studiot

1) Not quite - it is the change in gravitational potential. All all times and positions the toy has some gravitational potential. 2) OK so given the above why does h = 0.45? 3) Yes 4) EK should be conventionally KE, but otherwise yes if you put in the missing square root 5) 0.5mv2 = mgh or v = sqrt(2gh). why did you bother to work out the actual energy and not simple cancel the mass? 6) I think when you recalculate the arithmetic you will find the answer closer to 3m/s

If the second part of your answer was a reason/justification for the first part (lashing out), what would you call lashing out without thinking? The second part arises because 1) You failed to correctly read the definition of a teleonomy argument. I have highlighted the all important word. You have, in your OP, singularly failed to demonstrate that there is any purposefulness at all, it is all assumed. So arguments about what sort of purposefulness are moot. You should, of course, also provide a working definition of purpose to measure discussion against.

What do you mean by this? Are you confusing superposition and coherence? For the purpose of a statistics tossing experiment an ideal coin can be modelled as a Gaussian (orientable) surface with two sides. But not all surfaces are Gaussian.

Nice. analogy +1

Yes. +1 Do you have an exact quote for that? I haven't read his hypothesis, but I would have thought the late Prof Hawking sufficiently educated to have used the word 'orthogonal'. Do you understand the difference?

Still looking for a response to my question. Superposition means necessarily that you have some function describing some property or other to add up. BTW, QM employs linear superposition.

I was tickled by the picture of a "repulsive force of Pauli exclusion". Please explain what would happen to the gravimeters that displayed a 'jump in gravity' during earth tremors if they were accelerated by other means, eg shaking?

Hear, hear, I second and third and fourth that. +1 Well I'm so stuck-in-the-ink I can only see blobs. So would someone please explain this hi falutin 'rgument to a plebian troglodyte?

I will answer that when you write down the quantum mathematics of a) A cat b) Life c) Death

Indeed so +1 You seem to want to do a sort of 'compare and contrast' betweeen Philosophy and Science. Why not take a specific subject instance and discuss what Philosophy and Science will tell you about. For example Compare and contrast the Science and Philosophy of these two bridges.

'Yes reminds me of waterglass' This may be thick enough for you.

Any spectroscopist will point out that this phrase is self contradictory in relation to the HUP. Their direct evidence is the broading of spectral lines which they take to be the uncertaintly of the time taken for the electron transition/radiation emission.

There is an initial posting limit for new members, because we get so much spam like many other forums. But it will soon pass and I can see you are genuine not a spammer. Vanadium acts as a catalyst on acetic acid to form a pungent but colourless organic compound. It does not react with the acid itself. Nickel also does not react. But chromium reacts to produce bright red chromium acetate. Was/is any of the chrome plating peeling back? Of course vinegar comes in many colours from colourless to very dark brown. What was the original colour of yours? Did I understand you to also say that there was copper grease as well other other contaminents on the sockets? There are many far better chemists than me here as well as some metallurgists. I am just hoping to prompt as much useful information as possible for them so they might have some better ideas.

I hope there is no sort of vendetta going on here against a well respected member who puts in a lot of effort to help others. Or perhaps I just don't like the colour red.

Information is key and you haven't provided anywhere near enough. What are your tools made of? Chrome/nickel/vanadium/manganese steel? Where does the copper come into it And by sockets do you mean mechanical spanners, not electrical sockets? If so are they chrome plated? Chrome plate id deposited on a copper base.

Try some Kaolin. This is used as an inert thickener in several industries, is white(ish) non staining and may be available from you local pharmacist (without the morphine).

The OP introduced the frame and cannot discount its effects. That would be like me saying I know Henry's nose is bleeding Miss, but that doesn't count because although it was my fist, his nose was not part of the travelling momentum and so doesn't count. In any event, no I do not have a wave reacting with the frame, it reacts with the iron and the electromagnet, which is attached (by the OP) to the frame.

Of course I haven't. Which is exactly what I have drawn.

Of course it matters, but it's only part of the story. Here's another part. One part of a (perhaps rigid but that's yet another part) body of ridiculously large dimensions labelled B emits momentum carrying particles. There must be a commensurate reaction with the frame at that point. After a time period some - a ridiculously small % - of this momentum is transferred back to the body at A. There must be a commensurate reaction with the frame here. The fronts of both reaction forces must travel through the frame much more slowly than c, but their effect cannot be discounted. This is always the case with bodies of sufficient size - one part of the body reacts before another. Ther were actually some tremendous slomo videos of springs suspended from building and dropped. The time taken for the effect of release could clearly be seen in the responses of the top and bottom of the spring. These were posted here not too long ago, but like all the best stuff I can't find it again, it seems hidden from my searches. I view the authors (note not the OP here) as trying to promote yet another perpetual motion machine.

On the contrary, I think it to be very relevant. For instance: By how much will the mag field (pulse) have weakened or diminished over a distance of 300,000 kilometers?

Well the original authors can prove anything they like by presenting either insufficient or invalid information or both. For starters the magnetic field is not a wave it is a (single) pulse. This will be subject to all the standard pulse characteristics such as rise time and decay time, which will be determined by the characteristics of the electromagnet. The iron is massive so will take time to "be pulled towards the electromagnet", yet the time intervals of transit by the pulse edges must be very small.

Before testing and verification theories are called hypotheses. They only get elevated to the status of theory after verification. Perhaps you could outline your idea for comment to see if it might prove a fruitful line of enquiry. I would not wish you to be following a wild goose chase like for instance those organic chemists looking for the 'vital force' once thought to be associated with organic compounds.

Exactly, you are not understanding plasma. But more to the point you are not understanding other physical phenomena such as energy and force either, which, combined with your 'intuition' is leading you astray. I have already told you that plasma is a state of matter where the particles of matter have lost at least one electron and so are ionised. There is nothing to say that any form of electrical discharge is necessary for this to happen, or that the resulting ions need to be visible. A good example on non electric plasma, both visible and non visible plasmas would be a gas flame. the hottest (most energetic) part is actually invisible. If matter in different states is mixed with other matter, the different states are often called phases. So the gas in a gas flame is in one (or two) phases and the gas in the surrounding air is in another, but all are in the gaseous state. Energy is not some sort of magic fluid that is transferred from one chunk of matter (or other stuff) to another, although it can be convenient to treat it mathematically this way for some calculation purposes. There is no such thing as an energetic force. A force does not and cannot possess the property of energy. Static (I assume you mean static electricity) is not a form or instance of plasma, nor is a cloud of electrons or a bunch of ions in solution.

You worked so hard at this I thought you had a genuine interest in the subject, so I am surprised you made no comment when you looked in again on Sunday, after I posted help. There is much to be learned from (successfully) completing this problem.

As ever I come in to say that Nature is never that simple. Suppose I my watch is displaying 1200 noon and I check my watch against the national time signal every 12 hours for a week and each reading show 1200. Should I conclude that 1) The watch is keeping correct time and that the hands are moving? or 2) That the watch has stopped and the hands are not moving?