studiot

I didn't suggest, I stated an equation which is the equation of a wave which is independent of time. In other words time does not appear in the equation which connects x and y only. Please note I did not state this to be either a travelling wave or a standing wave. We are talking mathematics here so I do not understand the relevance of your reference to the simplistic high school explanation used to introduce standing waves. We do not create or build waves in mathematics. The solutions must exist for all x, y and t. This obviates creation or building as there can be no start or end points. Please also remember that geordief asked if it was possible to separate space and time in regard to wave motion and the answer is a most emphatic yes, but only in the right circumstances. I think my post#6 was clear enough to establish the context of my remarks. But feel free to quibble away. And also please answer my question Is my stated equation a solution to the wave equation and what is its dependence on time (which does not appear in it)?

That presupposes we cannot think rationally. I cannot support this conclusion generally or that it can be drawn from what I said (including the context)

That presupposes we cannot think rationally.

+1 on both counts. A wave is a solution to the wave equation. Are you suggesting that the following equation y = A sin(bx) does not satisfy the wave equation?

Good morning, Mike. I don't think Klaynos meant that gravitons are (electrically) charged. You may be nearer the mark than you realise with this observation Did you see my post#93, there seems to be some diversionary stuff from your original thread going on? Where would you place the force vectors on your drawing in a Newtonian explanation? In further response to your request for tabletop experiments, I watched the Discovery Channel film "Inside Planet Earth" last night and they show several such experiments concocted at research institutes.

Good morning Forumgirl and welcome. Forum rules require some effort on your part but; Since you say Psychology is you main interest I will offer greater latitude. http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/eens212/mudrocks.htm Since I have helped here try one more question to find the difference between shales and most other sedimentary rocks, that are usually include stone in their name; Can you find the difference between shale and slate?

Whilst I have no idea what the purpose of this thread is, I consider this a very reasonable question. +1 In Physics a field is a system that assigns a desired quantity to every point in some region of a space define by particular coordinate axes or even the entire space. The desired quantity may be a scalar, vector, tensor, or other type of quantity in which case the field is a scalar, vector tensor etc field. An example of a field of another type of quantity is a direction field. But in every case the quantity concerned has no extents along the coordinate axes, it is drawn from another set which may have its own coordinate system. So we actually have two linked sets. The set of 'values' of the quantity The set of points in the coordinate system. We perform mathematical processes, such as calculus, on these paired sets, by using the values from the first set and the change from one point to another in the second.

In my post#2 I asked specifically for the prior cause for three events. The first one five plus three making eight has no cause, it just is. But it is deterministic because of this Five plus three always was and always will be and is eight. The second specific instance concerned radioactive decay. This just happens. Moreover it demonstrates a particular aspect of causes in general. If an occurrence has a cause, then in theory you can prevent the occurrence by removing the cause. But it is not possible to prevent radioactive decay, so I suggest this occurrence has no cause. Nor is it possible to determine when the decay will happen. My final example worked the other way round. I wanted a glass of whisky (cause) and I possessed the means so I had one, but this was not deterministic since I might have ended up not drinking the whisky. So I offered instances of determinism but no cause, neither cause nor determinism, and of cause but no determinism. You have (rightly in my opinion) posted this as a philosophy discussion and I am simply exploring the logical implications of your simplification. It is a good subject to debate.

Just noticed your reply itoero, I missed it earlier. Then surely you should state them, (but one would do). Otherwise it becomes a belief system, not deductive science. However you have correctly picked up that I am challenging your assertion that everything has a cause, though I do agree that you cannot have determinism without causation. Further, although it is less obvious, every cause must have a unique result. For if the result is not unique then it is not possible to determine which result will occur. The examples I gave were to do with the ideas of necessary and sufficient and uniqueness. I have no quarrel with your perfectly polite input. Can I just observe that one counterexample will disprove any theory that applies to 'everything'. I was also trying to avoid chaos is this can be tricky; It is difficult to find truly indeterminate chaotic behavior and the examples I know of do not spring from limit cycles, as you mention.

What does this say? Consider one litre of the mixture?

No adding them together is not the way to do it. Call air 'the gas' (which it of course is) or 'the mixture' or something. You are told P, V, T and I assume R so you can calculate n for the mixture. If you are cute and use the appropriate units for R you will obtain the number of moles. You can then use the mass information and break this down to % as they suggest. Remember that if x = % oxygen then (100-x) = % nitrogen.

"deterministic and unpredictable" That's an interesting combination, forsooth. I look forward to your filling in of the details that sit between the two.

Surely this definition is far too simplistic? I thought determinism requires prediction, given the answer to any question you might like to ask (ie sufficient prior information) I drank a glass of whisky tonight. To do this I must have some whisky. But having some does not determine that I will drink any tonight or any other night or ever. Everything? Does everything have a prior cause? What is the prior cause of five plus three making eight? What is the prior cause of the actual time that a radium atom decays? (not the decay itself, but the time when it occurs)

You started this thread asking about exceptions to the norm. I suggest you draw a line under the exceptions in thinking about this new question. The usual theory classifies outer electrons as being either bonding (also wrongly called valence) electrons or electrons which are available to carry conduction current. A hole is then formed when a bond is broken and a bonding electron moves into the conduction block of electrons. The hole contributes to the conduction when another bonding electron breaks its bond but moves into the vacant bonding position. In this way the hole moves and thus contributes to the total current. It should also be noted that in this version of the theory the electric fields to drive current within a conductor are much weaker than those required for the same current in a semiconductor.

I recommend a standard method for all these problems. Write down a list of all the quantities involved, whether you know them or even need them or not. There are only 5 Initial velocity u = Final velocity v = Distance s = Time t = Acceleration f = Write the numbers you know (are given) against these you know Then write down all the kinematic equations.there are again 5 v = u + ft s = ut + 0.5ft2 v2 = u2 + 2fs f = (v-u)/t s = 0.5(v+u)t Note that only four of the basic quantities appear in each equation. Find the equation in which you know 3 of these four and calculate the fourth. Fill in the numbers in you table of quantities until you have answered your question.

Hello arc, I'm sure your area shows much evidence of past glaciation activity. And you have some good photos. It can, however sometimes be difficult to distinguish the action of other agents. Water plus water borne rocks can produces channels similar to the third photograph, htough I'm not suggesting that in this case. Another agent you might like to look up is here https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-GB&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=slickensides&gbv=2&oq=slickensides&gs_l=heirloom-hp.3..0l7.1297.3375.0.3563.12.10.0.2.2.0.141.1156.2j8.10.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..0.12.1249.Jkx5a5jc6IU

Maxwell's equations (I presume you meant his electromagnetic ones as he had many others?) are seriously mathematical. Yet I do not see any mathematics at all in your post or pdf. Further the electromagnetic equations do not have a 'solution' as they are not a set of simultaneous equations as for instance the equations of force equilibrium. In fact at least some of them are partial differential equations. I assume you know that whilst ordinary differential equations have one or more arbitrary constants, partial differential equations have arbitrary functions in their solution. Perhaps you have found one of these? I look forward to your detailed explanation of your claim.

This is advertising claptrap (advertising your book) quite out of keeping with the rules here. Potential buyers beware the PDF show as couple of graphs, one of which is stated to be the graph of a 'wave', but has no time axis. The second has no labels on the axis but shows a helix 'harmonically pulsing in time'.

I think these extracts show the confusion between a flat surface and a level surface. A level surface is most definitely curved, a flat surface is essentially planar. So how can a flat water model be consistent with laser or any other leveling?

Readers should also be very careful of another point concerning vertical heighting by optical equipment. All optical equipment is mounted on something and therefore at some height above the actual point on the ground or water that is being measured. All surveying work reckons distances vertically and horizontally between these points on the ground. There are two basic methods for correcting this. 1) Corrections to the angles. 2) Corrections to the distances deduced. It should be clearly stated which method is employed. Further the actual heights of the equipment should be made plain. This last is particularly important in intervisibility calculations and was rather hidden in some posters (dark star and Mr Maker I think) otherwise comprehensive data here.

Firstly please all not the dates on the original posts in this thread. Dr Patterson, please also note that the kinetics of enzyme catalysed reactions is a specialist university subject, far beyond GCSE. This is in part because the reactions are multistage. The importance of the initial reaction rate is to do with the rate controlling step.

Yes indeed. Some while back I bought the first (in the UK) of the new generation of alignment lasers from Sweden and used it to check for movement of culverts under UK motorways. Before deployment I thoroughly tested its leveling and beam collimation capabilities. I was suprised to note that the beam (spot) diameter varied from less than 10mm to around 35mm and back again over a not quite periodic distance. This was OK as I could get the whole beam on a vertical scale and measure the centre point by difference. And yes there was some illumination noise from reflections from the walls, soffit and floor of the culverts. Sandor please note that this measurement exercise was carried out by interpolation, not extrapolation as you are using. Sandor, since you are approaching a University for assistance, and you like photographic methods, you may be able to access equipment for horizontal photogrammetry through them. Wild and Leica make special cameras for this. I have not noticed any poster so far properly using measurements on photographs. The science of photogrammetry is all about , using photographs for measurements in up to three dimensions, or even four if you include time. The above mentioned equipment for instance, was used to study the stability of the rock face below Edinburgh Castle and I used similar equipment to monitor the stability of the North Somerset Coastal Cliffs, where they support the A39 trunk road. But I could imagine this equipment also being used for your task.

Er No. The problem is that I don't think you understand the surveying theory. I seriously doubt that the Swiss authors were referring to a standard correction as we are discussing. Since they mention double run leveling, they are talking about calculational adjustments to a leveling network. I make the refraction correction 11mm not 0.4mm at an observational distance of 1000m Here is a proper Swiss discussion, including a table which includes refraction and curvature corrections. Note carefully their value at 1km. They make the refraction correction 9mm using a slightly lower value of refraction that the international standard constant of 0.07, but still very close to my calculation. This is taken from the Swiss manufacturer's textbook The Theodolite by Wild of Heerbrugg Switzerland. This lack of surveying knowledge may also have lead to you abrupt response to my posts on reciprocal levelling (post#137) and the previous one (post#133) on survey control points. This is why I keep recommending obtaining the services/advice of a professional surveyor.

Since it is a relay system, what drives the relays? A stabiliser will have some sort of measuring system on the output and compare this with the reference. It then switches the relays on or off to increase or decrease the juice. If the relay contacts have become welded together through some overload. Or if pitted through overload and then left for some time corrosion can also fuse the contacts. Otherwise the control system may have packed up.

First you need to provide a proper case history. Is this really a 1 megawatt stabiliser? Stabilisers require a minimum load (usually somewhere between 1% and 10 % of full load) and some (not yours luckily) will actually fail destructively if this is not provided. So can you get the stabiliser to operate reliably with such a permanent load?