studiot

Randolphin, thank you for your long reply. That wasn't so difficult was it? And it will help me understand where you are coming from. Unfortunately it seems to be as I thought. You have built two edifices founded on fallacies. 1) That because you think that because something has a beginning it must have a creator is a fallacy which I addressed here. You need to answer this, but please ask if you have trouble with any of the English I am using. I have given two counterexamples of how something might have a beginning but no creator. Also your definition of nothing is inadequate. I gave an example of how either everything is nothing (if that means anything) or something also exists and then nothing must have properties. So over to you

So are you saying there is no reference for the definition you stated? It was just something you made up?

He's not a troll. He is at least making an attempt to discuss the matter, even if he gets a bit tetchy.

Metaphysical ): footwork will not get you out of the fact that you introduced the word definition and I specifically asked for a reference to this definition. #Further you seem quite happy to demand references from others, eg ydoaps This has become particularly poignant since you later declared In the face of this woefully inadequate response, my report still stand.

Don't feed the trolls.

Now what is your question so that I can answer. Sorry I don't intended it.

Post reported for repeated failure to address my polite and simple question about your view of nothing.

Granted. I think I can picture what you have in mind, but I am puzzled by one aspect. So if we set aside the Mystec Meg terminology can you explain why waveforms?

Is this bit at fault?

That's no excuse. ScienceForums takes precedence over everything.

Only the second highest? That must be why they are (perhaps)* building the worlds most expensive white elephant nuclear power station instead. * I say perhaps because the contractor has been building these for 20 years around Europe and hasn't actually finished one yet.

I'm sorry you wish to cut off your son's nose to spite your own face but I can't see any way to help him further. Thank you for wasting my time.

Do you have to use Greens? Separation of variables is easy with this Laplace equation. I presume one of the boundary conditions is potential, V = 0 at the cylinder?

Do you mean these diagrams and explanation? http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/physics/140-physics/the-theory-of-relativity/general-relativity/1023-if-gravity-is-a-curvature-of-space-rather-than-a-force-why-do-a-ball-and-bullet-follow-different-paths-intermediate

Duplicate thread

Thank you so much for that link +1 How I wish the UK had the foresight (careful) and balls to do this. Note that using what are known as tidal streams, which represents the horizontal movement of the water, is in many water a better solution that using the vertical movement.

Do you mean as in torsion or do you mean curvature along the third degree of freedom afforded in 4D spacetime? No one has yet mentioned rotational inertia, which is different from linear inertia (mass) in that it can be transferred from one body to another. Here is an interesting demonstration (sorry I can't video it) Take a large fruit bowl or similar. Place two billiard balls in the bottom jut touching. Give each ball a twist to spin them in contrarotating directions, still touching. The balls will come to rest at the same instant, even if one is initially set rotating much faster than the other.

Thank you for this vital piece of information, though how you can honestly say "not sure which question you are referring to", when I said specifically Nothing I have said is dismissive of the scientific method. (SM) However I did say you need to understand it. The SM is not a one shot activity it is an ongoing process. Often it is cyclical in that you go back to the beginning and repeat the steps in the light of the end conclusion many times in order to refine the output. As such you can enter the SM at any stage and proceed forwards - It is even self correcting in the long run since the 'final' stage of verification returns you to the beginning if verification is not forthcoming, or subsequent new observations cast doubt. There are many examples of this in the history of Science, and we can explore them if you wish, but I will leave it there for the moment. The Model This is not an appropriate start point for you. This is because the purpose of the model is to answer some question or other. But no model can answer every question, that is why you will need to choose an appropriate model at some stage after you know what question you want answered. And you cannot have an appropriate model until you have decided what question you want to ask. This is the second important piece of information I asked for. You did not tell us whether there was a specific question given or if you can choose your own. In fact there should have been a project brief provided and it would be wise to post it. It may even contain a description of what is meant by the SM in terms of the task. Otherwise the course notes should provide such a defintion. Another answer needed is the answer to the question Is this a practical exercise or theoretical. Will the students collect data on their own or will they just look stuff up? One thing I can determine is that you have introduced the idea of the 'null hypothesis" This is a statistical technique which implies some statistical input is required. You need a particular type of model to use statistics; not all models work that way and in particular your Einstein example doesn't. That is what Strange meant by saying it refers to a single equation. Strange also picked up my point about keeping it simple and within your means, so provide the information and we can proceed to talk about appropriate models. Always remembering that even (perhaps particularly) in the planning stage you can go round the cycle again and again if your initial idea shows itself to be too wooly, until you get the final one. I certainly did not expect my proposed null hypothesis to be your final one, I'm sure it can be greatly improved upon, but it is a start. Which reminds me, you did not reply to my question what do you think a null hypothesis means? Why is it null and what does that mean?

The point is that if you had to look up the Scientific method you may well not have properly understood it in the first place. Your replies lead me to believe that. Also I warned you about scientifically improper use of scientific terms. You also need to understand the words model and theory properly as you have used neither correctly. The good news is that finding out these things is part of the learning process and taken care of in the road map I offered. All that is required is for you to start listening instead of pontificating. How about trying to answer one of the questions I asked?

Now I will be sarky and offer a counter saying. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. I'm sorry you don't want to be helped.

Forgive me but isn't the meat of the answer to your restated question in your answer above. Sorry but I regard black holes as red herrings. The first question is: Is the roundabout rotating or or the playground? The rotation is relative. And the second observation is that the requirement for inertial system is that Newton's first law holds, you know the one about straight lines. Straight line Motion in one inertial system implies straight line motion in any other, by definition. So can this happen with contra rotating inertial systems?

The coordinates of a frame refer to points in space, as indicated against the frame axes. If this is the only frame you have (eg a roundabout) are say the coordinates of the handrails of the roundabout changing in the roundabout frame? Now consider the centre of that roundabout as fixed at a point in the playground frame. Are the coordinates of the roundabout handrails changing in the playgound frame? What are the transformations between the two frames? Are such transformations inertial?

Within a rotating frame, what coordinates are changing ?

Consider the rotating cruciform arms in the Michelson Morley experiment. How does the fact that th arms were rotating affect the inertial status in respect of s. relativity and your question?

Well I'm sorry you took umbrage at my quickly dashed off scribbling yesterday. It was designed in a hurry to 'get you started'. One very important point you need to realise is that many words with wider meanings in the general English dictionary are used scientifically with only with specialist meanings. Furthermore scientists will assume that you are using these specialist meanings, if you introduce them. So if you need clarification about a technical term ask, don't waste precious time arguing about a definition. From your posts I don't know if you know what a null hypothesis is, but my hint contains everything (scientifically) needed for a starting point. How about There is evidence for global warming. or There is not evidence for global warming. Which of these do you think is null? Which of these can you best falsfy? A further hint, don't make your scheme too grand. Go for something achievable by a 14/15 or 17/18 year old scholar (you didn't say which and it makes a difference). Another important question is. What subject is this for? Geography, Geology, Environmental Science, Chemistry... ? Where will you look for evidence (material to put into numbers) Well, as I said it depends upon the subject. You might look for changes to migratory patterns of birds, insects and animals You might look for changes to how far North od South various vegetation limits eg Tundra vary You might look for direct measurements of some physical property - Can you suggest one? Incidentally marks will also be awarded for the thinking behind rejecting certain markers, in the writeup of such a project. So, for instance, should you accept or reject the obvious one Is the concentration of Carbon Dioxide changing? Will knowing this actually assist? All this is totally consistent with the roadmap I offered initially. So shall we start again?