studiot

If gravity is there how can you ignore GR? And how can you say a body doesn't 'feel' the gravity? No the abscence of gravity is called weightlessness. If gravity is present, space is 'warped' and GR is required.

Talking of simplicity and the Babylonians, you may like to know that computers use the babylonian method of multiplication. That is they don't, they use the babylonian 'doubling and halving' method you may have heard of. They do this electronically by using what are known as shift registers.

The definition of free fall is that the body is moving under the influence of no other force than gravity. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=definition+of+free+fall&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=b6OgWeHDCqbHXriplbAC

Hello Craiger and welcome. First of all, full marks for wanting to use your brain. +1 Please note that square roots are very important so square root algorithms have been discussed for hundreds of years and there are probably hundred of methods about. So no it's not too simple at all. You may remember or may never have done logs but here is one method. if y = an then if we take logs of both sides (rememebr you don't change an equation if you do the same thing to both sides) log y = n log (a) So if we take the log of 1863 and divide it by 2 (multiply it by 0.5) we have the log of the square root of a. So taking the antilog of this give us the square root. This method works for other roots besides square roots, including awkward fractional powers used in some Physics equations. Another method that is simple is the 'bracketing method' You can work on one place digit at a time, to any desired dgeree of accuracy. It works like this (40)2 = 1600 (50)2 = 2500 So the root is bwtween 40 and 50 since (40)2 is less than 1869 and (50)2 is greater than 1869 So the first digit is a 4 But 1869 is closer to (40)2 than to (50)2 so try numbers below 45 (42)2 = 1764 (43)2 = 1849 (44)2 = 1936 So (43)2 is less than 1869 but (44)2 is greater than 1869 So the root lies between 43 and 44 so the second digit is a 3. You can continue this process for as many digits as you like, without having to work out complicated formulae. And you know that when you arrive you have the correct answer. Self checking processes are the best.

The OP specified that only the balls that enter holes need be classified. None of those that miss need be processed in this way. Golfers (presumably I am not one) wish to practise with the brand of golf ball they will use in real games/matches. Using modified balls ties them to one type.

Thanks A54. So far my examples have involved significant conversion but more subtle effects are also used. The rotational energy is used to drive a linear adjustment system in both a steam governor and the advance/retard mechanism in an IC engine electromechanical distributor. When the requirement from the OP is clearer then the answers can be more focused, as here

Off topic? A correctly operated hand hammer "converts angular momentum to linear momentum." But this part of the same sentence is mechanically unsound. " releasing isolated portions of that centripetal force in tangent to rotation" So which is preferable Helping a fellow member develop a mechanically sound proposition or Everybody sniping and squabbling and going away grumpy?

Depends where the balls go after they have gone in the holes. If there is an automatic ball collection system from the holes the measurement of which hole does not have to be at entry and there are umpteen possible ways of sorting and triggering points application. Please ask a mod to cancel your double post.

I did say So I am trying to point this thread in the direction of a mechanically correct proposition. Swansont was, of course, quite correct there. Note also that the propellor on a ship or aircraft also converts rotational energy to translational (for the body concerned). It have also seen serious propositions to store energy in the high speed rotation of heavy flywheels, to later be used to drive vehicles. This is instead of a conventional IC engine or battery.

I think we are being abnormally hard on abnormallyhonest so I am going to place +1 for encouragement. Remember David and Goliath? It was called a slingshot. Another way that the rotational energy can be converted to translational is used in a children's toy called a spinner-copter. And also, of course, in a real helicopter, it is the source of lift generation.

I thought when you posted before that a good place to start would be understanding variables, so what do you know about types of variable? Do you understand the terms Independent Dependent Extrinsic Intrinsic Extensive Intensive Scalar Vector Component Coefficient Constant Parameter Some of these have more significance in Maths, some in Physics. You will need to know and understand what all of these are to understand equations in general, differentials equations more particularly and your chosen differential equations in particular. That will be a good start but there is much much more after 5 thousand years of maths development.

I once had a teacher who said " The more times you write something down, the greater the danger is that you will remember it." So here goes. When I was at university in the 1960s I started taking some scientific magazines. I soon encountered your problem, but worse because there were many things I could not (fully) understand or realise the significance of. So I got a pack of 6" x 4" cardex cards and started an index. The card headings were initially conditioned by the subject titles in the mags. New cards were started as new articles arose. Later I learned to add particularly useful bits inside some of the articles. So I started with say the card power supply. This was followed by a new card just for regulators Eventually the cards were stored in a suitable card drawer. I have kept this up ever since and continued widening the scope. Cross reference cards were also introduced to help searching. Sometimes photocopied articles from other sources were added and stored in File boxes. Some revision was also undertaken as I gained knowledge and experience. The cards were colour coded according to subject type so when I started wrting down the titles etc of books I thought worth noting I used pink cards. So I have generated a wide ranging library of articles and knowledge going back to the 1960s as a result, that is easy to extend and modify as you go along.

Stop arguing and get on with it. Never argue with the ref.

Of course it's possible. But, like your glasses every prescription would be individual and different. To date I only know of it being done for optical astronomical telescopes that use mirrors. But this is at enormous(tachio ) expense. With the technology of modern flexible coatings for clothing, I can see it being possible more cheaply but would still need the personal tailoring part. Since this modern technology enables wearable computers, perhaps it could incorporate an adaptive solution.

Endy definitely deserves a +1 for spotting this. Matt you can clcik on the heart at the bottom right of the post to upvote someone's post. As a matter of interest how would air get into the pipe if the oil stopped? The pipeline will contain air when it is first laid and perhap gas if it is used for gas transmission at some point. You may wish to know that it is common to pump water through subsea pipelines in the absence of oil or gas. Also water is pumped into the geosubstrate to help remove the maximum quantity of oil/gas. You have to fill the pipes and pores up with something.

Your figures are very different from the widely accepted graph I posted and therefore need substantial backing so please explain.

Maybe I am wrong, but I think CharonY was saying "The content is independent of the discussion etiquette, or should be." And she was specifically talking about discussion on this forum, not some larger picture. How often has the intial response to a post been antagonistic ? (Not yours in particular, but someone's) And yes I would agree if you said that some invite such response, perhaps even 'deserve it'. But equally many do not and hold, and more importantly present here, sincere if misguided views.

I fail to see what any of this has to do with discussion etiquette on Science Forums? Please educate me if this is not the case.

The Heisenberg principle is a direct result of the mathematics. The quantity of interest is the product of two quantities, but that product does not commute. That is AB is not equal to BA so the result depends which you take first. #That is Uncertainty 101. Incidentally there is a similar uncertainty in the same quantities in classical mechanics for the same reasons, they are just trivially small in the classical case. Edit But 'uncertainty' is not probabilistic ans Heisenberg is not the reason QM is probabilistic, which is why I said it to be a red herring here. QM descibes probability distributions for aggregates of energy states and their populations, as Boltzman in thermodynamics. There are several distributions available, including Boltzmans. That is what makes it probabilistic. /Edit Bells has no such 'proof' in mathematics. It is the result of observation and the results could have gone the other way without breaking the mathematics. This is similar to the Michelson Morely experiment in Relativity, determining the presence or absence of aether.

Again, Yes, (but some things are unpredictable, yet can be measured afterwards.) Yes Yes.

@Delta1212 and Lord Antares There is a difference between prediction and measurement. Not only can we not predict certain properties of an individual particle, we cannot measure them either. So we can never fully know this data. But for many properties that we cannot predict we can measure them and then know the data. QM is a red herring here.

1) Yes and 2) Yes There is a difference between random and probabilistic (and all of probability theory). 1 is a random number, as is 15, 328 and many more. But ithey are all quite definite, there is nothing probabilistic about them.

Some have replied to something I didn't say yet we managed a civil conversation. Others actually replied to my words, again resulting in a civil conversation. Two posters chose to attack the person rather than hold any sort of conversation about the words. I asked a question in the title of this thread. I apologise it appears to be missing the question mark. Clearly my fault. I asked my question because it seems to me that the preponderance of non-scientific posts in this forum is growing rapidly. And too many of the originators of non-scientific threads offer the 'reasoning' along the lines of; "It is too much of a coincidence, so that must mean intelligent design" And all to often then revert to preaching mode. For the record, I agree with swansont's terse point. "Coincidences happen."