studiot

Check for physical health first. Clear the dust bunnies out, take out and reseat pluggable components and boards such as memory and Processor. Replace processor heatsink compund.

Shark tank ??

Hello Jenn and welcome. I know nothing of your Saginaw event, and unfortunately our pet geologist who have know escaped nearly a year ago. However I can tell you that meteor impact is associated with what is known as the iridium spike because meteors often contain the very rare (on Earth) element iridium. Googling gives lots of information about more famous impacts and craters, but I haven't found any measurements at your location. Perhaps you should ask your local college or library?

Since you found discourse with Strange and Swansont so distasteful, why did you put so much effort into it thereby claiming you had no time to discourse with others and in particular that you had no interest in extending your knowledge if you could not address the questions others proposed. You only had to ask. I have learned much from through forum by asking, and, in turn, answered others to the best of my own knowledge.

This is also a good example of the diffeernce I mentioned. The polaroid system did not exist before it was developed. DNA was 'always' there to be discovered studied and did not need inventing

Doesn't the very nature of these 'noktons' contradict the uncertainty principle? In the uncertainty principle the values taken by the two operators are allowed to vary continuously, but the value taken (or assumed) by one affects the value allowable for the other. Since their deltas have an inverse relationship we can say that the large one delta is the smaller the other is, but there is (in mathematical theory) no upper or lower limit to either. Discretisation of the values (quantisation in physics) but introducing lower (and by implication upper) limitschanges things is is curently the subject of some debate. Is reality discrete or continuous? Prefessor Shan Majid of London University has published an interesting book, collecting thoughts from many famous scientists and mathematicians, on this matter. On Space and Time Shanh Majid Cambride University Press It is interesing reading Edit a couple of interesting points about the version of the uncertainty theorem in my last post. The theorem above is purely numerical and has no units, whereas the Heisenberg theorem has units. My presentation was unusual and constructed to avoid quantum theory for demonstration purposes. An interpretation of the theorem that is often given is that it applies to processes that it involves the composition/convolution of two operators, say AB. If the order is important, that is if AB is not equal to BA Then (AB - BA ) is not zero and the relation can be derived from this. Physically this means that this allows for the fact that if you first fix the momentum and then measure the position where this occurs you will obtain a different result from if you fix the position and measure the momentum at that position. This is where the confusion arises leading to the misunderstanding that it is only a measurement issue and not inherent in the theory.

I was thinking about suggesting that the thread by Daedalus but held up an an example of good speculations practice and along comes this thread with a gripe. So I say to the OP Make your speculation half as good as this one and you will prosper. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/58346-temporal-uniformity/

Acme if you have any photos of the additional strengthening joists that are put in the loft area under where the water header tanks will be situated, they could be a helpful example.

Consider this function, which was first enunciated by Gauss well before any quantum or atomic theory. [math]f(t) = \frac{1}{{\sqrt {2\pi } }}\frac{1}{\tau }{e^{\left( { - \frac{{{t^2}}}{{2{\tau ^2}}}} \right)}}[/math] Now take the Fourier transform [math]g(w) = \frac{1}{{2\pi \tau }}\int\limits_{ - \infty }^\infty {{e^{\left( { - \frac{{{t^2}}}{{2{\tau ^2}}}} \right)}}} e\left( { - iwt} \right)dt[/math] Completing the square and executing some algebra leads to [math] = \frac{{e\left( { - \frac{{{\tau ^2}{w^2}}}{2}} \right)}}{{\sqrt {2\pi } }}\frac{1}{{\sqrt {2\pi } \tau }}\int\limits_{ - \infty }^\infty {{e^{\left( { - \frac{{{{\left( {t + i{\tau ^2}w} \right)}^2}}}{{2{\tau ^2}}}} \right)}}} dt[/math] The integral on the right can be shown to equal one by complex integration so [math]g(w) = \frac{1}{{\sqrt {2\pi } }}{e^{\left( { - \frac{{{\tau ^2}{w^2}}}{2}} \right)}}[/math] Which is of the same form ( in w) as the original function in t. This is, of course, the normal or gaussian distribution in statistics. The spread or uncertainty for each is [math]\Delta t = \tau [/math] and [math]\Delta w = 1/\tau [/math] leading to [math]\Delta w\Delta t = 1[/math] Which is an uncertainty theorem. A physicist will tell you that if t is time and w is frequency of an electrical impulse than the above pair tells us that the narrower an electrical impulse the greater the spread of the frequency components. She might also say that in classical wave theory wave number k and position x are similarly related so [math]\Delta k\Delta x = 1[/math]

Do you understand folding wedges? These are one of the greatest engineering inventions of all time.

Domestic 'radiators' actually emit most of their heat through convection. Here is an extract from the Danfoss manual. http://heating.danfoss.com/pcmfiles/1/master/other_files/library/heating_book/chapter6.pdf

Since you have access under the floor you could easily ( edit add obvious missing word) increase the local capacity under the aquarium with a prop or two in the crawl space. A paving slab under the prop foot to spread the load on the ground would be useful. Indoor fishing is the new sport

Un tout petit peu. La France n'est pas trop loin de moi. You may find the discussion on page 67ff of the paper of interest. It discusses the uncertainty principle from the point of view of non commutating operators, a subject we were starting to discuss in your own thread. The non commutating operators method leads to a physical reason why there is uncertainty. I am still reading to find out how this proposition (p77) is realised in a relativistic equation. And yes it is true that the English is obviously non native and requires a lot of polishing.

I bow to your vastly superior knowledge of marking papers. Though hopefully it is rather better than the usual tripe we get in speculations.

As I understand it the original work was in French, but thank your link did include a link to an English Language version in pdf. It will take some time to wade through 126 pages, although first impressions are that it is of professional quality and from reputable institution (University of Limoges). However the introduction was not what I was seeking when I asked for and Abstract, which should tell us more than the above quote does. This is important for any document that has pretentions to mainstream as it serves to whet the appetite of potential readers and allow librarians to classify and reference the content. Further to the second goal a list of keywords is also normal. if there is one, I missed it.

Vous avez besoin d'un resume. C'est vraiment normal, n'est pas?

Strange No. The observed value. Which is, of course, only an approximation to the "true value" (if such an ideal thing exists). +1 Everyone is trying to tell you that we may never know the 'truth'.

You claim you want to discuss the subject of scientific testing, but respond in a completely flippant manner when asked for specifics. We still don't have a working definition of the phrase to discuss. yet you claim to be philosopher of sorts. The phrase (yours not mine) contains two words. 'Testing' which is the gerund and is therefore the defining noun. And 'scientific' which is a qualifying adjective, distinguishing the testing from non-scientific types of testing. I asked several questions in an attempt to clarify this and you have avoided them all, either but just not answering or by saying "I don't know". Yet despite the list of things you "don't know" about scientific test you are prepared to pontificate at length on the subject. So is this a case of 'Don't confuse me with the facts I have already made my mind up' ? You have also diverted the discussion away from the topic into a pointless discussion about what is truth and accuracy. completely missing the very good points that moth ( +1 ) has put to you. One of the questions I asked, and you avoided, was about truth. I asked about the use of statistics in scientifc testing. This is because in many if not most instances of testing in a scientific manner we do not know the truth and indeed can never know it. This was what lead Laplace to rediscover the Bayesian theorems in 1770 and develop them further to improve the 'truth' of our knowledge of the actual motions of the bodies in the solar system. Today we have improved that 'truth' still further using through the continuous application of scientific testing. Since you don't like my difficult questions, Let me ask you an easy question. You have a high fever and obvious infection. Would you prefer the medics to medics to conduct a scientifc test or a non-scientific test on your samples to determine suitable treatment?

Unfortunately the builders pulled out my line along wiht the phone and internet a couple of days ago. I have now got a temporary fix in place and I see that things have moved on a bit. Yes but I need to know where to start. In other words I don't know your level of mathematical knowledge. Do you know the difference between a function and an operator or that whilst the solution to a function equation is a value the solution to an operator equation is a function? If not I will start by explaining this.

Except that 'the hole question' is my original, though not in this thread. Oh , I forgot, You don't reply to my questions since they are too difficult. Oh and did you give him +1 since it is such a good question? I know I did.

For the last few days I have been getting my antivirus blocking some attacks from the above IP when clicking on some posts in the last 24 hour list. This happens about one time in 10 and does not happen anywhere else.

You check it against the party official handbook of doctrine of course. What a silly quesion number 7. Take twenty extra correctness lessons.

What suprises me is that having been told there is a body of mathematics that develops a much more general situation than the over-restricted mathematics presented in the paper, you are not interested. I have not checked that the Schwarz inequality will lead to the paper's results but they look similar.

Thank you for responding. But you did miss out what I consider the most important part of my post 38. That I consider the focus too narrow and the definition of scientific and testing unclear. The rest of the post just contained examples and could have been omitted. So I am still not clear where you are coming from. The great bulk of what I consider scientifc testing is not involved with checking the validity of esoteric theories. It is employed in the everyday business of furthering activity in our modern technical world. More examples What is the moisture content of my wheat? Does that fingerprint match? Is this batch of concrete acceptable? I introduced the statistical element because even in basic reasearch these days statistical methods play a vital role. Does standing in the rain give you a cold? Well sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. So how do you investigate and report without statistical methods? Some testing cannot ever be usefully performed. What is the breaking load of this crane hook? Well yes you could load the hook until it breaks, but of what use is that knowledge? You have a broken hook you can no longer use. So an entirely different sort of testing is required. As to the scientific part. When that hook is tested is it 'scientific' to keep adding old railway sleepers until it breaks? Or do we need something more objective, repeatable, reportable etc?

I can't say if this was addressed to my post 38, immediately following post 37 that you addressed in your previous paragraph. However if you can't or won't discuss then you have no business posting here. I suggest you read the rules.