studiot

Hint; when making your list check the difference between a particle and an elementary particle. So protons and neutrons are not elementary as they are made of smaller particles But electrons were elementary, last time I checked.

But does the member OP need a discussion of Ohm's Law? Doesn't he needs a new mains adapter and/or a new multimeter?

Hydraulic analogies soon run into trouble because the analogy is not exact in importartant detail. Surely it is best to avoid all hydraulic analogies and go staight for the horse's mouth. Isn't post 3 clear enough? Why cloud it with muddy water? Incidentally if you want to talk about inductive circuits, why introduce resistance as in post3? Ohdearme, please, please don't connect your multimeter to the mains adapter when set to the ohmeter setting. This is a good way to destroy your meter, even if the adapter is not working properly. Definitely don't connect it like that to any new adapter, even after switching the mains off as the residual power may still be enough to damage the meter. Also do not connect it in current mode to the adapter. Bang. #So that leaves us with voltage mode. Off load the adapter can be expected to produce a higher voltage than when working at rated current. If you adapter bears a 16V rating then it could be as high as 20V off load. (But see my note about your voltage at the end of this post) The voltage should fall to 16 on full load. (Speakers rarely present full load.) Talking of loads, let me dispel the all too common misconception, Your adapter rating says 16V 1.2 amps. The amps are determined by the load not by the adapter. The amps are determined by the load. A different load will draw a different current. So the adapter will allow the load to draw any current from 0 to 1.2 amps at 16 volts. This is true of all normal supplies of electricity (batteries, the mains, power supply adapters) Only special purpose supplies such as battery chargers work the other way round. BTW are you sure the supply says 16 volts not 6 volts? That is most unusual.

Not sure. Are they saving water in the pumping from one side to the other or is the left hand side now disused? There is an arrangement in Holland that looks similar on the canal between the Isselmeer and Muiderslot castle.

Cladking I undestand your point. I often respond to the logical conclusion of what people are saying rather than the statement itself. I believe this better highlights my objection while cutting to the chase. I didn't remember the diagram and since I consider "science" a subset of "philosophy" I was just covering all the bases. Rather proves my point. You didn't respond to either of my statements, just your guess as to what they might have been or might have meant. You put in a lot of typing here. At best it is only one extra click to quote, and a few extra seconds to write X is what you said, Y is the logical conclusion which leads me to respond.....Z Doing this would save a lot of confusion all round.

Rubbish. The total number reproducing sexually (mostly higher species) runs into the millions. The total number of asexually reproducing species (mostly lower species) runs into the billions. See the section on numbers of species towards the end of this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

I am not sure what your level of math is, rusty, never liked it so never worked at it, had to do other things ? So here are some extracts from books that may be of interest. 1) Dennis Rosen "Mathematics Recovered for the Natural and Medical Sciences" Answers lots of questions like what is differentiation?, what is integration?, what are matrices?, what are fourier transforms in a simple what is hypothesis testing?, in a simple way. Mark Levi "The Mathematical Mechanic" Offers a refreshing connection between maths and the physical sciences; tries to prove mathematical results using phycal methods. Ferrar "Mathematics for Science" A particularly clear textbook from a professor at Oxford for students going from upper high school into university.

Perhaps an online start with these people. http://www.esm.psu.edu/courses/emch12/IntDyn/course-docs/Euler-tutorial/

So post some pure mathematics here and ask your question about it. Others seem to manage this simple? difficult? task and find happiness.

+1 for perception, knowledge of one's limits and even handedness. Since I am posting again I will take the opportunity to reinforce my claim that human thought processes encompass other avenues than language and further that such processes are commonplace. What does an engineer, architect, builder, surveyor, machinist any many other trades and disciplines viewing a set of engineering drawings think? She does not use language, she visualised a three dimensional object, form the non lingual information in front of her. In particular this thinking skill requires correlating the non lingual information from several drawings into a composite picture. Of course most drawing incorporate words and numbers and the viewer can name the parts, but this is subsidiary information. The shape can be understood without a single word appearing. But of course, that is what engineering drawings are for. Further one of the beauties of this system is that it is language independent. So a Chinese viewer can understand an English set of drawings and vice verse, even though they cannot read the words, because their language is different. So different that, as I understand it, Chinese does not actually work in words in the way English does.

That's something to be proud of. One of the past presidents wrote one of the most famous and deep thinking textbooks on Thermodynamics, a few years ago. Does the name Pippard mean anything to you?

Do you understand the difference between differentiation and integration? There is a huge and fundamental difference in the nature of the integral and derivative. Unless you are talking about symbolic manipulations available in certain mathematical programs such as MathCad and Mathematica; The integral of interest in numerical analysis is the definite integral, which is a pure number. The derivative is, as always, a function (hence its full title the derived function). The purpose of numerical differentiation is to solve differential equations by finding the value of the derivatives at specific points. The purpose of numerical integration is to output a result such as the area or work done as a single number. So in asking this question you need to be quite clear what you are seeking. Personally I don't do online courses, but I can recommend books.

David as an engineer, though you do not say what sort, you should be used to poles appearing in calculations in dynamic formulae. These occur in resonant systems, whether you are talking electrical or mechanical engineering. There are even elastic instabilities in non dynamic situations (eg buckling) that exhibit this behaviour.

Even if you compress air until it becomes a liquid, it is still less dense that water (heavier is not a good word to use). The density of liquid air is only 0.87 of the density of normal water. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_air Air bottles are designed to be heavy enough to be slightly negatively bouyant when filled. The thick metal walls are for weight as well as strength.

Not only was the website wrong but the second part of the statement was (I hope) miscopied and even worse I have already said in this thread that a straight line, not through the origin, is not linear, because it does not satistfy both the linearity conditions. Once again it is called affine.

Although the following comment is specific to you and critical it is intended to be helpful in a big way. Please take it in that spirit. I think/wonder if your difficulty discoursing with others is because you respond not to what they actually said but to what you guess/think/wouldlike them to have said. I have noted this elsewhere in other threads which struggle as a result. Look again at my post 17 and ask yourself Where did studiot use the word 'science'?

If that is what they actually said, I would run a long way from that site and then keep running.

So far as I can make out your list of unsupported claims is totally disconnected from the examples in my post you quoted in its entirety. So do you pay any attention to what others write or was quoting my post just a slip o' the mouse?

Very clear statement , andrew. +1. turpint, This was the great breakthrough by Newton when they realised that bodies will continue indefinitely in their state of motion if you leave them alone. It is common for beginners to think otherwise and it was believed for centuries before Newton. One spin off from that. It takes no energy for the body to keep on in its state of motion (or rest). The body has energy by virtue of its motion, but it doesn't loose any, just because it is moving. If it does loose energy and slow down this means that a force must be acting on it (eg friction, air resistance etc)

It might do. If you have more unknowns than equations, differentiation/integration is one way to get more equations. This occurs in structural engineering where you know the slope is zero so you can differentiate and set to zero. But you should not say nonlinear sets of equations. It is not the set which is linear or nonlinear. That is meaningless. It is the equations in the set or at least one of them which is/are non linear.

So how did your query arise? You need to put more in here to get more out.

So he was not completely 100% correct has anyone ever been in history? And are you trying to discredit an entire list by gnawing at the edges of one entry?

It is a logical fallacy to lump all posters together like this and then say Particularly as you are articulating what I said in my Venn diagram and extracts from the OED.

Much research is kept secret for commercial (as with Tesla) or state security reasons (as with Turing). The original post referred to discoveries that were public but opposed by powerful figures at the time and were later shown to be correct. If they were not later shown to be correct we could not know them as failures of the scientific system of the time. Just because it was kept secret does not mean it was opposed, discarded or ridiculed. So Tesla is not a good example. However I agree with the basic premise that there have been too many instances of opposition to genuine innovation. Whilst it is easy to point to instances back a few hundred years into history, twentieth century examples might werll include De Haviland Whittle Barnes Wallis The inventor of the bazooka, whose name escapes me but was not as Wikipedia describes. Wegener Bayes (I include him here because the bayesian war was particularly intense in the twencen) Porsche Late Nineteenth century pioneers Parsons However I'm sorry I don't see that anonymity would lead to an improvement. Anonymity has its place in for instance blind and double blind testing, the conduct of proper examinations and so forth.

I strongly endorse that view. Or to put it another way. Not all thinking involves words. Not only is there a vast body of evidence to support this, it is commonplace experience by most (I hesisitate to say all) humans. Acting in three dimensions involves processing sensory input information and direction future action accordingly (thinking). This skill is used in pickup up a pint of beer, driving a car or an aircraft, the list goes on and an. Many people report that they think in pictures, not words. Some think in musical sequences. and so on and so on.