet and to the two points. +1 Here this is perhaps the most important bit. "The mathematical definition will differ." Mordred was offering the GR definition as used in GR, (which is also my glorified graph version ) The mathematical viewpoint is entirely different.

Here is what seems to me to be a well thought presentation of the geology of Kamchatka, including a reason for the two different mountain ranges (Not the one I wondered about). One range is a sedimentary rock area. But the presentation includes corroboration from various different sources, as should be. It also contradicts the previously held theory about the geological history of Kamchatka. It also includes some good detail of the solid geology, much bettr than my small scale atlas maps. Well done the University of Oregon (who are noted for their geological knowledge and prowess) This is a good model of the correct, scientific way to do it. https://pages.uoregon.edu/bindeman/Kamchatka-shrimp.pdf

Takazu Seki, pioneer Japanese mathematician, accountant and chief of the National Bureau of Supply b.early 1640s Edo or Huzioka, d. 1708 We had a long discussion about this subject in a recent thread. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/116421-definition-of-derivative/?page=3 Many of the references I referred to in my first post here appeared there. You do not seem to have heard of at least some of these.

Are you sure? Isn't it more like filling a cup. You can keep pooring water in but the size of the cup determines when the cup overflows. While the amount you poor determines the amount that overflows, while the shape determines where it goes. Actually as your bus driver, not a penny less would apply, but if you want you can put in all the pennies you want. Note - The point of quantum theory does seem to be, simple. My question is what happened in the interim? Maybe on your bus, but not in Aberdeen you can't. If you pay by cash, you have to have the right money. No its nothing like filling a cup. Particularly drop by drop whcih you can do with a cup. The filling is all at once. You cannot add some (a quantum or three) and then some more to make up the total. The observational proof of that was one of the two founding experiments that led to the quantum theory. It is called the photoelectric effect. http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/semester2/c34_photoelectric.html

That's the whole point of the quantum theory. The amount of energy has to be exactly the right amount, like the bus fare on Aberdeen buses. Not a penny more and not a penny less.

1) No, nor are you a Scientist or you would not be relying on one piece of 'evidence' alone. I am trying to help you act like a Scientist, whilst keeping an open mind about your proposals. 2) I did not make this statement, another member did. Please read replies properly beofre you answer. 3) Please be less condescending about the words of others, especially those who are examining your proposals seriously. The animation was interesting because. 1) How can you be sure Asia did not rotate the other way? Afterall the principal plate activity is rotation, not translation and the Asian Plate is not different. 2) I see that your animation contains some actual subduction at the hinge. Whoops!. 3) When you say that the Kamchatka peninsula moves (eg similar to your animation) What actually moves? Just the surface sheet of paper? How deep does it go? This question is important because there are still active Kamchatka volcanoes. As well as long extinct ones So where does the magma come from now? It is one thing to say a whole block of inert rock moves somewhere, quite another for the deep source of molten rock to move with it. 4) Once again you are invoking supernatural forces. 5) Fracture theory. If you are going to lecture me on this topic, please get your terminology ducks lined up. Fracture Mechanics is a particular branch of the subject concerned with the viability and possible propagation of discontinuities within a material especially under what are known as stress concentring geometries, even though the material is well within is theoretical strength limits. Failure analysis is the study of bodies to overwhelming exterior forces cause actual rupture. Failure analysis incorporates brittle, ductile and shear action. You may like to know for instance that the mode of failure of reinforced concrete is ductile if correctly reinforced but brittle if excessive reinforcement us incorporated. This is banned by codes because it leads to sudden failure without warning, whereas properly reinforced concrete will fail gradually.

Stop right there and follow Sensei's very sensible advice to checkout the basics first. You have this wrong. Voltage is not any kind of energy. (Although it is easy for primary teachers to make that mistake) It takes around 3 million volts per metre to create a static discharge (spark) in the air. This may bite a bite if it catches your finger, but it won't really hurt you. Because the energy involved is minute. Yet a standard 12 volt vehicle battery has more than enough energy to kill a man. So start with Ohm's Law, like everybody else.

Reading the article is better than guessing. You would then find out that the article is additional to the biggie that I first said. I also said that. No it was not to due to gravity. Corpuscular theory require the light to accelerate when it enters a denser medium to meet Snell's Law and the observed fact about which way the light ray bends. Both Newton and Huygens knew this and also knew that wave theory required the light to decelerate to meet the observations. Neither had the means to measure which was true, that came later, as I also said.

Simply , No. Newton's original particulate theory of light (known as the corpuscular theory) predicted that the particles should move faster in a denser medium. This was not disproved until 1750 (Foucault) was able to make comaprative measurements. However Huygens made other less important objections https://www.phas.ubc.ca/~stamp/TEACHING/PHYS340/SLIDES/PDF/P340-08--PP17-Light.pdf Simply refracting light into a denser medium is an observation.