studiot

I'm sure chikis would be interested in your better way, if you told us what that was.

Then there is enough data to prove it statistically, without generalised hand waving. BTW I am not saying the pH is going up or down or remaining the same. I am asking for some statistical evaluation of the error in any claim. Why do people find this unreasonable for a subject linked to GW, but a requirement for any other scientific claim?

So have you got the distance between the dial gauges or the workpiece length?

But do we? There is an awful lot of ocean, compared to the size of our sampling.

What is the statistical provenance of this data?

Yes indeed it is complicated. Further considering the solubility of an atmosphere of pure carbon dioxide above pure water is very different from the solubility of the same gas in the open ocean. There is substantial discussion of the chemistry here, along with some calculations. http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=398208

I don't understand the question here. What do you have against the kinetic theory and why does direct observation of Brownian motion not substantiate it?

I presume you (and your lecturer) know how to use a sine bar, the parts of the question you got wrong stem from the engineer's method of setting up. Slips should be added or removed until the top surface of the workpiece is parallel to the surface table. This can be done by trial and error or by the following 'quick' method. 1) Set up the bar and workpiece so the top surface is approximately parallel. 2) Take readings from the dial gauges noting the difference and which end is higher. 3) If B is lower than A add slips according to the proportion of the sine bar length to the work length. 4) IF A is lower than B remove slips according to the proportion of the sine bar length to the work length. So where A is 2mm higher than B the slips need to be increased by {2 x (200/w)}mm, to set the workpiece parallel to the table. Where w is the worklength. This gives a new slip height from which you can calculate the sine and thus the angle

You really must make sure you copy accurately from one line to the next This will make things so much easier.

Perhaps that is because they are not arguments in the reasoning sense. You are the one making the claim, not I. As such I am merely testing your chain of reasoning that leads to and supports this claim. Why do you place question marks at the end of claimed statements of fact? This is the first time you have asked for further details. Unfortunately it is founded an a fallacy. You have not shown that there is any requirement or physical law that states a condition must be observable. One of the most basic tenets of physics is that conditions are, in general and Schrodingers cat notwithstanding, the same whether they are observed or not and indeed whether or not an observer exists. That is the basis of all 'Thought experiments' and allows us to construct such experiments where conditions are contolled and specified. That is the basi of the thought experiment you have suggested. This is in direct contradiction of your post# 28 in this thread here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83550-what-is-time/page-2 Where I asked if you where considering just the motion of the observable or including the antics of the observer. No matter, this is a thought experiment so we can continue, by simplifying it further. Let the thought universe contain only one single particle. Now there are no observers. But the laws of Physics must still apply. And that particle experiences time according to Maxwells equations. You have not addressed my points 4 and 5 in my post#36, which contain another answer to your question.

But you are missing a lot of the (boring but essential) stuff in the middle. In the past this would have been provided on well planned syllabuses, whoever taught it. In today's world many syllabuses are poorly planned and many non core subjects only touch lightly on core material, but give the impression they cover more ground than they do.

Don't ask me, I ducked out of this one when, to paraphrase migL's words, you went from kindergarten physics to postdoc physics faster than Usain Bolt does the 100 metres.

No, please don't hit me again officer. Not another another what is time argument no please no.

1) You have again responded by changing the subject, thereby avoiding the main comment in my post (your own contradictory statements). 2) The logic of the above is completely flawed, since it rests upon a unsubstantiated statements (yes you also make them). 3) There is no absolute comparison requirement for either time or distance, or for that matter any other quantity. If there is only one of that quantity in the universe, that is perfectly within the bounds of logical acceptability. If sub division is possible then I can always create comparison by subdivision. 4) You have missed the entire point about duration. It is, in fact, linked to my earlier comment that non motional measures of time may easily be constructed by repeated observation of something that does not change. Such measurement will be outlandishly crude by swansont's standards, but hey it is still possible. 5) There are yet other ways of constructing non motional clocks, base on the statistical activity of unstable isotopes.

It would be even more useful if you would post a proper description of your iteration. Looking at you list of symbols and your iteration equation it is unclear (to me at least) what is being iterated. You appear to be calculating the value of a variable pit+1 , not from the previous pi but from some other iteration involving j, k and n, which appear out of nowhere and are not properly defined. I take it you are looking to use Banach's Fixed Point theorem in some way?

You misunderstand chance. Consider chance as a process that cannot be predicted. This is not the same as the opposite of predictability ie non predictability. Ophiolite has offered an interesting idea, that many natural processes are actually a combination of a predictable element, possibly a non predictable element and also an element that cannot be predicted. +1 Suppose I tell you I am going to write down a number that will be either 1 or 0. Can you predict what number I will write down? Now suppose I also tell you that I will calculate the result of dividing 4 by 4 and write down the result. You should now be able to predict which number I write down. (No chance pure predictability.) Now suppose instead I decide to flip a fair coin and write down 1 for heads and 0 for tails. Can you now predict what I will write down or is chance now involved? Suppose I now decide to flip the coin to decide whether I will flip the coin a second time or calculate 4 divided by four. Is this not now a mixture of chance and predictability? Life is manifold more complicated than these simple examples. Suppose I take a 100kg sample of sand from the beach and mix it up well and divide it into ten 10kg samples. Suppose I now perform a sieve analysis on each sample. Will any of my two samples exactly match? Can you predict the grain size distribution in advance?

Before you start on GR you should be aware that the theory has changed and developed of the course of the last century. A good history of this and the experimental work that went into these changes is to be found here. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Perfect-Theory-Century-Geniuses-Relativity/dp/1408703106/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1407790350&sr=1-1&keywords=perfect+theory

You have you diagram wrong. There are no tangential forces acting. (well almost). The muscle power (and weight behind it) act radially towards the centre, as the athlete leans backwards. The athlete builds up the rotation of the hammerweight by slight angling his inward pull off centre so that a small circumferential acceleration allows him to swing the ball round. As soon as he lets go the hammerball obeys Newton's First Law and flies off at a tangent in a straight line since there are no longer any forces acting on it. The inward acting force is called the centripetal force.

It is interesting to note that you have not responded to my post#17 in this thread and that your post#16 is in direct contradiction to your post#28 in the other current time thread here. Further you have not responded to my comment in post#29 there either. No wonder I am confused by your responses.

In the early 1880s Sidney Ringer showed that the heart of a frog or tortoise would survive and continue to beat for long periods in a solution containing only the chlorides of sodium, potassium and calcium. Following experimentation the following proportions were found best. Na+ : K+ : Ca++ 100 : 1.7 : 1 Further the hearts would quickly die if the calcium was not present. It was later discovered that 1) The relative proportions of these ions was very similar to that in seawater 2) The relative proportions of these ions was very similar to that in the blood of most living creatures. Iodine replacement for chloride is also found in seawater and blood and as a result after the second world war, iodine was added to rock salt in a similar way that other compounds were added to other foods such as bread and margarine to support those that might be missing. Ringer's solution was used for many years in medicine and is still available today, but is more likely to be supplanted by Hartmann's.

Not at all. I find if you don't understand someone else's post the best thing to do is ask what they meant.

In Mathematics yes definitely. In Physics it is not so easy

So I could make a clock of sorts out of any change of state then. Swansont obviously works on the most precise one available, but that is not necessary to achieve some measurement of time.

Are you referring to me as gullible?

I would also be grateful if you would answer my question in post#23