studiot

Several members are struggling with the meaning of the term 'dimension' at the moment. It really depends what you are looking for?

Yeah but argument (in the proper sense of the word) about what? The OP goes in for the scattergun approach to threads and never answers questions about what he asked. It may well be that String Junky is correct in that this one is linked to his thread on string theory, in which case the answer would be very different from the question what is a 10 dimensional continuum like.

See the last post here https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/29763-bannedsuspended-users/?page=24&tab=comments#comment-1065488

Which is partly why I asked for more information about what was actually meant in the OP.

Thank you for responding. Did you see my reply to your test in the sandbox? I will think about your comments overnight, but two things to go away with. 1) The OP specifically asked for a classical discussion so anything else would be off topic (eg discussion of orbitals and probability.) 2) As I understand X ray diffraction of crystals electron density is directly observable, and calculable. Electron density maps are very useful between nuclei (atoms) in molecules or crystals, but of very limited value within an individual atom. What units are you measuring electron density in? Perhaps we mean something entirely different? My definition refers to a number (of electrons or moles) per unit volume. As such it has three important characteristics. The number part is one of the basic 'dimensions' in dimensional analysis Because it is discrete it is automatically 'quantized', without the need to refer to QM.

Just for encouragement, read this short biography of Mary Ward, who asked for a microscope as an 18th birthday present from her billionaire (in today's terms) father, in 1845. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ward_(scientist)

What magnetic field?

Coupled with the reference to 'limits' ZV may be trying to reinvent recurrence relations. I can't tell, he won't discuss it.

So what is your actual question?

If you would be so kind as to answer my question (as required by the rules of this forum) instead of being rude, help might be more forthcoming.

Isn't this 'equals' a computing assignment statement? ZV did say he worked in some sort of IT environment.

And killed off several members in the process it seems. What fate do you offer newcomers?

No. But that doesn't make it the truth either. Do you know the difference between an untruth and a lie?

Did you mean this - I have removed the opening square brackets from the first math tag and the trailing one from the second. math]\int_a^\infty f (x)dx = \mathop {\lim }\limits_{L \to \infty } \int_a^L f (x)dx[/math [math]\int_a^\infty f (x)dx = \mathop {\lim }\limits_{L \to \infty } \int_a^L f (x)dx[/math]

Strange, +1 for qualitative answers, in particular referring to the electonand the nucleus thread. We could, of course, put some numbers to this, but avoiding the dreaded division by zero. The De Broglie wavelength of an electron of mass m moving at velocity v is h/mv. For a given (small ) region of space of size s, this wavelength must be smaller than s to say that the elctron is definitely within that region s. For instance the nuclear radius is 1.5 x 10-14 metres. So to say that the electron is within this space means puts a lower limt on mv. The value of h is 6.6 x 10-34 joule-seconds and the mass of the electron is 9 x 10-31 kilogrammes. I will leave it as an exercise for hami to insert into the relationships and find the required velocities for any given small space s. Prepared to be suprised.

I can't see any valid reason for the negative vote so +1. Further I agree that much of the discussion was not what the OP asked for. I disagree that there is no purely classical explanation in terms of coulomb forces and classical mechanics however. The Rutherford- Bohr atom did that. The problem requiring resolution was due to classical electrodynamics, not electrostatics (coulomb forces). Achilles, if you are still interested we can follow the development of the theory in the terms you asked for. Carrock, I would be interested in the mathematical detail you offer since I wonder if you are misplacing the use of electron density as an observable?

I note you stated electrostatic force and field. I further assume you are extending your earlier enquiry as to why the electron does not 'fall' 'into the nucleus. I was mulling over a reply to this when you posted this new thread. OK so Sensei is totally correct, those are the static equations. But I think they are of no use to you because you are (or should be) looking for and equation of motion. Earnshaw's theorem (1842) states that any system of more than one charge must be in motion (and you have two in your system). This and the classical consideration leads to an answer to your earlier thread and this one, if you are interested. The way to handle this is not to consider forces but to consider potentials and develop an equation of motion of one charge under the influence of the field of the other. This is done both in classical mechnaics and the Schrodinger equation (and also the Dirac relativistic equation). Do you wish to take this further?

Now I am even more confused. Harikrish, but you have stated they are a believer. So what do they believe in and what does that mean in relation to the OP, which is about rational thinking, not belief. Strange, how can you not believe in religion when it is on (nearly) every corner? I assure you it exists. Yet this is entirely unrelated to the validity of any religion or the rational for it.

Yes some old human relic may be uncovered. I'm sure there are no natural cavities in the gravel and marl of the river bed, which is in the middle of its flood plain extending at least half a kilometre on both sides. Ghideon, I remember the refurbishment of the old (13 century) packhorse bridge in Trowbridge, which I underpinned in the 1970s. A surprise then was the old Roman oak foundations (piles and cross beams) that were in better condition that the stones of the walls (Bath stone). It was extremely difficult to remove these oak foundations, jack hammers etc just bounded off, unlike with stones.

Well maybe for some Christians, but not all. I can remember being taught (in school no less) the points of agreement between the flow of the theory of evolution and the history of general events (ie specialist Jewish 'history' aside) in the Bible. There are many, although there are also differences and outright oppositions. Is there some good reason why you refuse to discuss my points? Should I report this? I also commented that believe is the wrong word to apply to evolution. Notice that Strange used the words 'accept' evolution.

I thought the concensus (here) was that the two are not mutually exclusive. That is certainly my view. However since there are two independent propositions conjoined there are at least five possibilities. Both are believed Neither are believed One is believed The other is believed. Some other view. This is my view since I don't care about God and I further think that evolution is neither complete nor all encompassing. That of course ignores the semantic conflict between the concepts of belief and the scientific method insofar as it is possible to 'believe' in evolution. I further consider it likely that humanity will divide into five camps represented by these divisions.

Not often, perhaps once in 25 years or so. The wall has stood several hundred years. The failed section of wall appears to have gone down and moved to the left, parallel to the line of the riverwall, - downriver - both about 75mm. It doesn't seem to have rotated in any direction or displaced into the river at right angles to the line of the riverwall. The crack appears sensibly of constant width. One thing to note is that this side of the river is very shallow and slow running. Looking at the downstream picture you can see the gravel islands that collect on this side. This is surprising since the river scour will be least on this side. There is nothing to suggest the earth behind the wall has become active. If active earth pressure developed, it would be greatest at the bottom so the wall would have rotated outwards at the bottom.

What, please, is a non religious believer?

Thank you for the reply. I don't know the answer, hopefully we will find out when they pump out the cofferdam. However the movement of the wall suggests one thing but the stability of the ground behind it suggests something else.

Yes the Bible contains many self contradictions, where one passage contradicts another.