studiot

I am going to disagree with swansont here and state that the Magnus effect does indeed apply to your whirlpool, and to your tornado. A rotating body of fluid is called a vortex and Helmholtz first vortex theorem tells us that it can be considered a 'body'. So to answer you questions about what is going on. The generators of the whirlpool and the tornado are entirely different. Natural flowing water, of the type you describe, is not subject to appreciable temperature difference. Tornados, on the other hand, are thermally generated. Either way a laminarly flowing fluid does not suddently start rotating, there is always a causative agent (Kelvin's Law). In the case of open channel hydraulics this will be due to the shape and nature of the edges and bottom. Ther whirlpool will be caused by some static obstruction in the bottom (since you have placed it in the middle) or edges. Now the 'strength' of the vortex is low but it is constantly being reinforced by new passing water being swung round the obstruction so it stabilises at that point in the flow. This does indeed generate a transverse Magnus force. So why doesn't it move? Two reasons The rotational and flow speeds are actually quite low so the Magnus force is low. Not high enough to overcome bottom friction. Objects can be subject to a force but not move if another force, such as friction is acting. As already noted the vortex strength is low so any water that does separate and move off will quickly mix with the main flow. Note this vortex does not have (thermally induced) axial flow like the tornado. I think that analogies to electromagnetic field patterns are best avoided (even though this was also Helmholtz). Don't forget that EM fields have no material substance. This is an interaction between material bodies.

AC is AC and DC is DC. You will never obtain pure DC from an AC supply without an energy storage element in the rectification circuit. You would need an infinite number of phases to do this. This element is usually a capacitor. The output from any number of rectifying diodes is fluctuating DC, called ripple. This fluctuates above and below the desired output voltage. The energy storage element supplies the desired output when the rectifier output is below. Note below does not mean negative, just less than. Yes you can convert multiphase to single phase via a suitable transformer.

I would recommend that you tried to use your idea to explain proven phenomena before offering a speculation to explain a speculation. If you can achieve that, then is the time to move on to predict/explain new phenomena and see where that takes you.

Good, you may be able to get some of the data back then. Temporary files made by Office, for instance, are not locked. The process working its way through the list of files with certain extensions (jpg, doc etc) and making an encrypted copy. and then deleting the original. The orginal is not deleted immediately. So the original may be still there. If deleted it may not have been overwritten, which is the reason I said 'turn it off now', in which case the original may be recovered by an undelete program. But you must do this from another machine, the ransomware will not then run if the drive is slaved. As to removing the virus,that is usually not too bad, use combofix to kill any cloaking rootkit. Malwarebytes will rid you of the executable only, but there it has a recovery method. Good luck

Turn it off now. Can you 1) Find another pc to talk to us on 2) Do you have any backups or shadow copies. 3) Are you capable of removing the hard drive and looking at it from another system? 4) Sytem Restore won't help The encryption can't be broken, it is a damage limitation exercise. Sorry

No, I've never come across that one. Thank you. Yes I couldn't agree more, I've even started a thread here asking for examples of words which cause confusion because of multiple meanings in different disciplines. Thank you for the calculus example, I will add it to my list. I agree that truth is one such word, and therfore perhaps best avoided. Come now I think "just a convieniece is a bit weak", don't you? Well what of Euclid's 5th axiom then? It's logical to accept it and logical to reject it, but we don't have all this ho-hah about Euclidian v non Euclidian geometry. Both are equally accepted into mathematics as consistent. For the rest I think you are manufacturing an argument, where none exists. I made it perfectly plain that the mathematical statement "There exists an n such that n+2 = 3" doesn't give physical embodiment to the phrase "there exists", as does English, it actually means that n = 1 is consistent with the rules of arithmetic. By the same token the mathematical statement There exists an infinite object means that we can demonstrate a mathematical object which can be placed into one-to-one correspondence with a part of itself, that is not inconsistent with stated mathematical rules, though it may contravene others that we are not employing. It does not mean we can, as I said, buy a pound of it in Tescos. Sorry if you couldn't make that out. It referred to my previous sentence. Roughly translated I was saying Yes I assert that mathematical infinity exists, but on the other hand remember that mathematical infinity has a different meaning than the one you are perhaps used to in English.

Thanks for the interest ajb. I haven't seen the study itself, but It's really difficult to attribute causes to backgrounds. My daughter, (now a Doctor of Medicine) dropped maths after the A-S year (with an A* in the exam), in favour of French and German. She is more interested in people than Science. Her friend, a chinese girl from a family that ran a clothing business in Shanghai, not only managed straight A*s in double maths, chemistry and physics, but had to teach herself English at the same time, whilst living 6,000 miles form home and working Saturdays in a shop.

Glasgow University study. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36110880 This study made particular reference to developed countires and those where there is gender equality. The conclusion is that efforts to attract girls to science, techniology and maths have largely failed and that girls are more likely to suffer 'Maths Anxiety' than boys.

Of course it does. But equally of course The mathematical statement "there exists" does not mean you can go down to the supermarket and buy a pound of "infinity". It means that the properties of a mathematically defined object called "infinity" is consistent with the axioms and theorems already available. This is more in later with your later statement, which I agree with. However we should be aware that the words cardinal and ordinal have different usage in English and mathematics.

Up to this point I was not arguing. In fact I congratulated you on your correct reply to my first post in this thread. I was trying to show what happens when you put a minus sign infornt of the simplest possible fraction 1/1. And you got it right. So why change when the fraction becomes more complicated? There is no difference. I even offered a simple rule to follow, but you seem to have missed it.

You have posted this in homework help. It would help us greatly to provide a suitable response if we knew what the original homework question was that you are trying to answer. I can see from your two posts you are trying to put together physics that you have come across, so great encouragement for that, but unfortunately you are on the wrong track. Where do you think this 'centrifugal force' comes from?

Agreed. Either we multiply the top by -1 or the bottom by -1, but not both. In fact [math]\left( {\frac{{ - 1}}{{ - 1}}} \right) = 1[/math] Not -1 So using this fact we have if [math]\frac{{a - n}}{{a + n}} = 1*\frac{{a - n}}{{a + n}} = \frac{1}{1}*\frac{{a - n}}{{a + n}} = \left( {\frac{1}{1}} \right)*\frac{{\left( {a - n} \right)}}{{\left( {a + n} \right)}}[/math] Taking the negative and working both of the correct ways 1 and 2 in my post 10 Either (1) [math] - \frac{{a - n}}{{a + n}} = - 1*\frac{{a - n}}{{a + n}} = - \frac{1}{1}*\frac{{a - n}}{{a + n}} = - \left( {\frac{1}{1}} \right)*\frac{{\left( {a - n} \right)}}{{\left( {a + n} \right)}} = \frac{{\left( { - 1} \right)\left( {a - n} \right)}}{{\left( 1 \right)\left( {a + n} \right)}} = \frac{{ - a + n}}{{a + n}} = \frac{{n - a}}{{n + a}}[/math] Or (2) [math] - \frac{{a - n}}{{a + n}} = - 1*\frac{{a - n}}{{a + n}} = - \frac{1}{1}*\frac{{a - n}}{{a + n}} = - \left( {\frac{1}{1}} \right)*\frac{{\left( {a - n} \right)}}{{\left( {a + n} \right)}} = \frac{{\left( 1 \right)*\left( {a - n} \right)}}{{\left( { - 1} \right)\left( {a + n} \right)}} = \frac{{a - n}}{{ - a - n}}[/math] To show that this is the same as (1), multiply it by 1 and use tha fact that this is the same as multiplying by [math]\left( {\frac{{ - 1}}{{ - 1}}} \right)[/math] [math]\frac{{a - n}}{{ - a - n}} = 1*\frac{{a - n}}{{ - a - n}} = \left( {\frac{{ - 1}}{{ - 1}}} \right)\frac{{a - n}}{{ - a - n}} = \frac{{\left( { - 1} \right)*\left( {a - n} \right)}}{{\left( { - 1} \right)*\left( { - a - n} \right)}} = \frac{{n - a}}{{n + a}}[/math] Are you right now?

Trying it on something simpler is good advice. Look at this, there are ways of writing the number 1. [math]1 = \left( 1 \right) = \frac{1}{1} = \frac{{\left( 1 \right)}}{{\left( 1 \right)}} = \left( {\frac{1}{1}} \right)[/math] So if we put a minus sign in front we have -1 [math] - 1 = - \left( 1 \right) = - \frac{1}{1} = - \frac{{\left( 1 \right)}}{{\left( 1 \right)}} = - \left( {\frac{1}{1}} \right)[/math] Which ones of these are correct ? [math] - \left( {\frac{1}{1}} \right) = \left( {\frac{{ - 1}}{1}} \right)[/math] [math] - \left( {\frac{1}{1}} \right) = \left( {\frac{1}{{ - 1}}} \right)[/math] [math] - \left( {\frac{1}{1}} \right) = \left( {\frac{{ - 1}}{{ - 1}}} \right)[/math] None of these

Sigh. You seem to have gone into not listening mode again. Because some wag will then say You use counting numbers because there is nothing between them - guaranteed they have no liasons dangereuse.

The idea is not magic, it is similar to something you may have used in secondary school. Graph paper where the scale is not linear logarithmic graph paper. Here is a simple log-log graph paper. Note that the grid lines becomes closer and closer together as we move away from the origin. So that because of the nature of the logarithm we can compress infinity into this space. Of course with Poincare we are talking about polar coordinates. Here are a linear, uncompressed version. Note the grilines are evenly spaced. and here is a compressed version along the same lines Note the grid lines get closer as we approach the edge of the disk. We can also offset the origin as in the Smith chart

"Pour encourager les autres"

Excellent riposte. +1 I like to end a talk with this slide, and then declare the bar open, though for some audiences I might substitute a cup of tea. On a more serious note, photoelasticity of cracks produces some wonderful images, and some great mathematical physics. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=photoelasticity&hl=en-GB&gbv=2&prmd=ivns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiDtLCa55zMAhVpJMAKHUe4DHcQ_AUIBQ Another hugely important mathematical aspect of cracks in materials is called dislocation theory. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=dislocation+theory&hl=en-GB&gbv=2&prmd=ivns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjeuP_C8pzMAhXkDsAKHYoyC6wQ_AUIBQ Cracks are serious business.

This can be a fascinating subject that is about far more than fractals, and can draw in many important parts of Physics and Maths, Chemistry, and Biology. There is also a very good book about this, that is not highly mathematical; The Self-Made Tapestry Pattern formation in nature By Philip Ball I once gave a lecture to the Concrete Society about cracks in concrete, and compared them with cracks in wood and elsewhere, with lots of powerpoint pictures.

Good thinking +1 I take it you are now willing to acknowledge that the abtract can have real existence as Delta1212 says , So we are definitely agreed that the abstract mathematical concept of infinity has real existence for us to work on. As a matter of interest here is another (mathematical) definition of infinity, (due to Cantor) Consider the counting numbers 1,2,3,4....... For each one I can write the square of the number underneath 1,2,3, 4..... 1,4,9,16.... Now look again carefully. Every square is also a counting number, but the list of squares does not include all the counting numbers. So the set of all the squares is only a part of the set of all the counting numbers. But I have put these sets in one-to-one correspondence so they must have the same number of members. This is the basis of Cantor's definition of infinite as something that can be put into one-to-one corresponcence with a part of itself. It is a very powerful concept that finds application in formal logic and mathematics and pleasing because it does not require the concept of 'anything carrying on forever and never finishing'

Nice one Cyril, Nice one Sam +1

Perhaps when you do you will pick out a short list of key points you would like answered. Meanwhile I recommend looking at The Emerald Planet by David Beerling It is the only book dedicated to a geological history of the Earth's atmosphere (and to a lesser extent the hydrosphere) that I know of. You might find some suprises there.

An object with zero velocity has zero momentum, but it still has inertia. Inertia is a measure of mass which is the factor in momentum that is classically independent of velocity.

Thanks, Bill Angel and prometheus, I didn't know that about J. Carter and Merkel. +1 John Cuthber, yes M. Thatcher was a graduate chemist and whilst she may have done much to offend, she was in the forefront of restoring the ozone layer by controlling CFCs. I put that down to the science element of her background, rather than the grocery element.

I have to say that I'm getting suspicious of the OP motives here. screwstrip I'm not sure how this is a problem. Any ToE is going to have broken symmetries, resulting in interacting components. For example electroweak symmetry -- at low energies the symmetry is broken resulting in EM and the weak force. Is the universe more 'boring' because we know they unify at some level? Each answer to the only poster offering potential support is an oblique brush off. So if you grab your ankle with your hand, you are still playing with yourself. Yes that is boring to me.

OK, let us examine this claim that the electron is the orbital and the orbital is the electron under any circumstances. I have a pendulum clock. The pendulum swings to and fro marking out a sector of a circle. This sector does not have a particular name (that I am aware of) but I will call it the swingspace. I hope you will not claim that the swingspace is the same as the pendulum itself, but it has the same, or very similar, characteristics as an orbital. The properties involved in the equation of motion of the pendulum reduce to zero outside the swingspace and defined everywhere within it. The pendulum can considered as a point mass in a potential field, for the purpose of obtaining solutions to this equation. The boundary conditions are set by the potential field not the mass of the pendulum. The equation of motion of the electron in a potential field is set by the boundary conditions, not the electron charge or mass. In this equation the electron is considered a point mass and a point charge. Solution of this equation yields a more complicated property than the pendulum solution that has a value of all space (ie every point in space). Most of this value is concetrated into a particular region of space we call an orbital. The usual graphic that we draw as s, p, d etc orbitals corresponds to a surface in 3D space that contains 90% of the probability density of this solution, given by the square of the wave function that is the solution to the electron's equation of motion. So the orbital corresponds to the swingspace of my pendulum.