studiot

"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 ?

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)