studiot

I didn't watch, but I assume he didn't actually say 63 kilograms of energy? Or was that why he is a former NASA engineer? Glass tends to have very high residual stresses compared to its strength, which is why it shatters so readily and suddenly, sometimes without apparent cause. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=residual+stresses+in+glass&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=I1nzWb2bJJyr4gSTipmYAw

I agree. The only problem that I see is that reality is not always rational. (chuckle) Gee This thought is deeper than it first looks. Because if we ask the question "Why bother with the organisation, why not just place all data in a gigantic database and retrieve any required bit when desired?" Apart from the obviousl economy of data saving and retrieval; We come up with the concept that the organisation process allows us to deduce new material from the data, that was not in the original. We can compare parts of the data with other parts, we can compare with models and thoughts we may have had as a result. We can propose new observations to extend the data. In other words we can do Philosophy. (and perhaps some Science to boot.)

The only response to all my attempts to discuss Physics has been inflated accusations followed by personal attacks. That would not be my response to someone who said to me "What you say is all very well and I'm sure you know some (or even many) things I don't. but I know some stuff you don't" I would be receptive to new ideas (to me) from any source. As it is well past 1 am, English time I repeat my quote and wish you goodnight.

Is this a claim that you or someone from Leeds (My family has relatives there) only use perfect English and never make a mistake?

The wave function can fundamentally slow, that there could be an intrinsic over-reaching statistical field that could be governing everything The verb slow is intransitive and works perfectly with the comma and makes sense in the context of Heisenberg. The following clause works if you strikeout the "that", and makes perfect sense within the context of QM.

Why what?

You wrote the word "show" I asked you if you meant slow (which means something in the interpretation of Heisenberg) or "be shown", since you followed a transitive verb with a comma. The only use I know of for the comma in this situation is to divorce the verb from the phrase or clause that follows it. This means that you did not provide your transitive verb with an object so I asked if you meant to use the passive voice, which would then make it correct.

I didn't suggest you added words. I asked if you has misspelled one word. So shall we leave it that you are more interested in squabbling over English than establishing some Physics?

I didn't say you were incapable of talking, or writing the English language. I said that one small (but very important, perhaps vital) part was not quite right, so I wanted to make certain that I had understood it correctly.

I didn't say you were wrong. How could I? I explained at great length that I didn't (and still don't) understand what you meant by your words. Pretty clearly I want to discuss the intended meaning and no other.

If it's not faulty, then you should have no difficulty explaining what you said. But you have so far declined to do this.

Well I could have observed that you would be slung out of the international conferences I have presented papers at, for language like that, but I chose a milder comment.

The post counter now stands at 33 and all that I have gathered so far is that you dislike preaching and that you wish to discuss something to do with probability. Some might observe that you have actually done a great deal of the former and very little of the latter.

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.