studiot

In the words of the late MRD, A Doctor, turned Lawyer would say that wouldn't he? (No offence meant but the quote was too good to miss). But seriously, you miss my point. Termination, Belgian style, at the point of access (first contact) would remove the need for both a health servece and a judicial system in respect of these, not that either would have made any difference. Most people simply want them stopped, before they do any damage.

In the very first line of my very first post I started off by observing that the death penalty is not a deterrent. I think that lengthy imprisonment is not one either. I think we all agree this. But there was more to my first post and I would like to concentrate a bit on that. In other words I am less interested in retribution than in preventing more good people having to die just to allow wrong thinking people to have their misguided way. If we don't shoot mad dogs, what do we do with them to prevent recurrence?

Pozessed, you should be careful how you view this since Strange is not saying (I hope) that light is an oscillation of already existing fields. The whole point is that it is a phenomenon it relies on interdependent magnetic and electric fields so the magnetic field varies and generates a varying electric one, which generates a varing magnetic one which generates a varying electric one................and so on. This is how a light ray can progress into space that did not contain any fields. In effect you can say that light carries its own medium with it.

Wire is specified by it's cross sectional area, not its diameter. Even electricians often get diameter and cross sectional area mixed up. 0.5mm2 is the lowest European and UK standard mains wire size and carries a 3 amp rating and this lamp or bell wire looks rather like yours so I guess you have 5m of standard bell wire. This calculator shows that 5m of this wire has a resistance of nearly 0.2 Ohms so measuring this on the 60 Megohm range is inappropriate. You need a low ohms range and not all meters will go that low, which is why I said you need a longer wire. http://www.epanorama.net/index.php?index=calc_cable Note in the screenshot that they call it wire diameter (wrongly) like many electricians, but they have the correct units of cross sectional area. For stripping the insulation off the wire if your school has that meter, does it not have wire strippers? Alternatively try nail clippers. Use these lightly to only cut the insulation, not the wire. I won't recommend a knife as they can be dangerous to use.

Overnight we have again seen gun battles between the state and terrorists, which ended in the death of the terrorists. Last time there were also police killed. So should the state never take a life?

Well I would say your meter is indicating 'overflow' because the resistance is so high that it can't be measured. I would say that is because it looks like (in photo1) you have only connected your croc clips to the insulation around your wire, not to the wire itself. BTW I'm not sure you will get enough variation with temperature to show on your meter. I would think you would need several hundred metres to see any effect with the sort of wire that appears in your photo.

It is always tempting to say Look how clever builders, writers, painters etc were in the past. But remember all we see today of their output are the successes. The mediochre to failures have long crumbled away and been lost or discarded. Many cathedrals today have history displays and it is suprising how many of them fell down (at least in part) in construction. The same is true of many bridges. So I expect castles were little different. The only other comment I have about the foundations is that they tended to be built on raised ground (like Edinburgh Castel) for military reasons. And often the ground is raised because it is harder/stronger than the ground around it (Edinburgh is famous for the volcanic rock it is built on).

Please note that Strange (and modestly myself) made the point that they were not 'claims', they were hypotheses. There were several hypotheses and the scientists of the time knew they did not know which was correct (although all had their favourites). So they applied the scientific method - they conducted experiments to test and find out. Subsequent scientists, being sceptical so and so's, conducted more and better experiments which confirmed the original results. They thought 'What would counteract, negate or otherwise make our hypothesis wrong' (ie they tried to falsify it) and they came up with the aether drag, amongst other things. Whilst there have been all too many examples of dishonesty in Science (even in recent years), this was not one of them.

Yes I improved the setup by relaxing the simultaneity requirment, but I didn't say any such thing as you suggest about separation. That d is never zero is the one thing I have affirmed in each and every post. Every experiment ever conducted, thought or actual has always been selective. Clearly the trick is to realise what matters and what doesn't. However I am not trying to rewrite physics, merely explore the consequences of something we both know has been achieved in the lab, viz the anihilation of a charged particle by its antiparticle. I am sorry I do not have Caltech's ability to produce fancy (or even simple) video, but relative motion is relative motion so either the charge or the field (or both) could be moving. In this nice video from Caltech about the expanding relativistic discontinuity about a moving charge, imagine the expanding bubble is empty because the charge has been extinguished by antimatter. Prior to the anihilation the field is as shown, but then it is wiped out by the expanding empty bubble. Is this a viable model? http://www.tapir.caltech.edu/~teviet/Waves/empulse.html

Dragged aether = dragging up the past. The whole theory was given considerable thought and properly evaluated and tested and found incorrect a long time in the past.

It's difficult to discuss in the face of overdramatic language. Two charges are separated by some distance d, measured in any way you choose, are destroyed sequentially by being brought into contact with their antiparticle. What you appear to be denying is that physics forbids you to ever destroy any charged particle this way, under any circumstances. This, of course, does not conform to observed reality.

Hmm, let me see I do believe I specified that the two charges are not in relative motion, ie d is constant, in the first part of post#1 Since there is no relative motion between them the exact centre point will be the same in all reference frames. Not that it really matters, the experiment would still offer a question even if one was destroyed before the other. The second part of post#1 dealt with the situation where they are in relative motion, although the issue still remains

No I disagree post#1 was correct. [math]d \ne 0[/math]

Is this, by any chance, a saddle functional?

Of course it is, and wouldn't it be a louis armstrong world if everyone implemented that. The problem is the real world where we can make the trivial divide into those who will and those who won't eat tapioca pudding, but can't do the obvious.

Thank you for your contribution, Zet. Interesting (though not suppose unusual) that someone else has has a similar idea. elfmotat I see no simultaneity issues with antimatter annihilators in a thought experiment. However I am sorry that I should have allowed the destruction apparatus in the thought universe. So pointing such issues out is how an idea develops.

Yes I can confirm that the power is 10.19 watts, by another method. PE lost by 3kg mass = KE gained by system + Work done against friction. From the figures given 1.5*3*9.81 = 0.5*5*(3.8)2 + WF 8.045J Power = WF/t P = 8.045 *3.8/3 = 10.19watts. I agree with your acceleration and time calculations, again by a slightly different method. I am looking more closely at your method to see if I can spot the error.

You should always remember that our simplifications are models or idealisations. As such they have limits of applicability, so always be aware of the conditions of applicability of your model.

In general it is the shear strength, not the tensile strength that is important with adhesives.

Well your colleague is having a joke at your expense. "pounds per ton" is not a measure of strength. Strength could be measured (calculated) in pounds weight or tons weight under for a standard size and shape of sample. You might like to think about the strength of rope or fishing line which can be specified in pounds, meaning the force required to break that rope or line.

Personally I think the number zero is the most interesting since all other numbers can be constructed from it, without the need for any arithmetic. I do not know of any other number for which this is true. It is also a proper member of most sets of numbers (unlike infinity).

Well yes quite a lot more is required to even formulate your question properly. Firstly the strength of the tissue and the strength of the fibres themselves are different things. Which do you want?

All three of Newton's laws always apply in classical mechanics. But you need to apply them correctly. Solids are often considered as a single body for the purpose of mechanics. But this only works if the applied force is not sufficient to break up the body. If the force is sufficient to break the body we have to consider the pieces individually as single bodies. With liquids and gases even a small applied force will penetrate and therefore break up the body. But if we consider the individual fluid particles then Newton's laws work. As to editing, I find that sometimes the edit button that you see at the bottom of your post does not work properly. If you click the edit button then go to Use Full Editor, the edit button works then

Most people want to have as little to do with them as physically possible, especially if they are killers.

Tim. since you are online, I had a couple of discussions with you, but discontinued them when you attacked me, even though I actually supported your view. My support is not uncommon as I often support the underdog when I see 'ganging up', even if I don't agree with his argument.