studiot

I think you misunderstood my discussion. Actually itoero made a distinction between 'biological evolution' and 'geological evolution' and I asked about that distinction. I added some explanatory context to try to improve my question, but it seems no one picked up on the distinction.

Charge is not energy. A single isolated electric charge has no 'electric' energy, or indeterminate electric energy. You seem unwilling to discuss the term isolated. Why is this? Or the non movement. Have you heard of potential energy?

Well maybe this is a language difficulty. You have consistently said 'mass charge.' How is that different from an electric charge? Are you using the term to mean 'quantity of mass' whether or not that mass is electrically charged? If so why not just say mass? That would account for a great deal of your difficulty getting your point across. Perhaps you don't understand what is meant by an isolated system? This is one which has a defined boundary and no matter or energy crosses that boundary. Does this help?

Probably. Anyway since I was a mathematician and the OP didn't clarify his use of the word in his early discussion with you or later, I am going to assume the mathematical definition.

Thank you geological history is enough for me to understand.

Of course maths has yet another definition of evolute and evolution, though I am not sure of their derivation.

Just because it doesn't appear on Wikipedia doesn't invalidate the rest of the world (which is still larger then Wiki). Evolution is a sailing term used to describe the transition form fully reefed to fully spread from the 1600s on. One of the reasons the English navy could beat the French was that they used to practice this whilst timed by whatever timepiece was available in the 1600/1700/1800s. The French navy did not.

I have no idea what this refers to, I asked about geological evolution, not Darwin's theory. The word 'evolution' was stolen from a nautical term in the pre-Darwin Romantic period when geology was becoming popular and continued on into the Scientifc community with Darwin. I recommend the book Reading the Rocks By Brenda Maddox (2017) Interestingly Brenda came from Bridgewater Mass. which was named after the Bridgwater which is 8 miles from me and (not so) shortly to be home to the world's most expensive white elephant.

I didn't say it did or didn't. But since it means different things in different contexts all I did was ask for clarification when a new context was introduced.

Where would natural selection and the competition that implies come into it? I didn't say it was unreasonable, I asked because it must widen the definition of evolution perhaps as far as to the original nautical one.

I'd be interested to learn what geological evolution is?

Actual and potential infinities are an outmoded concept of the Ancient Greeks, who did not have the benefit of another two and a half thousand years of development. All the point in all my sets exist whether we have listed them or not, as do the sets themselves. But in any case I am talking about the measure of the sets, not the points or any limiting process. There is no need for any process or 'reaching of infinity', whatever reaching of infinity means. Kindly address my points in modern terms.

But dear Albert was being facetious. The size of any set of all real numbers that lie between any pair of real numbers is infinite.

That's a good way to put it though I prefer the stories told by Richard Adams and Michael Tod. +1

I still say this is in the wrong place as all the discussion has been mathematical. Infinity of any flavour is not defined in cosmology. Further your contention is really a speculation. Mathematically, of course various infinities exist and are numbers. it just depends which number system you mean. You might just as easily and just a swrongly contend that 0.553 is not a number because there is no such number in the integer number system or that Pi is not a number because there is no such number in the rational number system or that (5.+3i) is not a number because there is no such number in the real number system. Infinity exists in the extended number for instance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_real_number_line Alternatively you can look at projective geometry as perhaps more relevant to cosmology that has a single infinity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projective_geometry

Well put Sensei. +1

Does this ramble have a point for discussion. If so what are we supposed to be discussing? Further why is this posted in Astronomy and Cosmology when it seems basically a mathematical proposition?

I don't see what the fuss is about. Surely evidence is just data. But only data that is or may be, relevant to some sort of investigation. Any other data, including data that starts off in the may be relevant category but is subsequently ruled irrelevant is not evidence. Note that this explanation requires the context of an investigation (Scientific, legal, philosophical. whatever). Hypotheses or explanations for the evidence may be proposed and in the context of investigation, the rational deduction of the best hypothesis called a proof. Different standards and criteria are applied to different types of investigation so there are many different types of proof. There is no one size fits all. One thing to note is that the evidence stands separate from the hypotheses and proof so that both of these may change, whilst the evidence remains at least part of the evidence and so that new evidence can be added to or removed from the data. A good discussion of this process in Science is to be found in this book https://www.amazon.co.uk/Scientific-Inference-Harold-Jeffreys/dp/0521180783

Er, I think 1905 was the special theory and 1915 or 1917 was the general theory.

Yes indeed but I did not quite understand your question, perhaps you could try again more simply? This seems (in English) self contradictory. The first line seems to assert that photons have charge. The second seems to deny this. The point I am making is simply that wherever you draw the boundary round the 'specific volume' because I also said it is isolated, total or net charge is conserved within that volume. It does not prevent the charges within that volume being either free or bound to each other. So whether the charge is within an atom or not is irrelevant. Oh and there is no charge (=zero) associated with a photon (as swansont has already confirmed).

This site doesn't have a suitable emoticon for this.

Why would electrons flow from plus to minus?

I still don't see how this leads us to a clock the measures time not time difference. There are many quantities in Science that we (only) measure by difference, including distance. Surely this must be so as there is no absolute axis of time or distance. This is fundamentally different from say temperature where for instance the freezing point of water is a particular point on the scale and no other in whatever units you choose to measure. Another such 'absolute' would be the number of neutrons (or protons or electons) in a given isotope. Or perhaps Avogardo's Number.

So what does that essay title means to you ? I would say it should distinguish between what Science can and cannot explain and say why. But check with your tutor/lecturer that you and she agree what you are going to write about, it is a very loosly defined title.

I don't know I was asleep at that time (date). Which is why I asked why experimenters have to zero their clocks if their clocks tell 'the time'.