studiot

I think the time has come to report this whole thread as a cavalier disregard of the rules of this forum.

Thank you but if true, that site is due to one Gevin Giorbran. Indeed Google throws up lots of references to this quote. Hawking was noted for attempting to popularise (dumb down) Science for the benefit of the wider population. Of course he did not do this in his formal work. Either way, Stuart, you did not answer my question. Do you understand the difference between 'at right angles to' and orthogonal to? This is quite important because, since you want to insisi on using 'at right angles to' I am going to ask you to define an angle in terms of time alone. Angles are a spatial propetry. Orthogonality includes 'at right angles to' but is a more general property that does not require reference back to 2 distances.

Where did I say only one has to be different? Why could there not be many different ones, if there are any at all. But I have yet to see any hard evidence or mathematics to back up such an allegation. And if there are many, then citing one will be sufficient. BTW how many different types quantum number do you think you need to define the quantum state? Surely there are only a handful?

With respect, that's waffle and I'm only asking for the one quantum number that is (allegedly)different.

In order to be helpful, I checked carefully the right and proper definitions and usage of these words from impeccable sources, rather than Wikipedia or youtube. Now we are all agree that teleology is connected with the purpose of a process or action in some way. However it is pretty clear from the OED that there is no purpose whatsoever involved with teleonomy. Which I why noted your original post and later statements to be self contradictory. To be helpful I have included the definition of apparent and deduce that since there is no purpose associated with teleonomy, the use of definition (1) cannot be the definition meant in the more wooly Wikipedia statement. That leaves us with definition (2), which says, as everyone else seems to have understood, that there may be a semblance of purpose but it is illusory. Yet you have stated several times there to be an associated purpose. A final note. I see that teleonomy is restricted to living systems. So examples involving non living systems are void, which is a pity because I can think of many good ones.

Final thought. I have worked through discussing your method. Why did you choose this method? It is not the only way to answer this problem, there are others, one famously due to Galileo. It is worth understanding the other, simpler methods first.

Exactly +1 My question back along was designed to illustrate this. Consider two bunches of particles, identical as far as our quantum theory can specify. One runs around and catches mice The other lies in a soggy smelly heap. What is the (quantum) difference between these two. ie what quantum number is different?

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.