studiot

But the 19 century scientists didn't just accept or reject an aether. They calculated consequences according to their best Science and then proposed tests, which they carried out to the best of their ability. A real shining example of progress via the scientific method. Furthermore they knew the limits of their abiltiy. They knew that the experiments of Fizeau were against calculations carried out by neglecting higher order terms in series and so were first order. They were only able to measure the effects of higher order terms at the very end of the century. It was these later experiments that confirmed the lack of aether and lead to a search for other explanations. By the way, siecle is the French word for century.

Surely one of the original matters which ushered in QM contradicts this, since this is not a measurement issue. I am referring to the 'photoelectric effect'.

Indeed so, finally a response to what I said in my first reply. You have put in a lot of good effort in creating this paper and I have tried to engage in constructive discussion but I find it very disappointing that you seem like a marathon runner who, have covered the first 26 miles has decided to sit on a milestone and admire the scenery rather than complete the course in not supporting your work. So I will leave you and your thread there.

You need to put a diameter/radius to these rings. Atom sized? 1mm? Then you can discuss what makes the charge(s) circulate as you describe. One positive and one negative? Positron and electron or what? Antimatter/matter? Very close together? There are lots of hypothetical situations where simple theory quickly runs into difficulty. Especially vague ill specified ones. As regards the circulation (and your other thread) read this about Maxwell's original ether.

There is a book devoted to this A history of theories of the Aether and electricity E T Whittaker There were two volumes of thos Vol 1 from Descartes to the end of the 19th century Vol 2 (written later) Modern theories (to about 1930). You could also look at the firat 30 pages of The Theory of Relativity Professor C Moller Oxford University Press. This develops the theory of light as known in Maxwellian times, as classical wave theory and sets the requirements for ethers of various natures, developing them from Hugens onwards to determine the difference between phase and ray velocities, showing their importance and invariances. He then goes on to analyse in detail early (fizeau and foucalt) experiments ans demonstrate what these were capable of and equally importantly what they were not. After then analysing Hoek and Fizeau's experiments He turns to discuss Lorenz / Fitzgerald and Finally to Michelson whose experiments were the first capable of detecting an ether. The mathis in this early part of the book is not difficult. However the whole of Chapter 1 is rather too long to post as an extract.

You don't have to form a new compound to form a chemical bond, you may just be extending an existing lattice. In answer to the original question, Think of the agents that 'assist' the formation of a chemical bond by contact processes. Time, Temperature (heat) , Pressure, Biological, Electrical. 'Touching' is usually considered momentary contact, so that rules out 1 and 4. 2 and 3 require greater intensity than would be a normal touch without damage. Whilst surface chemicals on the skin may carry a charge, I don't think skin itself is charged and the direct application of electricity is not recommended. Van der Waals bonds and similar are transitory not permanent as regular chemical bonds, though I can see they might last long enough to cause bonding to say dry (or even ordinary) ice, stripping some skin if the block is pulled away. It is often posited the such bonds are weak but that is not necessarily so.

Look carefully at the number of views of this thread, listed in the forum list. 378 78 of these since this time yesterday. Why do you think other people have stopped responding to you, even though they have been onsite and looked? I think it is because you don't respond to other people's concerns. You either dismiss them out of hand or just ignore them. How many schools, colleges universities, industries can or need to calculate to 15 digits? How many manufacturers of calculators make 15 digit ones? How many town centre shops have one in stock? So yes, repeatedly stating you have a method that can calculate square roots to some arbitrarily large precision doesn't prove it. Nor does a large number of examples. And I have seen no mathematics to prove this. There is a large body of mathematics concerned with precision and accuracy in calculation. It should be possible to show mathematically these confidence levels so that any potential user of your system can demonstrate that his root extraction is sound and reliable for his purposes. This is especially important for the few that need to calculate to such levels.

Do tell ?

One more question for you to ponder. Have you done any work finding out what sort of precision users of your formula might want? For instance consider a surveyor measuring distance to 1mm (quite good actuallly) She will probably make most measurements in the range 0 to 999m, (6 digits) more rarely on the range 1000 to 9999 m (7 digits) She will also mostly measure angles to 20 seconds of arc, more rarely to a single second. Have you considered the implications of error propagation in your formula when inserting measurements of this or other precisions?

I see a quip along the lines of One man is knocked down on our roads every 35 seconds. He is getting mighty fed up with it.

You are carefully avoiding the question How can any user trust your method or ascertain if the result answer is correct? You method has clearly failed on my calculator compared to the proper method or using a different formula, both of which give the same ansswer, correct to the display capacity of the calculator. Thus the error cannot be inherent in the calculator cpaacity, but must be inherent in your method.

I expect Klaus means deflected. Did you not read the link about Rutherford's experiment I gave you in your first thread? (Lack of) deflection by both magnetic and electric fields are discussed for gamma rays. http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/history/rutherford.html Google will find much more detail about the experiments.

I think don't you mean 'even decimals', but even zeros? Both 123456 and 123456.0005 have an even number of digits. The best I can do on my calculator is tan (arcsin(123456/123456.005)) /10 = 351.3620004 which only gives me 5 digit accuracy compared with 351.3630601

Compare the pics of ranges I linked to and ask what will tell you the difference between say pH = 6 and pH = 6.5 Here is a good link to soil PH, where this pic comes from. http://soilquality.org.au/factsheets/soil-ph-south-austral

So long as the mud doesn't discolour the litmus. Also that won't give you much of a range. Soil is rarely neutral. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=range+of+pH+indicators&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjn2ufym5rfAhWM26QKHbYxCRsQ_AUIDigB&biw=1366&bih=622

Surely the pH is a measure of the acidity of the water in the soil, not the soil itself? So a pH meter will not give any sensible reading when placed in kiln dried sand. I think that some pH meters are actually a form of conductivity meter. These could obviously be confused by the presence of conductive minerals in the soil.

the radians choice is imposed by the calculator you can choose degrees or grads it is the same, Since it is 0.510^(-2n) you have to enter an even decimals number of "0"(2,4,6,8,10...) it is better to just add "0" decimals than to calculate 10^(-2n) and consuming time, it is the same result. in your example you entered 3 "0" which is incorrect. I do not have facilities to benchmark a compared solution about square root calculation with my formula so I can not give a scientific reply, but you can calculate my formula with hand and trigonometric function by hands also using series expansion the speed of calculation depend also on the quality of program and techniques and how it is performed My formula is the result of hard work and high quality research with deep analysis resolving a very tough problem since the Babylonian, the speed of calculation is just an aspect of the formula that I wish to be the fastest formula, but I am not a computer scientist to work on this issue. I am sorry you choose not to address my points, particularly about answering the question of demonstrating you have the right answer whn you have put numbers into your formula. Checking is a vital part of any real world process.

2) Yes 1) Consider the relative strengths of the four fundamental forces. This table is from Wolfram Science http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/FundamentalForces.html This is why gravity doesn't strip the electrons out of atoms. I think they try to keep the paths of the accelerated particles horizontal in large scale accelerators. Also there are regular repeater coils or E/S deflector plates in the installation. Perhaps someone with direct experience of these things will chip in here, especially if they have a better answer?

The transmission medium original question was air. Further alpha and beta rays are both charged and particulate. The particulate part says that it depends upon the nature of the source and the particle density. The charge says that there is interaction with airborn particles. In fact transmission through a medium usually follows an exponential decay type law. This also applies to EM radiation, but the coefficients are such that air is virtually transparent to gamma rays, over distances measured in less than hundreds of kilometers.

Perhaps this respiratory diagram will help. Don't forget that the partial pressures of the blood gasses also depends upon the pH.

An eggshell is 'designed' to protect from considerable steady crushing pressure, which that outer light light blue casing is not and will not do. However that light blue outer casing is designed to protect from a British Standard drop height onto a hard (concrete) floor. Such a drop would certainly break the egg. Are you suggesting that the time to complete the impact with and without the light blue casing would be the same? Deformation of that light blue casing extends the impact time over a longer period, which is another way of saying it reduces the deceleration of the protected item. This is the same principle as crumple zones and energy absorbing bumpers in vehicles to protect occupants from excessive deceleration forces.

Yes, indeed it does. So if SJ carted his guitar up to the top of the Matterhorn and dropped it on the point bit then a hard case would guard best against piercing penetration. Also fixing the guitar to something rigid within the case would guard against flexural shock breaking the vulnerable neck. But no system is perfect, as you say. You haven't answered my question. In the past sensitive and delicate electrical/electronic meters with pointers had hard cases, but the better ones has a tough softer more resiliant exterior case as well. More modern elctronic equipment has carried on this tradition when 'ruggedisation' is considered. Here is a picture of such. The dark blue inner case is hard and (fairly) rigid. The light blue outer is soft and flexible.

No. We are dealing with impulsive forces or impulse when talking about 'shock' The shorter the time, the greater the impulse. This can be twice the static weight of the impactor. Further there is a difference between acceleration and deceleration in this (and this is without breaking N3) Consider dropping the same case or an egg onto a) Soft sand or mud. b) Granite or concrete. In which case will the hard shell of the egg survive from the greatest height of drop? Then consider the similar bullets hitting c) Paper armour d) 6 inch thick steel plate Which will survive and what damage will happen to the bullet in each case? The outer shell of a sports helmet is not to protect the wearer but to keep the soft inner together and clean. No, I think a thick soft exterior would be better. But sadly less maintainable.

Thank you for your answer. Why do you think using radians would make any difference? It doesn't on mine and is slightly slower. Both using DMS or rads is much slower than using the log / antilog formula, which is effectively instantaneous. However I cannot enter 123456.0000005 into my caclulator. Not many calculators have that many digits. Mine displays 10. I 'm not sure if it calculates to further guard digits, but I think so. If I use 123456/123456.0005 then I get 11110.42436, not the right answer. I am not trying to dismiss your formula, or discredit it. Who knows, there may one day be a use for it. Knowledge should not be disgarded because it is currently unwanted. I am taking you up on your request to examine its use in real situations and have offered you the results of my simple trials. So if I was sitting on top of some mountain in Arabia (as I have been) and wanted a square root (which I have) but have not lugged a heavy computer up there (which I didn't) my thoughts are. 1) Modern (small) calculators have a square root button. 2) This is faster than trigonometric solutions. 3) If you, like me, did not have a calculator with even a square root button, let alone trig and log functions, you would have to rely on human ingenuity (as I did). 4) My companion took a whole afternoon to extract a single root, using a version of Newton's method on his calculator. 5) My digit bracketing method takes a few minutes per root extraction and automatically confirms the answer at the end of the extraction. Checking is important in real life.

Yes I agree acceleration/deceleration is the key here. Some additional points. Dropping the case and protecting against a projectile with tank armour are different scenarios. In the first it is the case and contents which are decelerated. In the second it is the projectile. So tank armour would not help here. A heavy case falling, will hit at the same speed as a light case (Galileo) but will transfer great momentum due to its mass. Therfore producing a greater impact force unless the impact time can be lengthened. So the issue might best be thought of in terms of a soft v hard case.