studiot

I asked a simple question and the rules require a simple, but complete answer within the thread. So I will ask it again. You are the one claiming there is a force so I ask again

Classical electrodynamics does not attempt to apply a force to massless particles. Let us work through this so called proof of yours and see if you have carried it out correctly. F is the force on what, given by whose law?

Are you claiming to have derived the equation at the bottom of the quote by yourself?

Do you even know who Heaviside was or what he did?

I think the claims are getting more outlandish and Walter Mitty by the post, But there is still no solid pudding to prove (digest) or even discuss. Heaviside is spinning rapidly in his grave.

These subjects have been discussed many times at SF and at this level, have you tried searching? I would be more inclined to help further if you could have been bothered to reply in your last thread.

Thank you prometheus and strange for your support +1 One who makes false claims about the words of others automatically forfeits the argument. You will find reference to your biological discussion in posts 10 and 46, if you bothered to read them.

This and what follows is fatally flawed by one of the conditions imposed. Here is a mathematical refutation. You have imposed the condition of a single throw of the dice. Evolution is not so constrained. It can take as many trials as it needs to arrive at a solution. Most trials will fail, it only takes one to succeed. Here is a counter example. Some while back a poson for rats was derived using warfarin. These days (some) rats have evolved resistance and the poison is no longer effective against them. There are many rats and many rats make many trials. In the light of your previous silence on my two polite comments on your proposition, I will take failure to properly discuss this point as a deliberate flouting of forum rules and report it as such.

@forex Was I responsible for post#10 and were you polite enough to reply to my offer?

I wish you all success in your course, but you will fail if you think you know better than tutors with many years of experience. Chemistry a Structural View by Stranks Chemistry by Lewis and Evans Chemical Binding and Structure by Spice all meet your stated needs and much more. The much more is very important since you don't know what the basics are or what you are missing by selecting topics. Any of these above books will give you a rounded view and help you do well.

Yes well done +1 Come back if you still need help.

I am not a frequent visitor to the religous threads and an even less frequent poster in them. However this one caught my eye for two reasons. Firstly because despite the rather self satisfied style of the OP, it was not rude, and forex is a new member so in my opinion deserves the opportunity to discuss reasonably. So I am sorry the red pencil came out so early and may have served to drive someone away who might well have been able to think differently given better information. Secondly religion and biological stuff is not my area so much of any argument goes over my head, but I do want to thank forex for introducing me to the term irreducible complexity, which has obvious meaning well outside these fields. So I am going to add a +1 for this in part compensation for the (IMHO) over strong reaction of some others. However, having looked at the idea of IC, I find it a useful concept but cannot see that any proof has been offered that it must have arisen by way of Intelligent Design. In fact quite the contrary I can find many examples of IC in my own fields that have arisen in a variety of ways, some by accident or happenstance, some by an external (non intelligent) forcing agency and I am sure there are other routes I have not considered.

So post both the actual question and your attempt so far. Don't worry if it is not right, that is the way we learn.

Before you can test you have to have a definition to test against. We have discussed this before see post#29 here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/84215-chance-vs-probability/page-2

That rather depends on whether you regard the property of randomness as purely residing in the number (the mathematician's view) or whether the method of generation plays any part (the physicist's view). For example is the number 7 random?

I am not sure which questions you are researching or if you understood my comments about the role of master clocks in circuit design. A further thought occurs, that has no parallel in circuit design. Some of the radioactivity released as a result of decay is in the form of gamma radiation, ie electromagnetic. Again if there was such a thing as a master drum, I would expect evidence that these rays are in phase since they start at the same time.

Are you thinking about something like the master clock used in most logic and digital circuitry? One of the difficulties circuit designers have had to overcome is the time it takes for the master clock pulse to reach different parts of the circuit. If a particular clock pulse is meant to trigger two (or more) different events in different parts of the circuit at the same time then this transit time can become important. The way conventional circuitry overcomes this is by holding back the next event until all the processes have finished. This effect could be observed in radioactive decay time constants in different locations if there was a master clock. So far as I am aware no such time constant jitter has ever been observed, and many laboratories have performed these measurements of huge timescales and distances as far as Man has been able to reach.

Yes, as I thought I had misplaced a 1 in the arithmetic somewhere. Upon doing it more carefully I find Meyer is unsuprisingly correct. I have attached the solution but a few words might may be appropriate as I have adopted a format and notation that helps keep order with this type of problem. The posh mathematical term for the connection is ' the event' and for the open circuit is 'the complementary event' A less posh term is success for the event and failure for the complementary event. These terms refer to the entire network ( between nodes L and R in this case) but reappear in subsections of the network as 'elemental events' I have used capital letters to denote the whole network or major subsections and lower case to denote elements. So S is success for the whole network and F is failure. S1, S2, S3 and F1, F2, F3 refer to the three main branches si and fi refer to the individual switches 1 through 6. So we have the basic relation S + F = Si + Fi = si + fi = 1 and we use this and apply the assigned probabilities pi ( all the same = p in this case) To transform back and fore between success and failure as needed.

I thought telegraph poles alongside bullet train tracks were bent over sideways by the wind from passing bullet trains, like trees in the prevailing wind.

Petulence is no substitute for well reasoned, temperate presentation

Let us examine the physics of what you have claimed. A travelling magnetic field produces a unidirectional voltage, not an oscillating one. A waxing and waning magnetic field that is not travelling produces a purely oscillating voltage. A magnetic field that is both travelling and waxing and waning produces an oscillating voltage superimposed upon a unidirectional one. I do not see this in your equations, as they stand. Of course, if you are correct, you will be able to reproduce a proper reasoned argument supporting your claim. Do you know what radiation resistance is? It is certainly not the resistance of a conductor. I am waiting for you to prove yours claims since you are the one making them and so far the claims I have examined have turned out to be bunk. For instance your rude claim about famous professors from Harvard, MIT, Manchester, Southampton and the Director of the Ohio State Radio Observatory.

Since R = 0, congratulations you have succeeded in dividing by zero.

Well humour me because I think you have misread some basic physics. Most texts on Electrodynamics , (eg Kip, Griffiths, Sears, Kraus, Plonus, Carter, Hammond) only derive the case I referred to where there is a current flowing in a conductor moving through a magnetic field, along rails shorted at one end. This involves a steadily increasing area and the current is the loop current. Since the loop is made of theoretically perfect conductors no voltage is generated. The EMF is the loop EMF. The only text I know that properly covers an open circuit conductor moving through a magnetic field is Grant and Philips. They cover both the above current generation situation above and the voltage situation where the conductor is open circuit. Of course, in the open circuit situation no current can flow. This was why I asked you to amplify your equations and their conditions of applicability.

I hope I explained it well enough, please let me know if not, it is difficult to put the idea into words.

That was not an answer, since you cannot have a current unless the conductor is shorted.