studiot

I will try one last time to inject some sense into this thread. The large disk (flywheel is an OK term, it is just not a gyroscope) is rotating about its central axis as you have shown. Since the small disks are stated to be mounted in the large disk, they will be rotating with it in the same direction as the large disk, in addition to their own contra motion. So they will contribute a significant amount to the total clockwise inertai about the central large disk pivot. But your have carefully avoided showing the axes of the small disks rotating the other way. These axes do not coincide with the rotational axis of the large disk so I will leave it as a mathematical exercise to show how their motions about parallel axes add so the total is zero. Hint as you have drawn your diagram, the top and bottom effects and the left and right effects from the small disks rotations will cancel since they are on opposite sides of the central axis of the big disk.

If they are welded together how can one spin one way and the other spin in the opposite direction?

This does not conform to the standard definition of a gyroscope Please answer my comment.

Are you being serious or is this thread just a wind up?

Presumably the 'spindle' is not rotating so what is driving the flywheels?

This does not conform to the standard definition of a gyroscope

Yes +1 and Strange has already dealt with your other examples. However we should note that the Hesienberg Uncertainty Principle not only limits how accurately we can measure certain pairs of quantities, it also limits how accurately we can calculate them. This applies to pairs. Equations exist that allow accurate calculation of individual quantities, if the other one of the pair is not concerned. The best practical example of HUP I is in spectroscopy and occurs as spectral line broadening. The actual amount of the broadening depends upon the apparatus, but the mechanism can be interpreted in terms of a real world physical process. The radiation absorbed or emitted is only monchromatic (a perfectly thin line) to the extent that the molecular/atomic energy levels are themselves perfectly defined. If the energy gap has encertainty [math]{\Delta E}[/math] then the frequency has an uncertainly [math]\Delta f \approx \frac{{\Delta E}}{h}[/math] This is seen as a broadening of the perfect spectral line with half line width [math]\Delta f[/math] leading to an associated uncertainty of time [math]\frac{1}{{2\pi \Delta f}}[/math] We may interpret this as the time taken for the absorbtion/emission to occur. Note carefully that the HUP provides a theoretical (lower) limit to these values. The measured values will exhibit a range as already stated.

Sorry If I misunderstood, somewhere you mentioned classical physics and I just jumped to the conclusion that the use of classical angles implied classical spin. Quantum spin does not have a reference axis. Up and down or +1/2 and -1/2 are just references. But the left hand v right hand of chirality still applies. (and is reflected in the + and - signs)

Surely this is a self fulfilling prophesy? How could an 'organism' with purely mental traits evolve first? And physical traits needed for survival have changed. The requirement to breath a non oxygen atmosphere for the first 3,000 million years of evolution for instance. Strenght is another interesting one. Which is stronger? An animal that can run or fly away, or the animal that would win any fight with it?

It is indeed a little tricky to get the right variables in the right place for the moving light clock and then to transpose the results into a transformation formula between systems. But this was done a long time ago so there is no problem with the maths and no aether is required. The reciprocal relation between the square root factors comes directly from the comparison between time and distance calculation in both the stationary (call it A) and moving system (call it B). The time estimates are [math]\frac{{2l}}{{\sqrt {{c^2} - {v^2}} }}[/math] according to A and [math]\frac{{2l}}{{\sqrt {{c^2}} }}[/math] according to B When you divide one by the other you will recover the fact that A sees the time recorded by B a lengthened by the correct factor .

General Philosophy in a Science Forum is about formal Philosophy, and its relation to Science. As I said lifestyle stuff is not formal philosophy- This is not to denigrate your topic but I think ScienceForums is a unique scientific forum in that it provides a place for both of these in addition to straight Science. So take advantage of that.

I agree with Endy, but here is some more flesh on his bones. First you need to decide whether your flood is saltwater (the sea) or freshwater and also what part of the world the story is set in. A freshwater flood will remain in low lying areas that are normally artificially drained such as the 'Low countries' (The Netherlands, Belgium etc) the Fens and the Levels in England, deltas of some significant rivers eg the Indus, Ganges, Mekong, Misissippi. Persistent saltwater floods can be cause by excessive mangrove removal parts of the coasts of Asia and the Americas, rising sea levels small islands eg the Maldives. A very good reference for this sort of thing is given in this book going all the way back to lost cities in ancient China. https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q%3Dtbn:ANd9GcQxBKOqoBHz2NCsO7pp90LU_5uTVhknhofX73ZrihonFBNBw8hs&imgrefurl=https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Attacking_Ocean.html?id%3Do9b_2AWrqMkC%26source%3Dkp_cover&h=1080&w=701&tbnid=xV-hl6mRskV-HM:&q=brian+fagan+the+attacking+ocean&tbnh=160&tbnw=103&usg=AI4_-kRokz-rdy7YyceidnQFiGqRZRz4kw&vet=12ahUKEwjj0t68hb3eAhVSjqQKHeNdAXIQ_B0wFHoECAQQEQ..i&docid=lm-AOCvBADo8rM&itg=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjj0t68hb3eAhVSjqQKHeNdAXIQ_B0wFHoECAQQEQ

Tetra Ethyl Lead is probably the most famous tetravalent lead compound. It was used as the anti knock agent in petrol for more than half a century before being discontinued.

Have you been reading Roosevelt's four freedoms speech ? Also lifestyle stuff belongs in politics, yes?

Yeah, you got me. My question is why light speed or fastest speed that anything can travel is that limited rate. The answer that will satisfy me is the same like the explanation of 'pi' value that we (human) can explain. Can anyone tell me why this thread has wandered so far off topic?

Sorry I am no wiser for that explanation. It is however interesting that you have started this thread since I was thinking about starting a related one, spurred on by our Taiwanese member. I often say that English is better than Mathematics as there is nothing you can say in Matheamtics that you can't say in English, but it is not true the other way round. In particular, English has the concept of concrete and abstract nouns, which bears some resemblence to your real and imaginary.

Whilst Eise might spot this and give a better answer (His posts are usually very well thought out) here is a quick answer. Eise's text was stated to be classical spin. Quantum 'spin' is not the same. However it has the same property of chirality in that there is no absolute measure of handedness or chirality so If A measures the spin of a quantum particle and a (very) remote B is told (at the speed of light) the spin of my particle was up, he is no wiser unless he also has a means of determining which way the up arrow was pointing.

What does the picture have to do with the thread?

Hello ado and welcome to SF. The orbitals are derived from the square of the wave function. To understand why we use the square and not the wave function, here is a short quote from Coulson This is better than most texts which simple state that the probability density is proportional to the square. If this is not enough, we can look at a simpler example to make it clear. Please tell us if you are familiar with simple harmonic motion (the pendulum) and integration. Here are some plots of ψ and ψ2 originally from Hertzberg. Note that ψ generally has some negative and some positive parts, ψ2 does not.

Yes unwanted (my general term for stray, parasitic etc) capacitance is generally in parallel with the signal. This is how it affects rise time, slew rate, changes true timing of a subcircuit which has an RC timing function, degrades or even removes hf components in signals and so forth. Capacitors in series with the signal, eg my bucket brigade delay lines will offer a propagation delay due to the capacitance. But once a circuit is wired up how do you get an unwanted capacitor in series? But I think we are agreed that unwanted capacitance can seriously upset the health of a circuit in many ways. Restored after a propagation glitch The one good thing about SF editor

It is this particularly I am taking issue with. Yes unwanted capacitance can introduce many unwanted effects, viz alteration of the bode plot, oscillation, instability, loss of sensitivity at certain frequencies to name but a few. But I don't know of any circuit where stray capacitance in the wires introduces propagation delay. Wanted capacitance in the form of circuit capacitors (eg a bucket brigade device) are different and designed to provide propagation delay in the circuit as a whole. Inductance, on the other hand is dependent on the length of track, amongst other things. So it is perfectly possible for a (longer) track that leads to a gate on the other side of an IC to introduce sufficient inductive delay to break synchronicity, even though the longer track may have lower capacitance due to its path. This is well known and provides the limit of speed in parallel processing chips.

So can you reference a calculation to where the capacitance of a wire or track on a circuit board affects the timing of that circuit? I agree with you , which is why I consider this below to be off topic and belonging to the original thread.

Contributions to what?

Yes but not for the purpose of propagation time on circuit boards. That worry has to do with unwanted capacitive coupling between parts of the circuit Propagation time effects are determined by the inductance of the tracks, which is one reason why they are flat strips.

Thank you for your reply. I understand your position and have no beef with it. I was just trying to find out if my presentation was actually unintelligable to others (as Reg suggests) or not. The tap is just an example of the my underlying observation that the concepts in the OP are not simple yes/no pairs but exist on some sort of range of values. I can easily find examples that knowledge is also like this. To be fair to Reg, his propositions have caused me to think about matters I had not previously considered. Indeed I was mulling over whether to start a new thread inspired by a speculation inspired by this one, until the plug was pulled. In short the only person who suffers from the OP inflexible attitude is the OP himself, I have benefited by extended horizons. And Reg seemed to me to be coming round (dragged kicking and screaming perhaps) to more reasonable discussion.