studiot

Butch, you don't seem to have read my comment dated sept 28, at any rate you haven't responded to it. I gave you an example of something that is absolute in the universe along with examples of other terminology with similar (but not exactly the same) meaning. We have this different terms and meanings for very good reasons.

We now have this thread for asking questions about Fields in Physics. If you would like to look there I can develop and expand on the discussion about quantum fields in a way that might help. Meanwhile the Blackie encyclopedia/textbook "The Students Physics" volume 1 Light has some excellent discussion of particles as represented by fields under the heading "Photons distinguished from corpuscles"

I don't see a reply to my question in post#2. This is an important point because you are working to quite a few significant figures in your calculations and it matters what values you take for measurements, since you are using converted values. The conversion constants have (subtly) changed several times over the centuries. To show that this is not an idle concern, here is a short anecdote from the second world war. Once the Germans started bombing the English factories, the manufacture of spare parts was undertaken in America. At that time, both England and America used pounds, inches etc. When the spare parts were delivered they did not fit the machinery. This was traced to a small difference in the size of an American inch v an English inch. The Americans worked off English drawings, but used their micrometers to manufacture to perhaps a ten thou of an inch. Today american inches are the same as english inches, but their gallons are still different.

Why try to have all the packaging compostable? Paper is a great packaging material, that is domestically compostable in small quantities and industrially so in larger ones. Technical difficulties. 1) Lead in the print used to be a bar, less so these days. 2) Water. Paper is OK for wrapping dry foodstuffs, but if you loose the compostability if you adopt many of the waterproofing methods, although my local coucil provides allegedly compostible bags to hold food waste. (There is a weekly collection for this in my area.) 3) Political will. Recycling or reprocessing or re-engineering is a societal effort and only works if enough people support it. In Holland they have compost trains and mass composting of organic waste. But they do little or nothing to recycle cans or glass. In Germany it is the other way round. They do not recycle food waste in any way, but are very hot on mechanical recycling of cans and glass.

In all fairness, the OP has reached his newcomer temporary post limit and stated that he cannot answer at the moment. (We have seen this before). He also said (several times) that he would answer questions about his wording and hypothesis My only other post here was to take him at his word and ask a simple polite question about one particular aspect of this. I await the response with interest, when he is allowed to post this response.

Yes indeed, it was a reflection of light, so that was what the article was called a trick of the light.

Are you sure the problems are all 'in house' ? Watching the activity of my PC it seemed to be redirected offsite to other http & www addresses several times to move from one site page to another or to call up some of the popup subroutines. I timed the wait time for some of these and listed them earlier, some run into appreciable fractions of a minute. I know that SF needs to attract advertising and interface successfully with the web advertising industry. I do not find the level of adverts intrusive and indeed one or two have been quite useful. But the web ad industry standards and protocols are changing and I wondered if the new forum software was properly compatible with them?

Please explain whast you mean by the expression

I have to say that this seems to me to be a classic case of the Chinese Whisper Theorem applied to the Handbook of pocsci.

I also didn't mention this, to avoid information overload, but the thinness of a light bulb glass is also significant. The resisting moment is generated by a couple comprising the tension and compression separated by a lever arm slightly smaller than the thickness of the shell. Since the lever arm is so small, the forces (and thus the tension) must be correspondingly larger to create the necessary moment.

Lotteries the in the land of the leprachaun. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41549781

Strong maybe, but it is not tough. The glass shatters not because it fails in compression - it does not. It fails because it is an exceedingly brittle material with a very low fracture toughness. The glass fails suddenly in bending because bending introduces tension and tension introduces cracks. And cracks propagate at an alarming rate in materials of low K1c.

I think Janus' post was a bit short and may lead to false impressions so here is a longer version. I was the Romans who are credited with being the first to apply the principle of the arch, although they didn't properly understand it. They believed the arch had to be circular in shape to work successfully. To emphasise that this is not true I have used quite pointy ellipses in my diagrams. Fig1 shows the principle that direct normal (perpendicular) loads can be transformed into tangential stresses within a body. The figure shows a complete ellipse, as with an egg, but again this is not necessary, although it explains how radial forces can be directed into a self sustaining loop of circumferential forces. But a light bulb is not a complete loop of glass. So Fig 2 shows that we must suppl;y stout abutments or springings at the palces where the circumference terminates. These abutments must be able to supply the reaction forces to the outward pointing circumferential forces at each termination point of the circumference. There must be at least two such points and they are labelled A and B in the figure. Note the abutments are shown as faces perpendicular to the circumference. In the case of the light bulb the abutments are provided by the sides/faces of the metal base of the bulb. Obviously we can't block off the space under an arch bridge so bridge arches require separate abutments. Equally we know that bridges support quite heavy loads travelling over them so the system is capable of supporting unevenly distributed loads. So it cnnot be the differnce in pressure alone that breaks the bulb. So how does it break? Well Fig3 shows how the situation changes when the load is unevenly distributed. So far all the forces have been direct forces. Just two forces F1 and F2 are shown with one greater than the other, and they are still direct forces. Since the forces act in the same direction they do not form a couple. But because one is greater than the other their moments about the midpoint between them are not equal. So uneven loading leads to bending moments within the supporting circumference shell. Glass is particularly weak in bending. So it breaks.

Hello again Mark, nice to see you made your way here. Yes, the energy went into another field. I hiope you did not think that my direction and magnitude fields were the only possible ones we could choose for the stream. There are in fact a large number of possibilities, each with its own charateristic and use. The other field is the fluid pressure field, which I why I called it potential energy. The pressure in a fluid is also a function of the magnitude of the velocity, just as is the kinetic energy. There is a theorem, called Bernoulli's Theorem, that connects these energies by way of an equation. The greater the magnitude of the velocity the greater the kinetic energy, but the lower the pressure (energy). Conversely the lower the velocity the greater the pressue and the lower the kinetic energy, until when the fluid is standing still or stagnant there KE is zero and the energy is all pressure (which is at its greatest). Both these forms of energy are capable of bineg transferred to another body outside the fluid, as work. If that happened then that energy would be lost to the fluid.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-41527880/sketchy-speeches-and-conference-calamity (and I have only just discovered there is a section called political humour at SF, since I don't do much politics)

Well he has gladdened my heart, All of a sudden just now the popup information box when you hover over a member is quick and if you look along the list of them, in the browse tab it doesn't get slower and slower. First time in weeks.

Why is the hearse horse hoarse ?

Why are you working in modern metric units? Cavendish's apparatus was designed and largely built in the 1780s The kilogramme was not intorduced until 1795 and has changed slightly several times since then.

I remember we had to build one of those in the seventh and 3/4 form at Hogwarts for placement at platform 7 and a half at Kings Cross.

This is plain unvarnished ridicule. And no, they were never possibilities - try posting some real facts. The problem is you made an all embracing, but incorrect, claim about Science. I offered you some examples of circumstances and actual situations that transcended the limitations you claimed. You have tried to wriggle out instead of accepting a fuller picture gracefully. I have made no claims that my picture is the full picture, just that it extends to situations and circumstances beyond yours. Nor have I claimed that Science or Philosophy always get it 'right' - History has shown that they don't, but BeeCee has pointed out that Science has an inbuilt correction mechanism +1 Notice carefully that he did not claim this process always works, or that it is a rapid process. Yes I agree that there is much overlap and yes they are definitely a team (good expression ), but I Idon't agree that the difference is small. Science can often be used to answer questions like How? When? Where? How much? But it does not generally deal the the very important (to humans) and oft asked question why? Science will tell us how to build a 50 story office block, but it cannot answer the question why we might want or need to build one. In general the motivation for deploynment of Science comes from elsewhere. We need Philosophy for that, though even Philosophy can't always answer either.

Wiated 90 seconds for "waiting for csigstatic .com" whilst moving from page 1 to page 2 of a thread. waited 45 seconds for ad.doubleclick.net after clcikcing on a thread in "Activity" tab. Edit waited 18 seconds after clicking on save to post the above. 'Edit' took less than 5 seconds to work

swansont, thank you for your thoughts. The best 'black body' we have is an empty space at the entrance to an absorbing cavity. Would not a perfect black body be an empty space at the entrance to a perfecly absorbing cavity? Also would not the background radiation impinge on the surfaces of the 1kg body as it floods around the universe?

Thank you for sharing that history and (including personal) information with us. +1

Animalcules? Are you sure? That does not sound like something that is real. Maybe he had too much to drink that night? Maybe he is under stress and his family needs to send him on vacation to somewhere sunny and warm. These are possibilities. How many people have made "discoveries" that are not really discoveries? Once he is sure of what he is seeing, it would be known (Philosophy) then he would need to be able to repeat his discovery and let his peers review his work and repeat the experiment (Science). After Science evaluated it per the rules of Science, then, and only then, it would become acknowledged accredited information. Two known theories. Philosophy and Science are not that different -- the biggest difference is in their methodologies. Philosophy studies what we can know, the truth of it, then Science takes over and tells us what we can objectively know or the common objective truth of it. They are more of a team than they are opponents. Gee 2) Is clearer so I will deal with that first. Yes, indeed the two theories hypotheses were known. So what? That which was unknown was which hypothesis matched observation. Exactly an example of Science testing to see which one was right as I said and you quoted above. 1) Ridicule is not a valid discussion method.

I think you have some misunderstandings of your own here.