studiot

You say the calculations are the same as for Einstein. How are they the same for the Twins? The twins is an exercise in special relativity, which is confined to inertial frames Flying round the world is not an inertial frame.

A true pedant would include the third possibility of both. Thanks for the pic but Somerset has not been periglacial since the last ice age. https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=Y9x-W-OnLOTIgAab47uoBg&q=periglacial+environment&oq=periglacial&gs_l=psy-ab.1.4.0l10.932.3458.0.7670.11.8.0.3.3.0.446.1052.0j3j1j0j1.5.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..3.8.1138...0i131k1j0i10k1.0.0qSFFbDNCZU We sometimes get clay heave due to clay expansion on taking up water after a (hot) dry spell or subsidence due to clay shrinkage in the dry spell. And Keuper Marl has a high clay content/ is a form of clay.

Thanks for the continued interest folks. The quick sketches may help. The river channel generally varies from about 15 metres to 25 metres in this area. At the weir it turns through nearly a right angle (about 75 - 80 degrees) and impounds a total of about 3metres of water. So the water flows from right to left behind the weir at the top of the diagram and from top to bottom once over the weir. There is a further offtake, through a sluice, to feed an old mill stream at the top left corner, from the pool behind the weir. The failed flank wall is at the left hand end of the sketch. As far as I can tell there is no concrete retaining wall behind it ie it is not a facing wall. The failure is on the outside of the 75 degree bend and the water flows much more slowly here, and shoals on this side, As previously noted in the first pictures. The inside of the bend sees the main flow and a boxed spillway takes this beyond the weir. Section AA shows the long bench previously referred to that supports the main weir wall throughout its length and terminates in flank walls at each end, the left hand of these having failed as detailed with a nearly vertical diagonal crack at the drop off from the bench. Yes, Ghideon, that is shown under your blue arrow and has currently been stanked off in the dry but is normally under water. I'm not sure if the object referred to by your orange and green arrows is original or something put there by the workforce temporarily. It is certainly in the position you might expect to see a scour pool from the water tumbling over the bench in the photos. But I also note that the water is at its most sluggish here and would expect to see scour pools more towards the other end (but don''t) As noted hopefully riverbed investigations are now proceeding and I will report when something is known. Klaynos this is the River Tone in Taunton.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/stories-45023403/what-boils-at-196c-and-could-help-cut-pollution BBC short video which claims that the pollution from the refrigeration system in lorries is greated that the pollution from the lorry engine itself. This system replaces that refrigeration system with aone based on compression liquid nitrogen that has zero pollution, though overall its pollution must also depend on the pollution from the energy source to the liqufication plant. Sorry I don't know how to embed this. If anyone can do that or tell me how I would be grateful.

Good questions but this is not in the (former) mining, earthquake or fracking part of Somerset. This is a near flat river flood plain at the lower end of its course. Without the system of weirs this river would be tidal. The ground is Keuper Marl on top of a layer of river gravel.

It's a nameplate screwed on the wall I can't get there to read it as it is old and corroded, but it says that some Lord Muck built/opened the installation etc.

I would start by realising that not everything in Science is empirical, and also understanding the difference between Scientific processes (there are more than one) and a rigid belief system. 1) Science makes significant use of 'balance of probability' reasoning. 2) Science is constantly (albeit sometimes slowly) revising its conclusions, even without new information. This is impossible for a belief system. Science is dynamic, belief systems are static. 3) Science makes predictions and then tests them. 4) Science employs 'working hypotheses, it knows to be incorrect or incomplete, but adequate for the job in hand. How would the working hypothesis "I am a Christian, but I don't believe in God" operate? Can you say I approximately believe in God as Science can tell you that it is approximately half an hour to tea time? 5) Science acknowledges there are other approaches besides Science or Belief, such as guesswork (Is a guess bound to be wrong?) and happenstance. 6) Science incorporates both the empirical and the non empirical into its methodology. The point particle is an example of a purely theoretical non empirical device in Science that has many uses in many different branches, although it contravenes empirical observation. So this shows just how versatile and flexible scientific processes are and I make no claims that my list is exhaustive.

You have said this a couple of times, but didn't provide a link so why are you expecting a response? There is no such thread in the philosophy section. I did find it here https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/115815-defending-scientific-methodology/?tab=comments#comment-1066183

Contra argument by ridicule is not acceptable. The sad thing is that many of his points are valid, but inconclusive. if you weren't so hell bent on dissing him you might see that and be able to out debate him. Science can handle the proposition of God and the big bang and the pink unicorns at the bottom of my garden. So what? Since Strange, who is fond of pointing out that Science never 'proves or disproves anything, but is strangely quiet here I will say it.

I was drawing in Structural Engineering because its processes (which I hope are as properly scientific as any other part of the technical world) can show by example all the issues in this discussion about dark matter -including dark matter or dark energy itself, but if you really don't want to know then I will give it up.

Perhaps your best bet to make him go away is to give him lots of red marks.

Well you should be. Are you suggesting Structural Engineering is not subject to Scientific processes? The whole point I'm making is that popular phrase It's Complicated. Your friend is trying (unsuccessfully) to simplify it to make it fit his form of logic. But it isn't that simple. The point here is that falsifiable means 'I can do a test to prove it wrong' ; if I can't it's not falsifiable. So he does the closeup test and doesn't prove the star porposition wrong. Then he looks at the overall picture. So locally it is a star. But globally it is not. Yes +1

No NO and No again. I want (to know) the exact breaking stength of that piece of wood. Not another similar one. No two pieces of wood have the exact same breaking strength. Engineers address this issue every day by using testing to what is called proof strength.

Gosh patent this quickly, you will become a millionaire. How do you test something to destruction twice? I've put the second photo in a 'spoiler' ; Click on 'reveal contents' to see it. There now I've returned the edit compliment.

The tides in the North Sea form a resonant system of standing waves or sich system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seiche In normal conditions, the nodes or amphidromic points are as in the second diagram. Note the normal tidal heights are up to 2m as I said except in a couple of narrow zones eg Dover Straight. Freak conditions don't count, except as freak. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphidromic_point My Russian is moe than a little rusty, I haven't learned any since I was 12. So please can we have the rest in English?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fart_lighting

I was considering answering this one, BUT The OP was online for a good half hour after swansont gave his answer. Now I see that the OP has been back for a further hour or so. Clearly he doesn't care about the subject to waste more time on an answer. I say waste more because I answered quite a few of his early threads and am still waiting for an answer on all of them.

Touche

Haliburton activity was overseas, was it not? I was thinking of much more draconian powers granted to private companies. In the past railway named companies had an act of Parliament in the UK and something similar in the US to aquire people's property, forcibly if necessary. Fracking comes to mind in more recent years.

correction it's always someone's else's fault and they're to blame... Back on topic. Sorry Tim, I don't even know or want to know what antisemitism is, or have anything to do with it. You are correct to say it's all very vague.

Actually some are specific, most are general. In both the UK (including its former territories) and the US the construction of railways, roads and other facilities often apply to a named organisation and allow that organisation to ride roughshod over individual rights and ownerships. This, of course is very big business indeed.

I see the programming industry as being in the same stage and displaying the same arrogance towards customers as Henry Ford with his "Any colour so long as it's black" comment. Growth and competition has yet to force them to actually find out what customers really want.

I nearly gave you another +1 ( but then what would I receive ads for ?) for this comment since I am irritated by all ads, even those I have placed myself. Thanks, koti but adblockers have their limitation. When studiot was running as a business I used to help customers filter their Email. Many of them were small hoteliers, who needed the Email for business purposes. Unfortunately filters and adblocks persistently classified the government tourist body for the SouthWest ( a major source of customers) as spam.

Hello Kyle, Let me first say that it is poor practice to add answers as an Edit. If this happened as a result of the stupid forum software I apologise and will direct my ire elsewhere. I looked for an answer but did not notice that you had replied since it is placed a the post preceeding mine until much later. So it apppears as if you had answered my points before I made them. OK so the definition of empirical. This goes back a very long way, to the ancient Greeks and a sect of physicians who "Drew their rules of practice only from experience". These were called empirics. I have emphasised the word only since it is key. This has translated into modern usage as an adjective empirical Note the practical bias is still there. Further note that this is observation v theory. 'Belief' is not included as a valid source. Earlier you noted three pillars This is where I offer my favourite comment that reality or nature is stranger than Man's wildest fiction. So reproducibility? Consider a length of wood or a steel bar. How strong is it? A simple straightforward scientific question, yes? Well suppose I actually want to use that bar and need to know how strong it is. So I test it to destruction. Is that reproducible? OK falsifiability. Here is a photo of a star taken by a Scientist from John Hopkins. The Scientist said that this plus the second photo gave him a Damascene moment about the difference between local and global truth. So testability. Testability implies you have some hypothesis or postulate to test. So how about the postulate "There are unexplainable phenomena in Science, that we can never explain"

I notice several respondants assert that targeted ads save the recipient (target) time, that might be so in some cases. But I am now having to waste my time filtering and deleting at least 50 Emails per day of targeted advertising. Most is this is downright counterproductive since it merely repeats what I have just bought. How many copies of War & Peace does a bear need or want? At Sensei's comment in particular about perfume. Many these days do online shopping and have their supermarket 'weekly run' delivered. They may well include perfume, and presumably know what they ordering. So there is nothing wrong with buying your perfume online per se. However I do object if the supermarket company then harvests the data that I bought something and sees it as an additional income stream thus moving from the business of selling supermarket products to the business of selling supermarket customers to other businesses. Particularly if it does it on the sly without first seeking my express permission.