studiot

I'm gald you have managed to convince yourself, since some of your arguments have a plausibility. But, and I don't care who does the translating, a boat is not and never has been a container of water. Unfortunately such a basic blunder can only cast a shadow over other statements of translation. But if you are going to achieve any credence with the modern engineering community, you need to speak to them in a language they will understand, and further not try to tell them that it is easy to move multi-tonne objects hundreds or even thousands of metres basically horizontally but generally uphill.

Do you mean is it possible for some person to believe simultaneuosly in Genesis and the Big Bang? Yes I think some individuals do just that. Or do you mean do I personally .... ? Actually I find both about equally unsatisfactory. But then I asked what is truth and since you did not answer consider this. Truth is what I believe. It is true because I believe it and therefore it is a tautology.

The existence, actions, motivations and powers of deities is not a matter for Science. Oh, and by the way, what is Truth?

You are discussing the area of non overlap.

I don't follow the relevance to either what mig said or what I said. To find the reasons for conflict (the originalOP) you need to list out the substance and purpose of both and look for common areas of coverage. You can only find conflict in these common areas, since each one is silent about the area it does not cover (by definition). So what do you consider these common areas to be? Both disciplines compass large areas that are not common to the other and so far the discussion has centered on these.

That's a delicately political way of describing a rewrite. (or should I have said politically delicate?)

I don't know what happened to the original first question in the OP. This was largely what I answered, and I considered the second about acceleration subsidiary. This is in classical physics and I don't know if relativity was meant to be taken into account, but that needs to be done for bremstrallung and compton scattering etc.

Well I support MigL. Following this I note that all have taken a very narrow view of the substance and purposes of Religion. Mig has widened it out a little, but IMHO still not far enough.

I missed this See Rutherfords Experiment http://chem-guide.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/radioactive-rays-alpha-ray-beta-ray.html

You can't 'perform' fusion on a single atom. You need two. Think about it.

I've never studied this aprticular question, but I would think the answer is yes and I would look at the difference in work functions at the surfaces of the joined metals. An electron crossing this area must experience a change of energy due to the difference in work functions. I guess this would appear as a potential as in semiconductors. I think you can also get this across grain boundaries within the same metal.

Fission and Fusion usually refer to atoms, or more precisely their nuclei. Banging together other particles to create bigger or smaller ones is not normally called fission or fusion. In principle you can 'bang together' or fuse nuclei that are smaller than the Iron nucleus and obtain energy. If you wish to break them apart to smaller nuclei (fission) you would have to input energy. Conversely if you have nuclei that are larger than Iron you can obtain energy by breaking them apart, and have to input energy to bang them together to make a larger nucleus. You cannot obtain energy from iron by either fusion or fission.

1) Check out Poynting Vector https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-GB&source=hp&q=poynting+vector&gbv=2&oq=pointing+vect&gs_l=heirloom-hp.1.0.0i10l10.922.7203.0.10344.13.13.0.0.0.0.203.1360.8j4j1.13.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..0.13.1360.rmNrmHmqAjg 2) Yes, deceleration is acceleration with a preceding negtative sign

First class. +1

Of course if you get really desperate there is this website called ScienceForums that has this subsection http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/45-brain-teasers-and-puzzles/

Yes my head is spinning, So I am still unclear whether you are seeking practise problems or discourses on the philosphy of solving problems. There are actually many such discourses aimed at teachers of mathematics and the wider audience, eg How to Solve It by Polya A Five Day Course In Thinking by Edward De Bono As to practise Riddles in Mathematics by Northrop A Notebook of Applied Mathematics by Clarke come to mind Then there is Forever Undecided by Raymond Smolyan and the wonderful set by Ian Stewart Game Set and Math Another Fine Math You've Got Me Into From Here to Infinity

The story of Smeaton's Tower is fascinating in its own right, but its relevance here is that, like the pyramids and masonry arch bridges, it is a gravity compression structure. The Tower was built as a lighthouse on a rock in the English Channel. Smeaton's Tower replaced a couple of previous structures that had not withstood the rigours of the marine environment. It was a masonry structure where all the blocks had to be meticulously fitted together to provide the strength against the battering waves, using their combined weight. It was conceived as being 'grafted onto the native rock' and every block was cut to fit the shape of the supporting natural rock. Because it was built so well it did withstand the conditions, until it was dismantled and rebuilt as a tourist attraction in Plymouth. You ask why the builders of the pyramids needed to level the site and construct a strong and stable support platform for the pyramid. Well perhaps they found this easier than Smeaton's solution of cutting blocks to fit the local topography. Whichever the pyramids obviously have a sound and stable foundation, or they would not have stood so long. Gravity compression structures do not take kindly to differential movements of the foundations. But then, perhaps they killed two birds with one stone (forgive the pun) and created a water catchment basin as well. Every block in the pyramids was transported many many times as far horizontally as vertically. This was no mean undertaking and I did not realise you were discounting this part of the journey. Yes the builders may have had lifting apparatus that lifted the blocks vertically. But I doubt they had apparatus that could lift and translate the blocks as well. It would also have been a lot easier if you had translated whatever word it was to bucket not boat since you are suggesting that the lifiting was performed via counterweight, filled with water. To a modern engineer the term hydraulic lifting implies the use of water pressure not its weight. Finally you ask (apparently rhetorically) why would someone clear a site and then leave it? Well I can point so several such instances within a mile or two here, where sites have been cleared and left for some years. The intention is obviously to one day develop these sites. So all you are describing is readily understood in practical constructiuon terms. But that does not mean you do not have a point. It just shows that ancient and modern builders were not as far apart as is sometimes thought. Which rather strengthens my observation that termporary works are generally removed at the end of construction so you will never be able to deduce what was used from what remains.

Ok I get the picture you are not interested in anything anyone else has to say. Yes your conclusion is possible. But there are others, and as someone who has considerably more construction experience I offered you the story of Smeaton's Tower. It contains the Civil Engineering theory for alternative reasons, which I would think are linked to the reason the pyramids have stood for so long. Did you look it out? Again there are potential alternative explanations. I don't doubt some of the observable detail in what you say but your statements are given to hyperbole and sometimes lead to into the realms of mumbo jumbo that 'pyramidology' is so famous for. Do you have any idea of the true implications if your statement 'perfectly aligned N/S' ? The ancient Egyptians knew nothing of magnetic compasses and the magnetic poles. But they had clear night skies and mapped some stars, including Polaris. Here is the variation of North over a 5 year period, due to the Earth's 'wobble' about its axis (source Bomford's Geodesy) How much do you think it has varied over a 5000 year period? So yes, but all means put forward ideas, but be prepared to test them against practical observations and other credible alternatives. We can then re-examine your claim that the artificial limestone 'pavement' was meant for water collection is the only credible explanation. That is the way to take a few more steps along the road to truth.

'Light blue touch paper and retire immediately' This is the problem, n'est pas? This whole tirade that pours out when someone mentions the word 'ramp'. If you will listen, I will relate the story given by Professor Harvey following his visit to China to study their bridge building program. It concerns the building of a (modern) bridge by the local Womens's Institute, entirely by manual labour (ie no modern mechanised plant). The bridge is a viaduct crossing the flood plain of one of China's major rivers and is several kilometers long.

In all honesty I think you have said a great deal more ( though you were not the only one). This thread could have been cut in half and half again and be much more scientifically useful as a result. I have already acknowledged that I am almost totally ignorant of the linguistic background here so cannot comment on that aspect. Is it more important to arrive at the truth (as equal to a thesis that fits all known facts) or to demolish some one else's ideas?

Strange, can you prove your alternatives and can you say that you are offering cladking a fair hearing? Cladking has contradicted himself many times in this thread, but he has also made many valid points that merit consideration and surely the truth is the nobody knows what actually happened and there remain many unanswered questions. If someone misapplies the quadratic equations formula we do not lay into him but try to get him to use the formula correctly to arrive at the appropriate answer. So it should be with more nebulous thoughts. Looking around at the other threads currently available I see a number of really crackpot subjects plus some that have nothing to do with science. Surely we all wish to promote subjects worthy of discussion?

I suggest you look at the date of the OP on this one.

Area = length times width. If you think about it, there must be a number that multiplies by the width to make the the area. As I said this is always the length of the centre line, which is why engineers use the centre line to measure things. This is a useful thing to learn, not often taught in maths courses.

Maybe this sketch will help - I keep saying draw a diagram. What did you make x? I have shown the centreline dashed. Alternatively you can calculate as you suggest by splitting the path into two pairs so that you do not count the corner areas twice. So say two 8m strips and two strips of length (6 - 2x) So the total area = 2*8*x + 2*(6-2x)*x This comes to the same as the equation at the bottom of my diagram.

Area = length times width. You know the area, you know the width so you can calculate the length.