studiot

It should be remembered that the observation lines we are talking about are not tens of kilometres long with associated hundres of metres of correction. This as I said, was the overdramatic headline stuff. The real lines appear to be a distributed network of much shorter lines about 1 metre from the surface and the deviations from this are a few tens of millimetres. (This by the way is the right way to go about this surveying exercise) But we need more information about this methodology and also about any actual land surface survey.

Thank you for your post#9 which begins to describe your methodology, but more is needed. As I understand it you are extrapolating, rather than interpolating your corrections. I further understand you are applying standard corrections at the end of a 720m observation line, although I am not familiar with the GE model. Standard close to the ground (water) surface observations like these are subject to curvature and refraction corrections. Yes I agree with 4cm for the curvature (I make it 41 mm). John is correct in noting that there is also a refraction correction, that I was coming to as it is more minor. The standard refraction correction, is equal to one seventh of the standard curvature correction ie 6mm. This make a total correction over the observed distance of 34mm. Both of these would be eliminated by suitable interpolation methodology. To return to the implications I mentioned earlier, Using standard curvature and refraction corrections it would imply a bulge (see attachment) in the Earth land surface in this area, which should be detectable by land surveying techniques, as opposed to hydrographic ones. This is entirely feasible since most of the lake is only a couple of metres deep old fashioned 10 foot survey towers could even be used. Alternatively (1) There could be an undisclosed error in the methodology (2) There could have been freak atmospheric effects causing effect at the time of measurement.

Yes my grazing line was centered between the two shores, as should any be reference straight line. Referring to the intervisibility of points on opposite shores is in my opinion a bit of theatrical dramatics since it assumes one observers eyes are in his toes (ie at ground level). But yes, such an observer would need a 400+ metre giant to see on the other side. However I have struggled with those idiot programmers to add another more pertinent comment at the end of my last post concerning the depth of water. This is really what we need to discuss since it means that the land surface cannot have the required curvature either.

Please run me through your curvature calculation, as my rough and ready calculator makes it under 150 metres. Here are my calcs. Grazing height = deviation of a circular curve from straight = (distance along straight)2 / (2 * Radius) Grazing height will occur at semi distance = 77/2 = 38.5km Radius = 6400km So grazing height = 38.52 / 12800 = 0.116km = 116m Edit correct typing in calcs. *************************************************************************************************************************************************** Moderators Why don't I have permission to download the pdf? Is this another piece of windows 10 s__t ? ******************************************************************************************************************************************************************** Thank you for extending the post to include some figures. If the lake is less than 5m average depth then it is a very thin layer of water in comparison to the curvature of the Earth which is up to two orders of magnitude greater. In other words the lake is a surface film. Furthermore the bottom must also follow this profile. Since the underlying land is nearly planar, why would you expect a surface layer of water to be anything else?

Seems like an interesting subject, but I fear that this thread will soon be closed as it is in breach of forum rules. This would be a shame as it is a subject I have personal experience of. So please consult with the moderators about making this a regular thread for discussion.

I hesitate to renter this discussion since Michel is not talking to me but this appears to be the basis of misunderstanding to me. Perhaps someone will explain simply when you should divide by gamma and when you should multiply.

You don't seem to be asking any specific question or making any specific point for discussion so I will ask one. Are you referring to the Gilovich, Vallone and Tversky study? https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-GB&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=Gilovich%2C+Vallone+and+Tversky+study%3F&gbv=2&oq=Gilovich%2C+Vallone+and+Tversky+study%3F&gs_l=heirloom-hp.3...1297.1297.0.2734.1.1.0.0.0.0.125.125.0j1.1.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..1.0.0.ldAhvHWGIIY

Cherenkov Radiation You should like looking at the pics for this one Mike. 1888 for Heaviside's original prediction https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-GB&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=cherenkov+radiation&gbv=2&oq=cerenko&gs_l=heirloom-hp.1.0.0i10j0j0i10j0j0i10l6.125.2937.0.5890.7.7.0.0.0.0.312.1219.0j5j1j1.7.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..0.7.1219.sJ2EcwHrbCw

I'm not sure if you are asking Can you introduce quantum effects into relativity equations? or Can you introduce relativity into quantum mechanics equations? For the former note that relativitistic effects are often observed and have to be accounted for in particle accelerator experiments, which are conducted at or sometimes below ground level. For the latter Paul Dirac was the first to introduce a relativistic version of the Schroedinger equation, which offers more accurate calcuated values when compared with observation. Again this applies equally at ground zero as in space.

Robin, It took quite a while for you to reply to my last post, and sadly when it came I cannot see any correspondence between my post and your reply. Any correspondence may be real, but is not apparent to me. So I cannot tell if you have accepted my comments. Your reply introduced the following new question(s) The equations of relativity, as you call them, and observed measurements are similar to my comment from post#172 They go hand in hand. In other words they are developed together and both brought into convergence together. That is the scientific process. So no you do not deduce one from the other, but each confirmation (match) between the two aspects strengthens the theory, just as any contradiction between the two requires us to investigate further. As far as I can see classification of effects into real and apparent is artificial and leads to misunderstandings.

Was there a question or discussion point or was this just advertising?

Thank you. In which case you need to clarify the layout in supplement, since it can't be the same as in the OED itself. Sampling the OED according to these rules will yield precisely zero abbreviations.

Hello, Blue, Did you try to look up the guys mentioned in my post#25? Are they still at Istanbul University? As regards logical and illogical there are other types of statement For example The English Channel is 150 miles wide at maximum and 21 miles wide at minimum. The Bosporus is 2.5 miles wide at maximum and 0.5 miles wide at minimum. These are just a statements of (verifiable) fact. They are neither logical nor illogical. Talking of the Bosporus, the first time I visited Turkey in general and Istanbul in particular was as a student, travelling on the orient express. The train stopped at the Greek / Turkish border for document checks and whilst these were going on a number of small boys pass along the train selling melons. We asked how much for a melon, but neither could properly understand the other. They only had one word of English - one. So one melon was One sterling One dollar One D Mark (They would not take Turkei Lira) This was not logical or illogical but it was something else again - it was understandable. The melons themselves were superb.

Hello, EE let us look into this more deeply. Here is the table from Wikipedia, it contains more 'surprises' and items of interest. Note that TNT and gunpowder have a rather lower energy density than either coal or wood! (They are near the bottom of the table). They get their destructive power from mechanical energy (PV expansion), not heat production, which underlines the relationship between heat and mechanical energy and how much more mechanical 'effect' you can obtain than heating 'effect' from a given quantity of energy. As to coal and wood, Coal is a little over twice as dense as wood so a given volume (you have mentioned volumetric densities) so there is more 'matter' in a given volume of coal than wood. So you would automatically expect the coal to produce more energy since the chemical reaction producing the heat is dependent on the mass not the volume. Note that Wiki gives both volumetric and gravimetric densities. Note further that on a gravimetric comparison there is substantially less difference between cola and wood. Nevertheless coal still wins on a gravimetric basis. This is because of the difference of the combustion processes as JC has already noted. Edit I just noticed the date on the original parts of this thread.. Sarah, you caught me

Celeritas, nice and nice again +1 Just to reinforce a couple of points. In other words if the clocks are present at both events. Both clocks may be read by both parties at the common event, and even set the same but they are not synchronised (swansont already mentioned this in one of these threads.)

Good Journals ? Looking at my copy of International Journal of Solids and Structures Vol32 No1 January 1995 Which I keep for the article Green's function for general disk-crack problems Y. L. Xu (side note this article may be relevant to your earlier threads about integration) I see that in the list of references there is one from your own university Delale & Xu Stress field in a circular disk containing an edge dislocation and its application to the solution of disk crack problems Bulletin Istanbul Technical University. (1994) Perhaps these guys are still there?

Sorry but I think you have only answered one of my 4 questions. 1) is the most important and not the same as 3 It is still not clear what words or symbols that are on the page are discarded and what words or symbols are used to form a list from which one in 5 is then chosen. So I have reproduced number 2 of the words on my earlier list - note you originally rejected all of them, but the attachment contains every word associated with what I call the head word - dabble- in this case. Now I have asked and received directly conflicting answers to this question do you just consider Dabble as a candidate word or all the words in my attachment , for example are Mitchell, moisten, or, soil counted??

I can see you are having as much trouble understanding me as I am understanding you. Yes I have the OED, but unfortunately not the supplement so I don't know what the layout is for that part. As regards my other questions I have annotated the page in question. 1) Are you only choosing from the head word as I noted, 1,2,3,4,5 all in red? (These are different words not from the same stem.) 2) Where the word appears multiple times as a head word as I have underlined dab several times, how many times does it count? 3) If you are only choosing head words you will never see the abbreviations they are in the body of the text, as ringed. 4) if you are including the body of the text in the count, note the many standard abbreviations as arrowed in red. How are these reckoned?

Definitely there are some misunderstandings. And yes I remember your other thread. The problem is lack of precision. What do you mean by bias? Selection bias Self selection bias some other process And as to the sampling technique. Just opening the OED at the letter D shows imprecision of definition. I had assumed that you had not included in your 'every 5th word' all the text associated with each entry. But you seem to include all the text. If you stuck with the main entry heading eg dab, dabble, dabby, dabchick, dabitis being a sequence of 5 entries Then all abbreviations are listed at the beginning under abbreviations, which is a sub heading under D,d (the first entry in the D section) As such no abbreviations so listed at the beginning would be picked up. So the word 'dab' has five separate entries. How many would you count or reject? The text associated with entries usually includes abbreviations that are repeated many times eg v.t. ; colloq ; adv ; f.

You should look up Generalised Coordinates Degrees of freedom Which are used in many areas of science an engineering Thermodynamics and statmech - Gibbs Formulation Mechanics - Hamilton - Lagrange dynamics

Imatfaal is right, you need to put some meat on the bones and demonstrate that you follow the answers you are receiving. In particular I am concerned that you will use the sampling in a statistically unsatisfactory manner. Let us say that 10% of the picked out words are abbreviations Do you understand that it is unsatisfactory to simply say 10% of the words in the dictionary (or this section of the dictionary) are abbreviations? Because you are comparing two different distributions - the sample and the original population you also need to estimate the probability that you are right (or wrong). That is what confidence intervals are all about.

Being present in a frame is not the same as being present at all (significant) events. I say significant to distinguish between events of interest and the rest of the points in spacetime since an event is a point in spacetime. Your original claim was that all clocks were present at all events as well as in all frames. For any observer, Spacetime has timelike zones at which it is possible to be present at both events and spacelike zones for which it is not. So in the twins, significant events are P leaving Earth Q turning around R return to Earth The rocket clock is present at all three P, Q and R The Earth clock is only present at two, P and R. This is just a more formal way to explaining the asymmetry than my original offering which was essentially, the rocket went somewhere, the Earth did not.

I was about to say that I will leave it to swansont to discuss routes through spacetime and geodesics with you, but I see he has already replied. +1 you are nearly there with this question, but think about this. Think of a globe. The lines of longitude are the shortest paths between two points, but they are all of the same length and there are many of them. They are given a special name - 'geodesics'. By contrast only one parallel of latitude (the equator) is a shortest path. Every other parallel is longer than a great circle (geodesic) between these same two points. If there are multiple shortest paths, why can there not be multiple longest paths? Another thing about paths. The paths assume no 'wiggle'. A wiggle is a deviation or detour in some sense from 'straight on'. So a trip from London to Edinburgh via Leeds is (more or less) straight on, but a trip via Cardiff incorporates a wiggle and via Dublin a bigger wiggle. Wiggles are not possible in one dimension, but as soon as you get two or more dimensions they become longer paths than a direct one in the same way that the sum of two sides of a triangle is always greater than the third. However I regard this question of yours as a diversion or wiggle so I will leave it to yourself and swansont to carry on. When you are ready to go back to the twins, let me know.

It takes students studying this about 12 weeks to make their way through a basic course. And those students are already au fait with a good deal of Physics ie they are Physics students. Yes my offered analysis, that nobody seems to want, contains some simple arithmetic but it is perfectly possible to perform graphical constructions with gamma/lerontz built in to avoid even this. Russell shows a simple one in his elementary ABCs of Relativity. In fact graphical construction was once de rigeur in most engineering design offices for many tasks we now undertake by calculation. I have some old books that show how to extract roots, solve algebraic equations, perform graphical integration and differentiation etc etc.