studiot

This should not be an argument about continuity. The calculus you require for the floor and ceiling functions is called the finite calculus. In this calculus the derivative operator D is replaced by the difference operator [math]\Delta [/math] and the integral operator [math]\int {} [/math]is replaced by the Summation operator [math]\Sigma [/math] You can find out about these and the maths of floor and ceiling function by reading Graham, Knuth and Patashank Section 2.6 deals with the finite calculus and chapter 3 with f&c functions.

Perhaps you would explain how that would produce a force at right angles to the motion?

I'm confused by this. Are you now saying the oceanic ridges were not created, in stages, by upwelling magmatic material? What you you mean by the extraordinary elevation? What is extraordinary about it? And what about my question concerning the pattern of horizontal distribution of rock age away from the centre of the ridge? Once again you have put a lot of effort into unconnected pretty pictures instead of responding to statements by others in this conversation. So how is it a conversation? I posted some examples of useful experiments I thought you might like to do for yourself, but you have not even acknowledged that post. Finally here is another question for you to ignore. The surface of the Earth is constantly going up and down by a measurable few inches. Have you heard of Earth Tides? Here are some measurements. http://www.colorado.edu/ASEN/asen6090/SolidTides.ppt I am rather disappointed.

I am testing a new (to me) tool jrt.exe Anyone got any experience of this one?

Mike here is my concern regarding your vibrating doodads. Newtonian mechanics requires a force acting towards the centre of curvature on any body following a curved path. (If you like it pulls the trajectory in towards the centre off the straight line path) Now you maintain that, as a result of your vibrational dance there is a force which counteracts gravity. So what force is acting to create the partial arcs you describe?

I should start by thinking about what heppens on a non icy sidewalk. As you walk forward your whole body, including your feet has a foward velocity (relative to the ground). You lift one foot off the ground and extend it forwards, placing it back on the ground. What (whose) law says it will keep going forwards? Yet as soon as it touches the ground your foot stops and does not move forwards. So what stops it?

It depends what you understand the words, Entropy, Order and Disorder to mean. That's a rather extreme view. Why would disorder being at a maximum make a system completerly unpredictable? Could there not be a scale of predictability?

CAD software is as accurate as your computer can be.

There was a program called Design View, written for Windows 3.1 that could do what you ask. Mathsoft had a somewhat less capable program, linked to MathCAD, called Imagination Engineer. There are AutoCAD plug-ins that allow AutoCAD to display moving vector resultants, but I can't remember the name. You should reasearch "Linking spreadsheets to drafting programs"

Good morning, pavel. I am not sure why you have resurrected this thread, but the answer to what was wrong with the original reasoning is simple. Inappropriate mixing of information from different frames. There is one and only one frame in which the centre clock can count simultaneity. That is its own frame. The whole train, and everything on it including the end clocks, remain in the frame of the centre clock for the entire experiment. The OP took pains to establish that the transfer of the end clocks from the centre has insignificant effect. Other observers, not any the train, will see the simultaneity differently, ie they will not see it simultaneous, from their point of view (frame). The error in the reasoning is thinking that they should see the flashes as simultaneous in their frame, instead of applying relativity of simultaneity, which is, of course, what they should do to obtain the correct answer.

Many folks have trouble with this because they fail to distinguish between negative numbers and subtraction as a process. Multiplication is not addition or subtraction they are different. Negative numbers are examples of signed numbers. That is numbers with a value and a sign. So the number 5 just has a value (5) The signed number -5 has both a value (5) and a sign -. Again forget any examples involving bank balances for this, they are not helpful. Instead think of your electricity bill. If you have 5 amps flowing we identify the direction by using a sign. So 5 amps flowing from your solar panel to the grid is +5amps; and 5amps flowing into your system is -5amps. Voltage can be reckoned the same way. And power is current times voltage. So the rules multiplication rules are plus times plus or minus times minus makes plus minus times plus or plus times minus makes minus. Using this on our power calculator we have Your voltage is plusV your power is (+5)x(+V) ie positive if you are supplying the grid = +5V watts : So they owe you money and your power is (-5)x(+V) ie negative if the grid is supplying you ie -5Watts : So you owe them money. Sorry did I say forget the bank? It seems they always get you in the end.

I think you guys need to consider when and how did the oceans get there, before discussing 'oceanic crust'. Also what was meant by "the crust was immobile?"

Noting also the the OP is offering 1 hour per day (per subject for 7 years) that would imply an undergraduate spends only 2 hours per day on her Batchelor's degree! More realistic figures I have heard are 10,000 hours study for most subjects at tertiary level, whether they are academic (eg maths) or practical (eg mechanical apprentiship).

That depends upon what you understand a singularity to be and also what you intend to do with it.

Thank you , ajb, I will think about this.

I am not familiar with the differential geometry of more than 3 dimensions so perhaps you would care to comment on the following thought. I agree about the definition of curvature, as in 3D there are two separate (independent) curvatures. Spacetime is, of course, a minimum of 4D.

I would very seriously think about this before proceeding. Relativity is much more reliant on mathematics than your other interest, Quantum Mechanics, and much harder to make 'everyday' without the necessary grounding in ordinary mechanics. So can you say that you know enough about ordinary mechanics to appreciate relativity?

You need first to calculate the total solids, but I am not clear what the units of your organic carbon content are. Then I suggest you calculate the partition coefficient, Kp whichdivides this up between the phases, following the priocedure in this Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) document http://www.epa.gov/superfund/remedytech/tsp/download/issue6.pdf

Since you are interested in Chirality, please not that the term covers more phenomena than just left v right handed -ness.

I suppose there is no reason a chemistry student (is this a chemistry problem?) would know what the standard human body temperature is, though I would think it handy information for anyone. How about 37oC? But watch the two traps in your gas equation.

This book give the most fascinating story of the first use of chirality in explaining the poisoning of an entire town in Germany. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Chasing-Molecule-Discovering-Building-Blocks/dp/0750933461

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31711446 Happy chatting

Gosh I really screwed up that post didn't I? Apologies all round.

Good morning MayIKnow and congratulations for hanging in there with reasoned discussion about your points. So much better than many who come here to ‘discuss’ an idea. +1 I did put up (post#32) a list of properties designed to find out which ones you have some knowledge of, but there has been so much activity in this thread, perhaps you missed it? Anyway to continue the story, I like your bucket of leaves analogy but you (and everyone else) has so far missed one thing from my list. Filtering. Suppose you had a supersnail that threw away every red leaf or every other leaf or every wet leaf? That would also reduce the size of the task. We filter out most of our sensory input. We do not feel or hear out footfall or our clothes moving against our body. We only notice temperature if it goes up or down dramatically and so on. Now I also mentioned the spatial distribution. We receive sound from all around us, but we filter out much of this. Particularly if our other senses tell us that the sound or its source are of no consequence. Whilst standing safely on the pavement we can hold a conversation, ignoring the roar of the traffic we can see passing by. But when we step into the roadway we become sensitive to traffic sounds from behind and the side. Transients again. I note the paper quoted by Acme refers to transients. It also refers to one way how our sensory system can get around physical transmission limits such as Shannon’s theorem and the uncertainty principle is waves. This will lead to a discussion of buffering and multiplexing, but I will leave tha till next time. There is, of course, a second aspect to spatial distribution. Our sense of hearing is binaural – we hear in stereo. Again I will leave the detail till next time. A final observation. Some of the processing is done in the physical world by physical processes. Some is done in the mental world by software processes. Just like a computer.

Well it would be. Look very carefully at your calculation for the area of the stopper.