studiot

What exactly is wrong? I did not say your sim (a poor mathematical word) was or was not to do with Bell's. You did. And further I posted your exact words stating this. All I asked was for you to do more than state but to derive. Stating does not make something true or untrue If I am wrong and you are right you will be able to point to the exact post number in this thread where you have done this. So how can I be wrong or right when all I have done is asked you a polite question about your work?

I have not seen any mathematical derivation of your theoretical experiment (simulation), starting from Bell's inequality, supplied to date in this thread. You are the one who introduced Bell's inequality so you are the one who needs to establish the link between your work and Bell's. It should be simple for you to do the job formally (mathematically). 1) Define your variables/symbols 2) State Bell's inequality in terms of your defined quantities alone 3) Use any other theorems (explicitly stating them) you consider appropriate to develop the formulae you calculate with in your program. 4) State your results in terms of the Bell's quantities alone and compare them with the inequality condition. You will then have proved your case (or not). I see no reason to expect us to do this for you.

As always, it's what you don't say that's crucial. As I understand the definitions hidden variables are additional variables, not described by the wave function. and faster than light communication means the reach of a change to an observable. This 'change' must include 'no change', a statement which itself implies a paradox.

Don't the experiments show that if hidden variables exist, they cannot be the full answer to the observations, i.e. at least some of the hidden variables would also have to display non local- effects? As I understand it, the condition of violation of Bell's inequality is that an observation that displays this violation cannot be explained by hidden variables alone, not that it disproves (or proves) their existence.

Can I suggest the substitution of the word studying for reading?

Good morning, arc. This is becoming a habit, (though not necessary a bad one and certainly much more agreeable than discussing religion, polotics and such). What I am trying to do is apply the scientific method (my version) That take a premise and examine and compare the options and implications. Given A then what about B compared to C. Would B lead to D whilst C leads to E and so on? What other results are required for A to be true? So 4 and 5 are alternatives to be compared in this way. Since we observe crustal compression now this leads to discarding 4 since it cannot produce contemporaneous observations. 5 leads to the conclusion that something must therefore fill the gaps. No, the hydrostatic pressure at the free surface of any liquid, including magma, is zero. Following the s. method above we need a mechanism for the extrusion of the magma that was extruded in the past (and we now observe as solid) and also that we observe being extruded today. So you must also consider some form of convection, in following the s. method. Subduction is also a stress release mechanism, albeit considerably more complicated, and we can observe it today. However NASA has not reported any physical increase in the Earth's radius, as you state. I did postgrad in geodesy and I am not aware of any measurements to support such an increase. I can assure you that we have the necessary technology to observe this. I'm not saying that the modern view of techtonics is entirely correct, it is and has been evolving and has already been down blind alleys and will no doubt be subject to revision, perhaps major as well as minor in the future. I also still think there is good mileage to be had from following my periodic radius oscillation suggestion, as it would provide pointers as to what to look for. It may be the timescale would be significant. During an oscillation the rate of change of radius will vary and we may not be observing any at the moment because we are in a slow part of the cycle.

Can you quote any reference by Einstein to instantaneous action, in relation to his physics? If you know anything about relativity you would know that the combination is a contradiction of terms.

To those who like to see some religion mixed in with their science diet. Every school teacher allows some non educational activity by her students Every army sergeant allows some horsing around by the squaddies Every foreman allows some privat chit chat etc by the workers But all tighten things when the amount of side activity becomes excessive and detrimental to the main. So what % religion is acceptable for this site?

All transistors are phototransistors, albeit not as good as those specially engineered for the job. So what?

The point of a triple junction is that rotation becomes possible ie it introduces rotational dynamics into plate techtonics. But what is the point of your post for discussion?

What is your basis for this claim?

Yes, cuddly, glove puppet Dave, whom I have always found the most affable person. (The other site referred is AllAboutCircuits, where, at the moment, there is more hard discussion about basic Physics and Maths than here)

Oh dear dear me! Such nonsense I never did see! Please explain to me the logical foundation of the following scientific statements:- A total of 3,144,722 persons earned between $900 and $1000 in the US in 1918. The deepest depth recorded in the oceans is 6.831 miles below sea level. The foundation of science mate, is the hard , hard work involved in painstaking observation and measurement. I know, I've done lots. The logic come later.

So someone finally spotted my irreverend deliberate spelling mistake. The point I am making is that the % is too high IMHO. Other sites seem to have lively technical without religious overtones. Ask Dave, his last site simply bans the subject and is technically lively and friendly with only light touch moderation needed. I have seen folks happily sending speciality technical components and information halfway round the globe, just to help others (and have done so myself), courtesy this site

Unfortunately the figures in my screenshot don't (scientifically) bear this out. View totals by category Other : 348 Religion : 154 Science : 136 With science coming in a poor third.

Again good morning, arc. You still have not understood my point so here are some facts and figures for you. Please understand this is the very crudest 'ball park' analysis that would need some refining. If you wish to start expounding on shell theory I suggest you study the classic book by Timoshenko Timoshenko : Theory of Plates and Shells : McGraw- Hill With reference to my sketches 1) As the ancient 'Earth' cooled the outer layer deformed continuously and plastically until it became solid enough to support direct loads. I will call this the base radius R0 and observe this is in the unstressed state. 2) Following your scenario the Earth expands to radius R1, straining the periphery as shown in the equations and inducing a peripheral hoop tensile stress. In my simple model there are no shear stresses at this point. 3) At some point in the expansion this peripheral stress is sufficient to fracture the crust by cracking. Since the crust is no longer continuous the hoop stress is relaxed. ( I have simplified this to zero). This relaxation induces shear stresses between the crust and the supporting interior. The shortening of the old crust leaves gaps in the periphery. 4) The Earth contracts back to its original radius R0 and the gaps disappear as the disconnected segments of crust rejoin. Note these are unstressed. The shear stresses are reversed but there can be no hoop stress since until the gaps close there is nothing to 'buttress' -your term is as good as any' the disconnected segments. 5) One alternative would be that the Earth contracted to a new radius, less than R0. This would indeed induce compression in the periphery as it subsided under gravity. This is the mechanism that could lead to oscillation. 6) Another alternative would be if the gaps were filled with new solid material, before the contraction began. In this case hoop compression would be induced in the periphery as the Earth contracted. You should note carefully, however that the strain would be different for the contraction and expansion so the compression would not exactly mirror the tension, since the definition base length for strain is different in the two cases.

This will happen more quickly if you don't feed the _____.

Is the science here withering away, this morning's screenshot says it all.

With the greatest respect, you mentioned polishing the concrete in the first place. The only way I know to polish concrete is with commercial grinding equipment, just as any other form of industrial 'polishing' for finishing something. You can obtain a glass like finish this way. If you just mean apply wax polish and buff well sorry if I misunderstood. So commercial grinding would give you whatever finish you seek (it's a dirty, dusty process unless you use spongejet http://www.spongejet.com/technology.php) But you must remove any loose material or the resin will not adhere. Some resins are acid resistant, some are not you need to consult the manufacturer. You can also get acid resistant floor paint systems, sorry I can't remember the names at the moment. Beware all resin coatings generate a lot of heat while setting. Follow the instructions exactly and do not be tempted to apply more thickly than recommended. I have seen some resins get so hot they literally caught fire because the contractor tried to put them on too thickly, instead of building up in layers.

3. something else

Simplified? [math]\sqrt {{V^2} - 2gtV\sin a + {g^2}{t^2}} [/math] Good luck in your exam.

presumably d is given in m/s since it is a velocity. Have you drawn a diagram aand calculated the time of flight? Velocity at time t has components Vcos(a) and [Vsin(a) -gt] Hence total velocity at time t is [math]\sqrt {{V^2}{{\cos }^2}a + {{(V\sin a - gt)}^2}} [/math] which can be simplified.

+1

Stop spilling acid Ha I like it. To dream the impossible dream. I further assume that the resin coating is to protect the concrete against further damage and will itself be acid resistant. Therefore in the future spilt acid will remain unneutralised and a potentially hazardous. In those circumstances, bicarbonate neutralisation and washing off would be beneficial.

The problem with using water is that the OP has said there is limited time. I expect the resin coating they intend to apply requires a perfectly dry surface to bond to or it will fail. I cannot honestly see the need for the bicarbonate. We used to use sulphuric acid to clean off concrete from tools and it acts very quickly. So quickly that there will be no caustic residue left on the concrete. Any damage will already have been done. I further assume that the grinding is to remove the loose (damaged) material to provide a sound surface for bonding. So once again, why not just grind it out?