studiot

Welcome to ScienceForums. About the only thing wrong with what you have said is that you have asked the question in the General Philosophy section whereas it is really a matter of pure Physics and/or Engineering. You need to be aware of the way science works. All scientific theories, definitions and descriptions are just models of what we observe in the universe around us. No model is perfect. That is it is not an exaxct match for every aspect of the 'real' thing. The only issue is whether the behaviour of the model matches the 'real' thing in respect of some phenomenon or property of interest. If it does then the model is a 'good' one and we can use it to predict future behaviour of the real thing. That is its purpose. However we should always remember that models may (usually) only match only over some restricted range. So modelling water as a liquid only works over the range 0 - 100oC and fails outside those limits. So it is with magnetism. Magnetism itself is not energy, although it can exert a force which can do work in one model of magnetism. This model is used by Electrical Engineers, for instance in designing electromagnets. But a different model is used by Physicists for their purposes. Either way the model has to be supplied from a source of energy to operate. This is a convenient point to ask if you understand the difference between a source of energy and energy itself and also the terms force and work? You will need to understand these to progress.

Beecee, I used to like the strapline Long we fought for Peace. And conquered her at last. That would make a good caption for you picture.

Modern technology is the only thing standing between you and a life of servitude down the mine or worse working 14 hour days for a pittance. Be grateful.

You are right about the pendulum example, the spring is only needed becasue the pendula are shown fixed to rigid foundations. But have you given any thought to the chicken and egg situation? That does the oscillating entity transfer its energy or the other system extract it? Looking up flavours on Wiki is even more confused than the neutrino article.

Well yes I understand that these are also leptons with very different mass, but similar dipole moments. But I don't understand what bearing that has on electrons and whether or not electrons have flavors.

Still no answers to either of my simple questions Reported.

Scrolling down the Activity list to the first break I find all the subjects are scientific. This is the first time since I arrived been here in april2012 that I have seen this and better still not one is from a crank. Is this a record?

Thanks guys. So do electrons have flavors?

Gosh I didn't say it does not have a t dependence, quite the reverse. I said it was not periodic (although it could be) and therefore not an oscillation. I am aware of the sin2 term in the Wiki, but not sure what the physical significance of the angle is, as it is a probability plot.

Thank you for the reply. The explicit nature is in quark stark contrast with Wiki, which is why I asked for better information. They also do not explain how that is an oscillation. How is your t, v explanation different from the situation with my car which has a certain energy every t I fill the tank, but the t intervals may be variable and certainly do not constitute an oscillation, although I drive at a some speed v. If you prefer consider a jet fighter with mid air refuelling to avoid the stopping and starting business. So it must be something else.

Thank you for this interesting discussion gentlemen. +1 each.

Do Physicists ask why? Anyway my first quick reading of the Wiki thought that as well, but if you read it carefully it does not actually say that mass is the cause, it could be taken to be implied, but Physics statements are preferably explicit rather than implicit. But that is not the my main point, which is that elementary particles do not have quark type internal structure to support the kind of oscillation descibed, so it must be something else. As I said, my knowledge is not good enough to say what. Perhaps Marcus or Mordred or the old reliable swansont. And that is why I was not impressed by the article.

A good question, Strange +1. Butch I can't see anything objectionable in your post +1 to cancel the negative. But I don't fully understand the explanation Strange, this is also beyond my knowledge of particle physics, but that Wiki article is self declared to be unfinished and in need of improvement. Your quote starts with how it arises. Stepping back a bit to finding out what it is and As I understand things, the electron is (considered) an elementary particle so could not 'oscillate' in the proposed manner. So although the statement is true why include it? Equally the original statement of what is meant by oscillation does not include any reference to an essential requirement of oscillation, that of periodicity. The maths presented has periodicity but not in time but over an energy range, which would be another one of these hilbert phase space oscillation (not waves) rather than a classical oscillator.

I see you failed to answer or even acknowledge my polite reasonable and non threatening question in this thread as well as one in your other thread. This is against forum rules. Should I report these infringements?

I agree. +1 I would be interested to hear you account of what you think the relative velocities are in this situation. Remember there is only length contraction in the direction of relative velocity. Then perhaps we can help you put your account right.

Yes I think we are all agreed on these good points, which have been mentioned at various stages in the discussion. To facilitate discussion I have sketched the situation show clearly that the existing timber would be subject to a significant increase in stress. This must occur in the existing timber alone as it is beyond the 'reinforced' part. One question occurs to me. Carports and garages are usually longer than they are wide so why was there only one extra support post to remove. What happens at the back end? and what about the middle?

Yes welcome, but surely there are more than that? A further thought. Euclid did not discover his elements in the order and layout finally presented. For most folks, one of the most boring and repulsive or discouraging methods of presentation (teaching) of knowledge follows the formal (streamlined) structure after it was discovered and worked out in detail. There are, of course, a few who prefer to study that way. We create this formalism because such a structure is invaluable once the subject is known and grasped. So discussion between peers ie when both sides already understand the foundations of the matter will be different from discussion with someone who is less knowledgeable.

The 'Axiom of Choice' refers to set (was the tennis reference a deliberate pun?) theory. So you must first define your set. The condition for membership of that set is that you must be a player in the match. Nothing more. So where is the a failure of the set axioms?

Not sure if you are referring to the proposed plates as reinforcing? Pretty much as I see it, with the addition that the timber transfers the shear load (sorry to keep mentioning that) to the supports and will continue to do so. Thus the cross connections to the plates must transfer that shear, in turn, to the plates.

Some random thoughts about this. 1) These 'speculations' are all too often posted in mainstream sections and equally all too often have to be forced into 'speculations' by the moderators. So how many come to speculate or realise they are speculating or even know/understand what a speculation is? 2) Those with closed ears can often be recognised by a barrage of 'word salad'. 3) Some seem to me to be somewhat autistic or have some other disability and are genuinely doing their best but have unconventional thought processes. These people often have difficulty expressing themselves or following conventional discussion paths. They may appear obstinate and non receptive to outside comment, despite the contradiction of being on a discussion website. This is just the way they are. Patience is essential with these people. 4) We have one active (nameless) member who has moved out of the obstinate category and achieved some genuinely productive threads. Frustrating at first, but rewarding in the second.

I wonder if you have, perhaps, misunderstood the original description. There are two beams not one. These two have a common bearing at the intermediate post and probably some loose connection. There is therefore maximum shear acting at this post, on both these beams which should be considered as simply supported. Do you agree with this? I do wonder what this piece of timber is actually supposed to support. Perhaps only itself?

1) There is currently zero moment at the post to be removed. But there is substantial shear being transferred. (otherwise no post would be needed) Making the beam continuous exchanges this shear for increased moment. But at the expense of increased shear in the joints. Stress can only be transferred from the wood to the steel by shear connectors. So shear considerations are vital. 2) Yes of course it could be designed so. We are all agreed on that. But certain parts of the existing beam, notably at 10 feet from the end, will be subject to a greater moment than before. 3) Relying on friction in properly controlled conditions yes. And with proper subsequent inspections to confirm that no relaxation has taken place. Relying on unknown workmanship and subsequent regimes is questionable.

Well that about sums up the difference between the US and the UK. You hit people with 2x4s we hit them with 4x2s.

Well the new maximum moment will be 56% greater than the old and still occur within the old unstrengthened timber section.

Whilst I expect the shear to be the main issue, going from a 16 ft beam to a 20 ft beam will increase the maximum moment, so the ability of the existing beam to resist this would need checking. Otherwise it could need reinforcing along a greater length than 4 ft.