studiot

+1 georgi I have asked at least twice and others many more times which pension scheme you are referring to but we have all received no answer. I therefore have no alternative but to report this breach of etiquette according to the rules of this forum.

Instead of someone we all recognise why not someone we don't such as Jason Bourne? He is, after all, from D.C.

Well I don't see anything in you link. Your question belongs here in this thread. What will happen when (not if) your image holder cleans house? This thread will loose its meaning for others unless you post the stuff here.

SR deals with one section, called mechanics, of the stuff of our universe. More disciplines such as thermodynamics and electrodynamics deal with other sections. All employ certain properties that we plot on orthogonal axes, yet there is interaction between the properties plotted along these axes, despite the orthogonality. This is another way of saying you cannot affect one property with affecting at least some of the others. In the case of relativity one of these relationships is described by simultaneity, and, as swansont says, of the many and various conceivable relationships we must go with the one that we observe to fit.

All of them. I have already said that, when I endorsed your question in my first post in this thread. Edit Just to add that I am suprised no mod has moved this to a more appropriate section. It is not Science.

Well the UK pension system is miles better than no pension system but IMHO it has long enabled the providers to live better than the pensioners, off their backs.

It is certainly not clear what you are talking about. I live in the same country as John Cuthber but my pension provisions are entirely different from his. So I second his call for you first to describe the particular pension system you are attacking. It may interest you to know that in the UK pension is taxable by the recipient, whoever pays the pension.

Even with the examples you give you can use the Engineer's solution to this. Work with smaller units. This is also effective with large numbers that can also be problematic. A simple example Most batteries have a voltage of a few volts. Most modern circuits draw small amounts of current when measured in amps say 0.01 amps. So Engineers use this form of Ohm's Law Volts = milliamps x kilo ohms or even Volts = microamps times megohms. The game plan is to choose units so that the numbers in the calculation falls between 1 and 1000. Other ways to cope are to put every quantity in to the form a number between 1 and 10 multiplied by a power of ten, and collect all the powers of ten together at the end. This is implemented in two ways, directly as in 1.3 x 10-3 amps for hand calculation and using the E notation for computers and calculators as in 1.3 E-3 amps. This won't solve all your problems, but it has helped many people over many years.

Are you writing an essay? Personally I would avoid associating the terms entropy and order with life. It is not clear whether life is a concrete (ie physical) thing or an abstract thing. I am not suggesting that life does not exist, only that you could be mixing the concrete and the abstract in some inappropriate way.

Thank you, I like to keep the mods on their toes. +1 for vigilance. You may not be a Phd physicist any more than I am a Lexicographer, but you would find it easier if you tried to be more precise in your thinking. (No offence meant) I have underlined a couple of examples in the quote. You don't measure a particle whatever that means. You measure one or more properties or characteristics. To suggest you can never know the energy etc..... is over the top. The UP places limits on the accuracy with which you can know certain properties in certain circumstances. That is a far cry from never knowing anything about these properties. We use the bandwidth theorem in another guise to determine the minimum sampling frequency to copy a waveform eg for making CDs In this case we are using it the other way not to limit but to ensure we overcome the limit.

Thank you, ajb for your clarification, I could have worded my thoughts better if I took more time to organise them. It was difficult to sequence the paragraphs suitably but the above should be read that SR does not deal with 'acceleration due to gravity' as a motivation for going on further to GR. It just goes to show how difficult it is to get a clear statement on this subject that is more than a half truth.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle does not forbid us to know any and every one of the quantum numbers of a particle and the spin is one such. Quantum numbers are just that, they only take on certain specific values, they do not take on any values between these. The HUP is derivable from some mathematics of periodic functions known as The Bandwidth Theorem or from the Swartz Inequality, which limit the resolution of calculating one continuous function, given the value of a second continuous function, for certain pairs of functions. In the case of the HUP the pairs are Energy and time Momentum and distance (position) Note that this is not just a measurement issue where the measurement affects the result, as the HUP is often presented in elementary texts, it is fundamental.

Just to stress that whilst matrix algebra is linear the elements need not be. I think Casualkilla is studying something to do with electrical engineering so here is an ee example for discussion, from Morton. Note the matrix admittance equation = [Y] [V] is linear but the matrix elements are decidedly not (eg the resistors in parallel)

Lattice basic descriptions always refer to infinite lattices. There are 'end corrections' available at the ouside boundaries as with many different phenoma. The free surface has a surface tension or surface energy that balances the break in the lattice. Do you know how surface tension arises in liquids? The mechanism is similar in solids and as you describe.

A Matrix isn't anything by itself. It is basically a container that allows us to handle or present all the entries at once. This is achieved by a formalised structure where position is important. In that it is like a spreadsheet. A simple device (not a matrix) is the place system in our decimal number system. So what is 9763 ? We are all so familiar with the 'container' that we forget it but it is a way of handling thousands, hundreds, tens and units all at once, if we follow the rules of addition and multiplication. Note that these rules work well, but [9 7 6 3] is not a matrix and the rules of matrix addition and multiplication do not hold in the place system. So why have different rules for matrices? Well matrix theory is part of linear algebra and the rules for manipulating matrices conforms to the rules of linear algebra. (Note the elements in a particular position in a matrix may or may not be linear). You have probably encountered other structures that allow us to handle all the entries at once for instance Sequences, summations of series, continued products. Matrices are particularly useful in handling systems of simultaneous equations and in creating data tables for entry into and extraction from computers.

You may have noticed that several types of relativity have been mentioned by different posters here. Simple relativity is taught in high school applied maths courses under the guise of relative motion. This works just fine for vehicles, ships and aircraft on Earth. Schools are careful to remain within the limitations of this theory and not present the inherent philosophical difficulties with this theory. In fact Galileo and Newton had already enunciated relativity to this level and beyond several hundred years ago. In particular they put forward ‘Principle of Relativity’ which later workers, including Einstein, adopted as one of the foundations of our modern theories. I will describe this important idea after completing the history. Einstein originally presented the theory of Special Relativity more or less complete in itself by adding a second axiom to the Principle of Relativity, based on experimental evidence that had become available. This second idea (or insight) was that all observers measure the same speed for all light, regardless of whether they are receiving it or generating it and regardless of their motion relative to the source. Special Relativity, however, only applied to non accelerating systems. This obviously means that it does not deal with forces, since force is related to acceleration. Special Relativity was also the first theory to introduce a connection between methods of measurement and observations Quantum Mechanics also introduced a second connection about twenty years later. Up to this time, relativity theories did not deal with Gravity, since Gravity was reckoned as a Force. Einstein then introduced a prototype General theory of Relativity to include gravity, forces and accelerating systems. There have been several versions of GR over the succeeding years. These have incorporated some terms that were sometimes included and sometimes omitted and there have been some variations in the constants employed. Unlike Special Relativity, General Relativity is regarded as yet unfinished and may even be one day replaced altogether. Of course, a hundred years of refinement has made it agree with most observations. A bang up to date history of this is to be found in the excellent (and quite readable) book by Professor Pedro Ferreira, called ‘The Perfect Theory ‘ There are many populist books on the subject. Unfortunately most contain some passages that are simplifications at best and just plain wrong at worst. The above book avoids is pretty good at avoiding these. I promised a quick passage on ‘The Principle of Relativity’ This is no more that our desire to assert the homogeny and isotropy of space and time, or that the laws of Physics are the same on Earth and Alpha Centauri. We want the distance between the 1cm and 2cm points on our ruler to be the same as the distance between the 99cm and the 100cm, and for this not to change if we rotate our ruler to point it in a different direction. And we want this to extend throughout the universe, not just as far as the end of our ruler. We assert that a metre and a second is the same on Earth and Alpha Centauri so if we take a metre ruler and a clock with us from Earth to AC they will match exactly the local metre and second. However severe difficulties arise if we wish to consider measuring from Earth, an AC metre and second or vice versa. This is probably the major source of misunderstandings in popsci books.

So it is not a standing wave? You said a couple of lines earlier that v = c so what is this v?

So are you claiming that a massive particle of charge is moving at the speed of light?

That old excuse again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It would be helpful (and have probably saved nearly 100 contentious posts) if you had commenced your presentation by properly defining your terms. I do not know what you mean by 'Classical Mechanics', so please explain???????? It is of interest to observe that quantisation is inherent in the (pure) mathematics of periodic phenomena and even the flagship Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle can be derived entirely from pure mathematical considerations. Consequently what also do you mean by Quantum Mechanics? Proper setting out of your meaning for these terms is essential if you wish to consider them in opposition, since for most physicists they are not.

Yes that was my mistake as I was about to rush off. It was not the equation we started discussing.

F = BLv This is the equation that describes the force on a conductor moving through a constant magnetic field of strength B with velocity v. It is also the equation for the force on a stationary conductor which endures a constant magnetic field moving past with velocity v. What is the correct equation for the force on a stationary conductor enduring a varying magnetic field B(t) (where B is a function of time) ?

That did not answer my question. Shall I leave the second question until you have answered the first?

So B is not steady? Your equation does not say this. And what is v the velocity of?

OK so F acts on an electric charge. that is in accordance with Lorenz. Where is this charge coming from and going to that it forms a current?