studiot

This problem kept me quiet for a couple of hours with a paper and pencil, the first time I did it Fill in the missing digits marked X Note that none of the Xs are a 7 and that the substituting digits must appear in the places shown. Since folks are just going to look up answers I will not attribute it for the moment.

No, but there are some that show exclusively one or the other such as the direction of refraction (wave). http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/refrn/Lesson-1/The-Direction-of-Bending or the photoelectric effect (particle) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect You should note that Schrodinger's equation is not strictly a wave equation at all, so quantum explanations need not suffer the demarcation.

I have already noted that this thread is chasing its tail because folks keep proposing alternative experiments before concluding the one in hand. If you wish to discuss Einstein's train then fine.

Quite frankly I don't see the relevance to the topic of this thread. Again I can't see the relevance of scale, although SR acts macroscopic scales. Further if it is fundamental it doesn't matter whether it is a usual or unusual application does it? You seem to be dancing away from the point and I don't know why since I am not disagreeing with you (not agreeing either) I'm only trying to clarify. You may like to know that the two properties I listed are considered equivalent to Einsteins first SR postulate.

Question 1) Do University Professors prefer the use of the words Please and Thank You, or their equivalent? Question 2) In a knockout tennis tournement there are n contestants. How many matches need to be played to determine the winner?

I don't know, because I'm not quite sure what you mean. Why do you need to qualify what you 'take for granted'? Incidentally did you read this comment I made to Christopher including a reference to your own posts?

Yes I understand one man is knocked down and killed on our roads every 4.3 seconds. I also understand that he is getting mighty fed up about it.

This thread is going nowhere at approximately 0.99999999999c because no one seems to want to stick to the point and complete discussion of the first proposed 'experiment', rather prefering to introduce alternative experiments. Comstocks experiment or Einsteins? I could just as easily observe that Einstein introduced the formula E = mc2 in 1905, some 24 years after JJ Thompson introduced the formula E = 0.75melmc2

So why didn't you comment then? I only offered two principles.

Christopher, Einstein's description has rather more hidden depths than perhaps you have given him credit for. It avoids the obvious trap that Robin's proposed alternative experiment falls into and that Le Repteux (rightly) objects to. Namely that you do not and should not try to arrange an experiment that requires a trigger, since information cannot travel faster than c. Einstein does not (as far as I am aware) explicity state this, but what he does state circumvents the issue in two ways. The reader is meant to work these out for himself. Firstly the lightning event is a chance event and by chance, happens just right for the experiment. Secondly matters can be confirmed at leisure post event.That is both the positions of the observers and strikes can be measured subsequently. Now ask yourself where does the lightning come from? Does it come from a universe moving alongside the train? Or does it come from the universe where the track is sited? Or does it come from another universe altogether? Please ask any questions you need to clarify my comments and answer the question (three choices) I have asked at the end. Using that answer I can explain Einstein's train experiment to you.

Your thesis? This is a discussion forum. I did not understand what you were posting so I asked for more information. That is the way discussion works. By contrast you say (now) that you did not understand what I said (fair enough) but you did not ask for more information, but instead made dismssive comments using 'my thesis', to ploughi on as if I had made no comment at all.

Le Repteux I am at a complete loss to understand how your post#71 was a reply to my post#67, as the quote would suggest. By fundamental I was thinking principles like:- The assumption that Space is isotropic (or not) The assumption that Space is homogeneous (or not) I can't see how measuring things with light or not measuring them this way is relevent or more fundamental. Personally I always measure space in glogs where 1 glog = 1.732/pi metres. So come on, what principles of Physics are you desireous of keeping and what are you willing to give up?

I see Google also identified maskinnik dot Kom. domain.

Having accessed SF in my normal manner this morning I have not seen any more issues. It is most unusual for me to access SF via Google so I cannot comment on this route. Clearly a recommendation for my antivirus. Dave/Capt Later on this morning I will try out the forum using an unprotected version of Windows (I can do this easily) and report. Cheers

I clicked on the "View New topic" option to go to the next thread. That worked OK, but as the list came up so did the warning. I have tried it again a couple of times but see no warning now. I don't think I will get the warning if the site is now blocked though. As I said any help I can give is all yours.

@ Le Repteux Can you explain or state what you consider the principles of Physics is supposed to be founded on? I am not asking if you agree or disagree with it, just what principles do you think are more fundamental than relativity, and from which whatever statement or model is generated should flow.

Let me have an allegedly infected page link (by pm if you like) for test. My sensors have not tingled about any thread I have looked at except the one I reported recently as spam. Edit nothing detected upon leaving this thread, but immediately upon leaving this thread (85514) the following detected.

Do you not need an agent or source of disturbance, in short an energy source to power the action? If not plumes then what?

Oxbridge (what we call Oxford or Cambridge) have long had a policy of interview to separate apparently academically equal candidates. They have also always reserved the right to accept candidates that do well in their interviews, regardless of High School grades. But they do ask some very searching questions at those interviews to test the candidates ability to survive the Oxbridge system.

The technique you require is called two way analysis of variance. Here are some references https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=two+way+analysis+of+variance&hl=en-GB&gbv=2&oq=&gs_l=

Christopher, I am sorry I though you wanted to discuss the wider issue of the basis of Special Relativity, because you introduced them in your mammoth first post. However I see that perhaps I misunderstood and that all you want to do is discuss the logic of Einstein's train example. If this is so can you please state (in not more than 5 lines please) what is your objection? Never mind repeating the practical details of the experiment we can take those as read. I have come to the conclusion that your difficulty is one of English, not logic or maths and can be quickly resolved as such. Robin, I also have a question for you to consider about your experiment. You would have to grant some extra special powers to implement your experiment since it seems to require instantaneous communication over some distance. How else could the flasher be arranged to operate at precisely the right time? Talking of lights on the track. Government Notice To Save Energy the Light at the End of the Tunnel Will be switched off until further Notice.

No sweat, Tyler, and good on you for enthusiasm. OK so I said friction has several causes. Imagine two surfaces coming close together, but not quite touching. Say we are placing a block of something on a table. As we bring them together there must be a first high point that touches. So all the weight of the block will be supported on this one point of contact. So the point of contact squashes out since it is not strong enough. As it squashes the block lowers and a second and then a third etc point of contact occurs. This keeps happening until the contact area is just enough to support the weight of the block. This accounts for the first observaion of friction. Friction is independent of the surface area of the contact face of the block. (Simply becasue not all the block is in contact). Depending upon the materials of the block and table the contact points may actually be semi welded together. Now imagine trying to push the block sideways. You will encounter a force of resistance. Part of this resistance is due to the bond between the materials touching. But perhaps this is partly due to interlock (some high points sticking down into low points and catching when you push sideways. This second mechanism accounts for why rougher surfaces have greater friction. Finally the above assumes the block and the table material are rigid. But if they are flexible then energy is lost flexing the touching points, like a toothbrush. Is this a good start?

Christopher, it is your thread and you are putting in an enormous amount of work. So I can only assume you are really interested in developing an understanding of SR. I have already commented on your four assumptions, axioms, call them what you will. In particular number two. Note I have not said any are wrong or right, just offered to discuss whether they are necessary or the best group of assumptions. Do you wish to listen as well as preach?

Tribology (the science of friction) is a huge subject. Yes, indeed rubber surfaces often have an enhanced friction. It's all about energy. But give us a clue, where are you coming from?

So you have published a link to a commercial organisation that takes money for a registration process in the UK? How does that affect UK law?