studiot

Be fair, it was once considered necessary. Don't forget the aether was conceived in the days when Young's theory of light as a classical wave ruled supreme, having displaced Newton's corpuscular theory. In those days (early 1800's) all known waves required a medium of transmission and since no obvious one was on offer the (lumeniferous) aether was proposed. This was half a century before Maxwell, Hertz, Marconi et al. Of course, some people (other than actors) still ride in hansom cabs and wear fancy hats today.

When I was a lad, I lived in a place where there were two separate water supplies. One processed and fit to drink (potable) The other was not used primarily for firefighting but was inspired by the fact that there were many acres of greenhouses used for market gardening, which needed irrigation. So it can be economic.

So someone misunderstood you. I didn't and was considering a +1 for a perceptive opening comment, which you now have. Go back to what Phiforall said - he is a very likeable chap - and just read the mmm cake part. While you are eating it, consider if perhaps you also over reacted a tad. So I look forward to more poignant comments/questions in the future from yourself.

Update pictures. There has not been sufficient progress to determine anything new. However it is clear that the items in the river at the base of the wall that were asked about are sandbags. Here is the site board stating that there was scour and that they will underpin the wall, but this is not certain. I am trying to see if the masonry below waterline has deteriorated. Lias is not the most durable of building stone.

Interestingly the presence of water as ice on the surface of the Moon has just been announced. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45251370 Also interestingly these pressures are similar to the sublimation pressure of ice at lunar surface temperatures. The pink arrow shows the sublimation line from ice to vapour. source https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/srd/jpcrd402011New.pdf

Yes I agree with SJ. Confrontation or clash of wills is generally counterproductive. At that age he doesn't have much weight to throw about (even if it is a steel toy) Develop those learned habits and stances till he is 18 you will find out the weight a thwarted 18 year old can throw about. The most amazing things I have seen is a tantrum in full flow stopped in an instant by simply changing the subject. Grandma is coming soon. Have you seen this trick? etc etc Try to divert his attention to something else then something else again. Having seen it in action I have always tried to follow it, though I was never as good as the lady I was copying.

No I don't understand why you apparantly don't wish to learn more about the subject of quaternions.

Here is an extract from Artzy : Geometry an Algebraic Approach, if you want more to see how quaternions have been brought into the fold of modern algebra. Note the next one up is the octave algebra.

Thank you for that link, I had not seen it and it is a well balanced article. +1 However the two types of calculus you are referring to are not diferences between quaternions and vectors (Professor Weatherburn's texts had a good discussion of both if I remember rightly, I will have to look them up again) Marcus referred to the star operator. The differences are due to what are known as Clifford algebras and the Exterior v the Interior calculus. This is equivalent to the use of Dual spaces in vector algebra (=linear algebra as vector spaces) In such spaces, tensors (which I mentioned before and you didn't respond to) are vectors. An even more mixed up mahtmatical notation.

Can you rephrase this please? I can't figure out what you are trying to say. Note that there are also quadrupoles and higher types to consider. This is also the case with electrostatic effects.

Steve since you are new here, I will help you by posting your document. But please note the comments from others and use you intelligence to read the rules of this forum properly, especially those pertaining to speculations. This means amongs other things that you have posted it in the wrong place - It should have been posted in speculations and I have contacted a moderator to see if it can be moved.

Right friendly advice that. +1

Yes in all cases. Matrix methods can make it easier, especially by computer. Algebraic substitution means that the equations are simultaneous. There are many ways to solve simultaneous equations. Some are best suited to solution by hand. This includes substitution. Experience and knowledge with circuit theory can also make it easier by careful choice of which equations to use.

I asked because the 'best' method depends upon your aims. There are many ways to solve circuits. It can be done mathematically by the following methods: graphically algebraically using matrix methods using 'flowgraphs' It can also be done using the Physics of the situation One way is called walking through analysis It can be done by systems analysis / operational methods for example two port methods. These are often combined with matrix methods

What are you studying circuit analysis? What are your aims or what do you hope to achieve?

You haven't replied to responders in your last thread from Friday. So why should anyone respond to you here?

Welcome Melkor and well done for posting in the correct place, have you read the rules for homework help? I can see that you can't even start the first one from what you are saying so I will do that one as a hint/example. I have done it graphically as this shows what we are trying to achieve - that is move the line f(x+4) to pass through P (can you see it does not at the moment). You can also calculate the coordinates of the new point C Can you see how to do that?

With respect Marcus, since your mathematics is faultless, where did the OP specify only classical electromagnetism?

Thank you for introducing me to this material. +1 It will take some reading before I can make a proper response. Perhaps some knowledgable other person will see this and respond before then.

It was not really related to my theory. And your questions on that matter were pointless, as my assumptions were consistent with the results of Hafele-Keating type experiments. I don't have time to answer all the questions, so I'm selecting what I think is meaningful/important with respect to my theor It was most certainly directly related to your statements. Furthermore it was designed to help you. However you have chosen the path of contempt. You have not only wasted a substantial amount of my time offering useful comment but you are also in direct defiance of forum rules. This has thus been reported.

Yes this is true as some quantities are pseudovectors, not vectors. This is, as you say, correctly handled by using quaternions. Mathematically quaternions were superceeded by tensors.

I looked at you referenced video and the author seems to have different aims in mind from your question. Looking at my screenshot you can see black dots on the base of the jar where particles have fallen. I am not sure if you understood my previous comment that smoke is a two phase disperse system and removing air takes away some if not all the second phase, leaving a one phase system, which is not dispersed. Carbohydrate compounds produce water vapour and carbon dioxide when burned so there will have been an increase in gas present duringand after burning, but wth a different chemical composition. The reading on the pressure gauge was not shown at this stage. All in all a poorly designed experiment with no clear aim surprising outcome.

Yet when I tried some simple mathematics, you did not answer. So that's now two aspects of your theory you haven't answered. How is what Strange wrote an answer? He suggested fast moving particles but you are suggesting slow moving ones. You theory of touching unseen particles reminds me of Maxwell's mechanical model of the aether. Interestingly this model actually fitted all the known equations of Maxwell's time.

Yes indeed. Smoke is a particulate disperse system (solid in gas), formerly called a colloid although that term is now more restricted. So what happens when you remove the gas?

Nor did you!