studiot

First and foremost stop shouting. Second I have already given you a correct and complete definition. Third this is an exercise in physics not in computer programming so please write the equals sign correctly, instead of using the computer assignment statement. Fourthly definitions do not require an equals or assignment operator. Fifthly should report your infringement of forum rules in not replying to me?

memammal, I rushed for time (ha ha) right now, but I see you are online so here is a quick response to your post#208. You really need to understand real (actual) and potnetial infinities (it's quite easy) for the rest of it. https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=real+and+potential+infinities The use of y=x2 is a simple dummy function, it could be anything within reason. The point is not about the function, it is about the drawing of it. Let us say I have drawn the part between x=1 and x = 100. That does not say that it does or does not exist for x<1 or x>100, just that I haven't drawn it yet. Does this help?

But you didn't show that yours is correct. But with the post below you are beginning to get there. Pity you all can't agree on terminology.

Now appearing on centre court eisa v itoero 30 love to Eise I think so +1 there for a combination of well phrased posts.

Mordred is in his element gauge here. +1

+1 You don't get many of these, but you deserve one here.

Here we are talking about the way we perceive time, which is why I offered some new viewpoints. I agree about the use of the word experience and it is certainly conventional to talk of time flowing or the passage of time (time passing) to avoid the word moving as I noted in an earlier post. Does time flow for the goldfish or small child? Yes I had noticed, that was why I offered the example. But both please consider this. Another viewpoint is to divide the time axis in a similar manner to the mathematical definitions partitioning infinities real and potential infinities. This was where my introduction of y = x2 was leading.

'Progress along' implies a contradiction with the block universe. Some of (the best) earlier writers in relativity discussed our perception of time at great length and also considered this relevant as it conditions our attempts to describe and model the physical phenomenon we call time. Think about a small child, who only understands right now! and a goldfish who forgets where the beginning of his bowl is by the 'time' he has circumnavigated it.

But that way opens the floodgates for all sorts of paradoxes and fallacies about time travel. Perhaps not so simple after all?

First thank you for elaborating on my comments about cinematography. I did not introduce 'information' here in the first place and there are implications using this concept. Not in the least the relationship between information and evolution and the difficulty that people experience coming to terms with the idea that informational complexity can arise from purely random processes. Also information is something that we see or can extract from the configuration of a system, which need 'know' nothing about this information itself. Secondly I stress I am not interested in Tim's attempt to limit this to two particular models. There are in fact other current threads about the two particular ones in his focus. My input is intended to bring out other models (as originally requested in the OP) and compare their defects and strengths with each other as well as Tim's two models. I am not particularly impressed with either of Tim's two as they are both incomplete.

Please expand your question to describe your experiment more fully as you have posted this in engineering. What are you cultivating? What is the cultivating medium? For instance is it solid(eg agriculture) or liquid (eg a blood culture)? You could review this article on blood for the statistics content. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4996091/ A description of the quantities involved would be helpful; there are recognized engineering techniques for dealing with large volumes of solid medium, such as soil, to be sampled such as the riffle box.

Perhaps I misunderstood but I couldn't determine why you posted those quotes or what you were trying to say with/about them.

Not really, and I don't see the relevance of the source? You didn't answer my question Why does what is dubbed the rate of flow of time matter?

That presupposes the movement to be uniform. Why should it be? I actually prefer to reserve the word move or movement for change of spatial location and to choose another word for change of temporal location. Now the whole subject of rate of change requires at least two axes and there is only one temporal axis. This is basic analysis (calculus) in high school maths. So the whole argument is spurious.

A pun a day Keeps the moderator away or keeps the moderator at bay Couldn't decide.

One of the ways in which we create lossless compression in movies is to only record changes from frame to frame (Note the cinematographic use of the word frame)

I'm sorry but I get the impression you posted this because you just want to cherry pick phrases from everybody and then snipe at them. You posted this in classical physics, but seem to want to discuss quantum mechanics. Yes there is more than one way to skin a cat, but you posted this in classical physics where there is an established structure, based on certain fundamental quantities, from which all others are derived. So whilst you could develop an alternative set of fundamental quantities and use those, that would loose the advantages already endowed in the conventional set. These are, minimum set, minimum complexity, maximum coverage, maximum flexibility. One of the issues with using Force as a fundamental is the relationship Force x Distance does not always give you energy. Classically it is not true to say the 'energy is always distributed or non localised'. If you are thinking of Heisenberg, this is quantum and the correct pairing is energy and time. For position, the pairing is with momentum. I gave you a sound quantitative definition of energy in terms of the fundamental quantities of mechanics. What more do you want?

Perhaps because once again you have totally ignored my single main and most important point. Which was The rest was just exemplification and elaboration.

Hamed, Looking at your posts here, I am unsure whether you are asking what we think energy is or whether you want to tell us what you think energy refers to. Please elucidate? I assume you are referring to non relativistic, non quantum energy since you have posted this in classical physics. Here a formal definition would be: That physical quantity which possesses the dimensions of mass times the square of distance divided by the square of time or ML2T-2 That also covers subjects, not yet mentioned in this thread, such as virtual work and virtual energy.

Don't know where the names come from, it is very confusing to reconcile Elia Gomez with May Ahmed. The video is no worse than many elementary textbooks and only contains one real howler. The probability is the square of the wavefunction, not the wavefunction itself. I would recommend that you paid proper attention to the mike volume control as the volume varies from almost inaudible to too lound and back through the video. Further you should reconsider the storyboard to allow better timing for the viewer to absorb statements.

A few thoughts on the subject, especially since Tim has placed this discussion in 'philosophy'. We are hostages to our own language, experience and preconceptions in considering this. What do we mean when we propose that the 'block universe' is frozen or has existence? Both are point concepts applied to something that is not a 'point' but substantial in extent, if not indeed infinite. Because of this we look favourably upon the block concept because it avoids the twin difficulties of explaining how things come into and wink out of 'existence' as the moving finger writes and moves on. 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D space/ spacetime etc. They are all just glorified graphs or plots. Think of someone drawing a very long graph of y = x2. Until she has reach a particular point on the graph, that point 'does not exist' in some sense, so has to come into existence, and then As she draws the curve if she either 1) Leaves behind a trace which contiuses (in some sense) to exist. or 2) Edward Scissorhands comes along and snips it off or it 'ceases to exist in some sense' or 3) What?

One interesting and important thing to come out of this thread. I assume your paper was white? This is the problem faced by projectionists since the beginning of time. You cannot get true black on a white screen using light. The black you see is an optical illusion that relies on both the ambient lighting conditions and the characteristics of the eye and brain.

Don't be afraid to ask for help, but better to start your own thread for that. Post#13 here might help to start with. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/99237-please-help-me-understand-calculus/

Have you read this? http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/75772-read-this-before-posting-in-homework-help/ So what have you done so far? Hint each letter appears only once in the answer. Do you understand what a 'simplified expression' should look like and why?

What is your null hypothesis? That the two measurements come from the same population or That they come from different populations Prometheus also makes a good point about what confidence levels your are testing to.