studiot

Thank you so much for sharing +1 I meant to write this after your first post but see that since I last looked you have added another piece.

What part of the text did you want further explanation of? Can I assume you agree that water collects in hollows in the ground in preference to on mountain tops for instance? Or that you agree with the densities I quoted? I will then be happy to explain further References, The Seasat project is a matter of common knowledge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasat

Capacitors are used as timing devices in electrical circuits. Without special circuitry they are inherently non linear. In act they are exponential in operation. Now this use of capacitors does involve motion. But you could use a row of radioactive atoms as a perfectly satisfactory timing device with the same exponential law as of the capacitor, but no motion would be involved. Any instant you want the time for you simply count the remaining atoms and would be able to convert this number to the time. In fact I do believe that the countdown timer to the end-of-life warning in my smoke alarm works this way.

Small wonder there is confusion. I will come to the correct definitions and usage in due course

Well that says it all then. You pre weighed the second beaker accurately because you did not add an exactly known weight of salt. You then weighed the thing again to obtain the exact salt weight.

Apart from bending the rules here for no reasonable justification that I can see, my only comment is that the site you linked to reminds me of those radio and tv shows where the 'mein genial host' insults guests who are only there to be insulted. go well

Maybe but it was 'common sense' that large heavy balls fall more quickly than small light ones until someone (Do you know who?) actually tried it. String Junky has a good point though you might need to capture and weigh the lost gas in this other experiment to complete the law of mass conservation. I also wondered if the instruction applied specifically to your first measurement, then you addded a specific amount (weight) of salt each time to the solution. You would need the beaker and solvent weight at some point for your calculations. Posting the full instructions may help someone spot a clue as to the true intentions of your examiners.

Perhaps they are testing your resolve and understanding? One purpose of an experiment is to test the truth or otherwise of an assertion or hypothesis. You asserted Did your variation prove this assertion or disprove it?

OK so now you are properly trained in submerged plate whirling we can make the experiment properly scientific. Whirling the water to create a whirlpool obviously somehow exerts an upward force on the plate. Does it make any difference whether you whirl clockwise or anticlockwise?

So you agree with what I have been saying consistently in this and other threads then.

Does not the wording after my star lead to the phrase ? "Causation in the old sense no longer has any place in theoretical physics"

To summarise the situation here at ScienceForums. An OP has expressed an interest in measuring the actual water profile on a modest, but significant body of water and carried out a trial measurement which showed several methodological flaws. Some of the flaws go right back to fundamental misunderstandings of the science involved, some to lackadaisical organisation of the actual trial measurement. So the main outcome of the trial, as I see things, is a requirement to go 'back to the drawing board' for a complete rethink from the beginning. I am not interested in mud slinging or raking over past mistakes but am prepared to help develop a proper new strategy. 1) This should start with a standard aims and objectives statement. 2) Then provide an estimate of the expected range of measurement values and accuracies required so suitable equipment and experimental methods can be devised. 3) Offer a system of control or reference points, established to a higher standard than the survey itself and preferably established by a different method, independent of the survey measurement technique. 4) Provide a proper method statement for the survey itself. I think that is enough to be going on with. The issue of (mis)understanding can be dealt with as we go along. Sandar, your once worked in the film industry so you will be familiar with a storyboard. This is the scientific and technical equivalent. We have a basis for (1) So to kick off (2) here is a hydraulic assessment of what we might expect to be found. The surface of larger bodies of water is mostly influenced by gravitational forces. Water collects in depressions in the land surface. Because continental crust is about 2.5 times the density of water and oceanic crust 3 times as dense, the material in the depressions is less dense than the average. This results in a depression of the water surface in the deep ocean and an elevation or bulge in shallow water. Bottom or bed features such as sea mounts, ridges or trenches are therefore reflected in profile disturbances at the surface. An ocean floor feature 1km high results in a surface depression of 2 metres. If you like the water surface follows the bed surface more closely than you might think. Here is a Seasat ocean surface heighting scan showing a fully recognisable bed shape in its own surface. So I would expect the lake surface to show its bed shape in miniature, rather than following a 'truly level' surface, whatever that might mean (I propose to discuss the meaning of that phrase later). Edit I will just add some more hydraulic comments. Lake Balaton has the following hydraulic characteristics. It has a main inflow to the south west and a main outflow to the northeast. These are both relatively narrow channels from the internet pictures, but otherwise unrestricted so at the inlet the inlet water will be slowing down. Therefore there will be a local rise in water surface as the dynamic head (kinetic energy) of the inflow is exchanged for static head (potential energy) in the lake itself. The outlet is flush with the lake so there is no draw down effect, but the necessary static head to propel the water along the outlet channel must be generated so there will be a build up of water around the outlet, again generating a surface rise. This is the backwater curve I mentioned before. Through the main body of the lake the cross section is much larger so the flow rate will be much more sluggish, almost zero. So the head will be essentially static. However about midway there is a projecting peninsula, restricting whatever flow there is so the water will again pile up behind (to the west of) the peninsula reduce through the gap and return to normal lake levels to the east.

In other threads you have been quite vociferous about the mathematics of relativity and yet you shy away from it here and want to only discuss 'Physics' ? OK so you don't want to answer my repeated question So how about this one one your special subject, relativity? This concerns the connection between motion and time. Classical mechanics forbids particles to be in two places once ( at the same time) What is the (time) interval between places (points) on a lightlike path? It is, of course, zero. So photons are in more than one place at one time? Is this a disconnect between 'motion' and time?

"Einstein believed in Block Universe:" An other great minds did not

Good point +1 This is better practice but not always done.

Yes indeed, Victorian vicars have a lot to answer for. The most mathematically famous was probably the reverend Bayes. The standing waves of QM are called De Broglie waves and it is a good job that they do not run down, as suggested by Tim88, as there are De Broglie waves for atoms and sub atomic particles. There is even another current thread ongoing about the lifetime of atoms.

Dark Star, considering all the work you have put in there I hate to be a wet blanket but your calculations are flawed for the reasons I have already given. Nor are your hydraulic predictions any more reliable (are you a hydraulic engineer?) again for the reasons recently given. Sandor does not need (in fact shouldn't be) calculating on the spheroid. Your formulae need the measured distance to be reduced to a spheroidal distance, but I do not see any attempt in the calculations to do this. I do, however, agree that the difference and significance of that difference between actual measurements on the surface of the Earth and mathematically modelled figures is very confusing if you are not a professional geodecist.

Universities do this from time to time. My A level chemistry teacher studied at Exeter, which used to be renowned for the subject. So it was a sad day when they closed the department a few years ago. Just as sad as when they closed the school of engineering, which also was a centre of excellence.

You are not reading my words correctly. I showed a cause, but to be deterministic the cause must always lead to the result. In this case it did not so there was a cause, but it was not deterministic as I said.

Yes the method is fine and used to be used to generate HV for things like cathode ray tubes. The only thing to watch is to make sure that the chain is routed so later stages are distant from earlier ones so there is never a significant field due to proximity. They are often laid out in a zigzag pattern on the board to save space. I have also seen 3D helixes constructed on three boards radially arranged at 120o inside a plastic tube to keep the 30kV away from ground Also make sure that all joints are smoothed over, and there are no sharp elbows in the wiring.

Let this be a warning to others

Exactly, thank you. Do you realise that geoids, spheroids or any other oids (droids, androids etc) are quite irrelevant to your work? You would have to perform a deal of calculations to refer the actual measurements you take to any of these. The first thing an engineer would have to do, if asked to place a giant curtain across the lake, just touching the water surface, would be to undo all those calculations to obtain real world measurements. Please confirm some things before I answer the other parts of your post. You did say that you have a degree in mathematics did you not? So I have assumed you can easily substitute values into the formula given in the left hand page of my extract from Wild. So you could generate your own table and check the calcs for yourself. The derivation is simple enough it only requires first or second year high school geometry. Please say if you are having trouble with the technical English (I thought yours was pretty good). But yes, at 4.9 kilometers sight distance the combined addition for curvature and refraction is 1680 mm. The curvature alone amounts to 1885mm. But the question is, what do you intend to show with this value?

I'm sorry you don't like my answer to your original question. The whole of quantum mechanics is founded on standing waves (which by definition do not go anywhere). So they are not just a mathematical curiosity they are as real as you or I. As regards your post#10, I did not realise it was a response to my offering. I can only reply to this bit, the rest I see as responding to others or off topic ( but I am willing to be shown otherwise). You should look up Earnshaw's theorem in this respect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earnshaw%27s_theorem Also note that the 'hot death' can only be momentary, by the kinetic theory.

I've been hold back the washing up until your update and I've run out of plates that have only been used thrice. So please update soon.

There is really only one column, but it is split into 5. Within each of the 5 'columns' the combined curvature and refraction correction, as calculated from the formula given on the preceding page, is tabulated on the right hand side against the sighting distance D. D is in kilometers, the correction is in metres. So for instance the first 'column runs from a distance of 100 metres (=0.1km) to 1000 metres (=1 km) At a distance of 1km the correction is given as 0.07 metres = 70 mm. I'm sorry to hear you were ill (not too much Bull's Blood I hope? ) Unfortunately you seem to have been reading in the wrong places about refraction. Refraction affects both vertical, horizontal, and true distance measurement as well as angular measurements. Further the effect depends upon the type of EDM and measurement employed. Consequently there are many formulae, each for different purposes and you need to be something of an expert to chose the right one. I do not intend protracted discussion about refraction here since it small in your case and largely irrelevant. Further it can be eliminated by proper observational methods, as I keep saying. One interesting point is that the variation of refraction with the frequency of the EDM leads to a phenomenon called dispersion which allows accurate measurement of the refraction over the whole observed line of sight with polychromatic light. Monochromatic sources do not allow this but special two colour laser systems such as 'Georan' are available to exploit this. Another irrelevancy is the CCD issue. Charge coupled devices are much older than their use in solid state cameras. They were originally introduced to facilitate digital signal processing for instance in filters and delay lines. My brother-in-law did his final year project on Digital Filters in the late 1970s. Optical applications came a decade later. So, back to the project in hand. Your objective is to measure the actual shape in space of the surface of the lake, is it not? You should be aware that the surface of water bodies on Earth is rarely level, flat, equipotential etc. In hydraulic engineering we consider something called the 'backwater curve', whcih is the shape of flowing water surface as it approaches an obstruction. This curve can even include actual physical steps in the surface, known as hydraulic jumps. The surfaces of main oceans of the Earth (Atlantic, Pacific, Indian and Southern) are not at the same 'level'. This does not go as far as jumps or step changes but manifests itself as a region of turbulence where they meet. The so called 'cape rollers' off South Africa are an example of this. Returning to the actual shape (and size) of the water surface at Lake Balaton, Do you fully understand the difference between actual on site measurements and the 'reduced measurements' you would plot on a spheroid or geoid or a map? This is very important and would help greatly in your discussions with your surveyor. Would you like me to explain the difference between the terms level, equipotential, spheroid, geoid etc ?