studiot

Yippee I've found it Thanks for the personal service. BTW, something you probably won't know but the thread title was a skit on a British TV programme.

What Scientific purpose does this serve?

I asked if there was a typo in this line since it does not make sense. OK so my both guesses as to its meaning were incorrect - all the more reason to have it clarified. But as it stands, with the comma after the word show, it is faulty. But this is not an English lesson and Science should not be a guessing game in meaning. So please just establish your exact meaning.

Hyperbole will not alter the fact that I posted a line of your faulty text and asked for an explanation. No one here is preaching, but you are certainly blowing a lot of hot air instead of simply answering the question. As to your question, yes I couldn't be more English, since I was born within the sound of the Great Bell of Bow.

I just scrolled down on the 'Browse' tab to the online list on the right hand side. I moved the mouse and suddenly the page expanded and changed to a much more useful list that I have never seen before. Well it would be useful if I could do it again. So what did I do right please?

I didn't ask what nationality you were, I stated (correctly) that the sentence I quoted was not in correct English. I also asked for clarification and gave my reasons, which were perfectly sound scientific ones. I understand neither your tone nor your response to an a perfectly simple and reasonable request for clarification, especially as it does not progress your stated discussion one iota. Edit - There, I freely admit to a grammatical cockup and have put it right.

Well I still am unsure since it is not in good English, please elucidate.

We have faced this difficulty before at SF What is your definition of 'random' ? and was there a typo in this quote, do you mean shown or slow? (important because anything that can 'be shown' is deterministic by definition but slow is interesting because it is one way of understanding Heisenberg)

Since you wish to be rude and I am struggling with the latency of this forum (again) I will be blunt. The above quote in your OP is bunkum since you have no equations 75 and 76. Further my comment on conducting wires was very much on topic since you mentioned it at least twice in your OP.

Don't think I've replied to any of your posts before, but you seem to be struggling with undergraduate level Maths and Physics. When using the equation numbering system which is a very good idea, it is also a good idea to match the numbering of the equations to the statements about them to avoid such howlers as Making allowance for this, it seems you somehow believe that physical conducting wires (in a loop) are required for electrical and magnetic effects and that they cannot occur in free space. I can only suggest you go right back to the laws of Coulomb and Oersted and start again. From your text, I cannot determine your question, if you have one, so if you would like to spell out any question we can perhaps work through it.

I was wondering If you catch a drunk Tunafish, can you get drunk by eating it?

"But are the two grids synchronised to each other? I'm sorry I don't know what you mean by synchronised. That is why I asked. Both systems are poly phase at intermediate voltage, single phase at very high voltage and poly or single phase at supply voltage. But are you asking if the sine waves match? Well the phase of the waves will depend upon where you take measurements. It is over 1,000 miles direct from Aberdeen to Marseille and the phase can change according to the travel distance and intervening transformers. The history of the mains stability is worthy of mention. In the days before all the (portable) clever electronic gadgets we have nowadays, important timekeeping was kept by counting mains cycles. This was so important that the power supply acts included very strict requirements on the accuracy and stability of the mains frequency. Clocks for railway stations signalling, points etc, works time clocks for clocking on and off, post office clocks, etc etc were all mains driven. Th issue is that one way of controlling (reducing) supply when demand is too high is to reduce the frequency. Today the power companies have to maintain the correct number of cycles over a 24 hour period, but can reduce frequency at say tea or breakfast time and increase in the night.

Yes high voltage DC transmission through special cables can be more efficient than AC, especially underwater. I think there is one in New York under the Hudson. What do you mean by synchronised? The UK electrical power standards had to be dumbed down to meet the EU requirements. They were by far the best in Europe.

Please check this https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=mains+frequency+in+France&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=N9_wWYu4H6bHXsSZuIgF The EU (ie French) standard is 230 volts 50 Hz. I'm willing to believe that they have some oddities over there as well.

Hello Bobby, and welcome. I am not a fan of the big bang hypothesis and providing an explanation for your difficulty is one reason for that. However there is a way to make sense of the statement without tying yourself up in knots. You haven't said much about yourself so I don't know if know what a sine curve is or understand Fourier series. If not we can make do with an ordinary common or garde (not digital) clock face. Let us say we have a sound generator and want to mathematically describe the sound. We can use part of a since curve for this or if it is a complicated sound, a Fourier series combining many sine curves. I say part of a sine curve because mathematically a sine curve extends to infinity in both directions. In other words it has no beginning and no end. But if we want our sound to start and stop at certain times we only use that part of the whole infinite axis from start to stop, although an imaginary sound continues in to the infinite past and forward into the infinite future. In fact, a single sine wave, or Fourier series of waves, does more than this - it repeats its pattern at regular intervals along the axis. So we could in principle start at nothing, follow the curve as far as we please and then stop at nothing. (Electronic power control circuits do exactly this to avoid generating radio interference.) This is where our clock face comes in because, of course, the clock repeats its pattern every 12 or 24 hours. So every 12 or 24 hours the clock return to zero and we see the same thing, and every new day is a new start. Cosmologically there is much argument as to whether the Universe does exactly the same. We just don't know for sure.

Can the properties of a wave be changed without interacting with its particles? Is that (relative velocity) because of the observer effect? Scattering imo means a change in direction due to a form of interaction. 'A form of interaction' can mean anything. Frequency would be one such property. I had in mind the Doppler effect. That is too wide a definition. Yes scattering is a deflection of path. But scattering is a random effect. From a particle point of view it means that every particle is scattered a different variable amount in a different variable direction. From a wave/geometric point of view the same applies to rays. For light of a given frequency The turning of all particles or rays by a fixed or set amount within a single transmission medium is called reflection. The turning of all particles or rays by a fixed or set amount when passing from one medium to another is called refraction. Light of different frequencies may be separated by refraction as the turning is frequency dependent. Concentrating waves into regions of high and low intensity within a single medium or widening a geometric beam past obstacles within a single medium is called diffraction.

Not at all unfair. I said "evaluate to" which is the most common use of the equals sign. I agree is also is used to represent "defined as" although there is a perfectly good and proper symbol available for that meaning. That is of course the identity symbol which is what some that is defined as is. Unfortunately, x was also 'defined' as a number, causing endless confusion. My question is simple, and if the definitions provided in this thread would enable the proverbial Man on the Clapham Omnibus to determine what x is for any conceivable situation, I would be glad to have it pointed out to me. (25,25), if I ask someone else does not cut it. And I still don't know what process goes on inside that bracket.

That is not an answer. The difficulty I face is that what appears on one side of an equation must evaluate to whatever appears on the other side. [ Remember you wrote x = (x,x) ] Your assertions do not explain, back up or develop how this can happen with what you wrote. In particular using your discussion with uncool, whatever appears in parenthesis must evaluate to x by some process. What is the process? You have not defined it, even for uncool. I have told you this several times and have been left to guess what sort of process you might have in mind. You introduced the mention of ''tables', so when I tried to discuss tables with you , you backed away and said that I should forget tales. If they are so forgettable that they have no bearing on your assertion why did you introduce them? So what the hell is going on in those parentheses that something can evaluate to "itself, itself" ? What does it mean to say A number, x = (a number, x ; a number , x) Which is what you have continued to assert. Introducing further symbols like z1 and z2 or anything else that has not been defined only serves to further confuse matters. Here is a way in which splitting the number makes some sort of sense (to me anyway) Consider the number 25 (let's avoid 1s and 0s for now) We cannot directly combine the 2 and the 5 to make 7, because neither 2 nor 5 nor 7 equals 25. Twentyfive means two tens and five units and could be written, (2,5) although that would be rather clumsy notation. Considered this way the two tens and the five ones obey all the usual rules of arithmetic you have been arguing with uncool about. I doubt this is what you mean, because I am still forced to guess.

Perhaps I should have said that omega 1, omega2 and omega 3 are the angular velocities about the 3 Euler axes. A, B and C are the positive constant moments of inertia about these axes. Without perturbation the system is stable. If we introduce even the slightest perturbation to omega 2 the instability you are modelling results. If we introduce that perturbation to omega 1 or 3 then something different happens. I was asking if your animation can show what happens then? What equations are you solving to generate the vectors?

I understand the first part: For every element, X, of the set of real numbers, R, and with the sole exception of zero, It is the next part of the statement that is unintelligable. What is x, what is (x,x) and what is the equals sign doing there? Above was my question and below was your non-answer. Question What is the equals sign doing there? (Correctly followed by a question mark to tell you that it was a question) Answer I am not using the equal sign exactly as intended. No further explanation of how you have redefined a basic and standard mathematics symbol. Assertion x = (x, x) Question what is x? No answer whatsoever and as far as I can see you have not mentioned 'x' again in this thread, except when quoting another.

Yes this can be true, but where is the guarantee that the photons will interact, they may not. What about the other circumstances that can change the properties of observable light, such as relative velocity? I am concerned about this assertion as it suggests you mean something different from the rest of us by the word 'scattering' Would you please explain what you mean.

If you look at page 1 of this thread, you can see that we had an adult converstation spread over several posts where I was trying out a new idea in the hope of understanding your proposal.. Unfortunately you eventually baulked at answering my direct question, offering me all sorts of other things instead, but no answer to my question. I reserve the right to call that half listening, not trolling and most certainly not a personal insult which I have not proffered to you throughout this thread. Rather, and having withdrawn as above, upon seeing you making some sort of progress with another, I thought to offer some encouragement in the way of a +1 point. I call that biting the hand that feeds.

I'll second that +1 to uncool and also +1 to conway for (half) listening.

Glycerine solution. Look here to find the % appropriate to your density requirement. http://www.aciscience.org/docs/physical_properties_of_glycerine_and_its_solutions.pdf

So the tighter inequaltity with the half is the correct one in the case shown. But in some circumstances the bigger uncertainty may be appropriate. However the question of what the undertainty refers to is worth discussing further if anyone less impatient than the OP wishes to do so. It is quite possible to generate examples of either with the 1/2 or without in classical situations, which may be easier to understand.