studiot

Hypervalentiodine has offered a very practical reason but there is also a thermal one that is important in other situations as well. The evaporate enters at the bottom and you want maximum cooling at this point. Cooling depends upon temperature difference and this is maximised as the difference between the evaporate at its hottest and the cooling water at its coldest. The principle is used in a different way in hot water cylinders. Hot water rises over cold water and does not mix rapidly with it. So if you put the replacement cold in at the bottom, the water in the top of the cylinder remains hot and you can continue to draw off hot water. Doing it the other way round the cold would fall through the hot and mix somewhat, and you would be drawing of much colder water much sooner.

This is a version of the pole in the barn and the barn doors or the train in the tunnel paradox. The solution to all these types of apparent paradoxes is the same. You need to take relativity of simultaneity into account when measuring distance between extremities.

Don't be greedy. There were two questions, one each. How about trying yours? The answer has a bearing on your question "is there more than one probability?"

wtf, your several posts together make a clearly understandable simplification of a difficult subject viz probability. +1 Now here is a question. You have demonstrated that a random event can have a probability of 0, but can a random event have a probability of 1 I have a box of 10 chocolates, all different. I take one out, a random, and eat it. I take another out at random and eat that one. and so on until I have eaten 9 chocolates. Making a 10th selection is now a deterministic certainty so can it be random? Lord Antares, can you spot the difference between the chocolates situation and flipping a coin?

Perhaps one of the Chemists will help, meanwhile read this thread http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86381-basics-of-batteries/?hl=anode

This video shows brilliantly that effects take time to travel through a body from on end to the other. With thanks to the member who originally brought this video to my attention. My apologies I have forgotten who you are.

Thanks for that straight and simple answer, Mordred. +1

But that is not the mechanism of an earthquake. And even if it was, are you asserting that only fluids can 'wibble and wobble' ? I suggest you study Thom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophe_theory The S and P waves are excitations of a solid earth, consequent upon the quake itself. Careful, if you keep this up you might actually learn something.

I'm sorry I can't see any reference to a lack of change in your post#10.

And you were told that an earthquake does not exhibit fluid like behaviour.

If you wish to argue with the Lorenz formula I suggest you start your own thread, where I and others will be happy to help you. It is surely off topic of why nothing can go faster than light to argue against the mathematics upon which this assertion is based. I thought I made it quite clear that the formula for composition of velocities I showed was based on Lorenz. So if Lorenz is incorrect, then, yes, the formula would be incorrect. But consider this Thank you for the link to the Wiki article - I had not seen it before, there are so many. But look how many quite different and independent routes all lead to the same Lorenz formula. It is especially telling that some routes are purely experimentally derived whilst others are founded in the same foundations as pure maths and entirely consistent with them. Note in particular the section about the Lorenz group. Composition of a Lorenz transformation leads to another Lorenz transformation, which is why the operation can form mathematical group. I did comment on your hyperbolic question, but it will take some reading through to unravel which k you are talking about.

This is a short thread, did you not read all the replies to your question? I ask because my post#8 has received no reply.

You originally asserted that your ether is a fluid and when I tried to find what sort of fluid you thought it to be a gas. Do you know any fluids that are not matter?

You are the one that asserted your ether to be a form of matter. I quote from your post#49 When you make technical assertions, you must be prepared for other technical people to test the consistency of these statements.

Light is not a form of matter. Next question?

My height is 1.80000 metres Does this determine my potential energy?

You are the one who asserted that your ether is a fluid. There are versions that propose a solid ether, especially the early ones, and even other more esoteric varieties. Why should it be any form of matter? That would be at variance with the real world observation that light traverses a vacuum, where there is no matter.

In your post#180, you asked about detail for a formula I posted. In my post#181 I politely enquired what sort of detail. I fail to see the connection between your apparent reply, post#182 and my formula (actually it is Einstein's formula but still). Post#182 seems specifically to be asking about rotations in an article on several alternative derivations of the Lorenz transformation. My formula is not the Lorentz transformation, but is the result of applying it. Obviously those with lorentzian issues will not apply it at all. Rotations only work if the two system have a common origin, since rotation must have a centre. I would also note that hyperbolic functions involve the complex domain where k2 may indeed be negative. So do you want to argue with Lorenz or my formula? I only posted because I thought you wanted to have some things explained.

Are you looking for a derivation or some worked applications of the velocity transformations? And are you familiar with resolving velocities along the coordinate axes?

Hard evidence, like hard cash, is all that counts in the real world. We can use thought experiments to explain something, never to prove / disprove it. Validation (we don'r prove things in sciences outside maths) requires real world experiments with real world results. I note you use the word Aether. I have consistently used ether or ethers because there have been many different propositions as to what an ether might be. The lumeniferous aether was one particular version only and the term really belongs to the gentleman who invented it. So here is your big opportunity Why would your ether be a gas, not a liquid? Note the propensity of a gas to expand precludes S type waves of the type you pictured.

Which is why it takes the shape of its container. Is your ether a gas or a liquid (both are fluids) ? A gas expands to fill its container, a liquid does not. A liquid takes the shape of its container wherever it touches but retains most of its free surface. You haven't found any discrepancies in SR, nor has any human ever reported any in any experiment to date. I thought perhaps you might be interested in learning something and I was offering you a chance to present something of your own, rather than just attacking what others think.

Hey, I said weeding, not growing weed.

A fluid takes the shape of its container. I see no evidence that this happens to the Earth during an earthquake, especially not from your inaccurate pictures. Incidentally all development of ether theories were tied to classical mechanics. SR was developed to explain the discrepancies observed in actual experiments. Quantum theory did not exist at all at that stage and even the electron had not been discovered, nor the structure of the atom. So QM is entirely off topic.

Whilst in the garden this afternoon I had a revalation. There is one thing in this universe that is truly infinite (that is it never ends) Weeding. The d_mn things grow faster than I can remove them.

Official photograph of light. I like that. Body waves spread throughout the region of passage. Surface waves exist only on the surface of the region. Ocean waves are surface waves. A few metres below the surface there are no waves and all is calm. Light passes through water, glass, even empty space and does not affect only the surface but occupies all of it. Obviously something that is not transparent will absorb light but that is another story for another time. Your 'photograph' will show this passing through a region of space. Wave motion is a form of motion when something(s) vibrate regularly and pass on the vibration along the line. The vibration can be in the same direction as the direction travel. Such waves are known as longitudinal waves. Sound is a typical example. The air particles move in and out along the direction the sound is travelling, creating pressure vartions that are passed on along the line. The alternative is for the vibration to occur transversally (at right angles) to the direction of motion. If you create waves along a rope by flicking it up and down, these are transverse waves. Now there is only one 'direction of travel', but you can flick that rope up and down or side to side or diagonally, or vary the flicking direction. So transverse waves have many possible directions of vibration available. If they are composed so that only one direction is used (say up and down with the rope) the wave is said to be polarised in that direction. Obviously with only one direction available to a longitudinal wave there is no point distinguishing a polarisation. Light can be polarised so it is a transverse wave.