studiot

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

The equations governing speaker motion and their coils and driver currents are not simple electrical equations. There is a mechanical equation to take into account as well.

I presume you are referring to the iodine content? As a matter of interest sea salt was quite a bit more expensive than mined salt when I was a child, but they are roughly equally priced in my local supermarket today.

These extensions go way beyond the original kinetic theory of solids, liquids and gases to extend to 'gas like' entities such as the 'electron gas' in solids, particles in disperse systems and much much more.

That is an unusual goal and you have't said why particularly organic chemistry (you presumably know what that is), but I see you have an interest in nutrition so I am going to suggest a good all round chemistry book from an unusual angle that might suit you. You can dip into this at very elementary level or take it up to quite detailed level in organic chemistry. Chemistry for the Health Sciences Sackheim and Lehman Macmillan Sackheim is also responsible for 'Chemistry for Biology Students'.

There is no such thing as an 'electromagnetic field' where there is one single field of combined electric and magnetic quantities. Electric and magnetic fields are different. Magnetic field line have no ends, they can only form complete loops. Electric field lines start at a charge and either go on to infinity or end on another charge. However electric and magnetic fields can interact to form what we call and electromagnetic field. This is really two fields intimately tangled up with each other.

The short answer is I don't know, but there is not such thing as an 'energy vortex'. Energy is not a sort of fluid that can possess a rotating structure like a vortex. That property is reserved for particles en masse.

Welcome and go well in your future. But please remember this. Astronomy/Cosmology and related disciplines have seen many changes of theories over the last century and will doubtless see many more over the next. At your stage by all means take an interest in the subject, but be prepared to find much to unlearn in 10 to 20 years time. Meanwhile you should put some effort into learning the basics (and more) of the Physical Sciences that have been tried and tested over hundreds or even thousands of years and will still be true many year into the future. I know they are less glamorous but they are also essential.

There is no such force as centrifugal force. It is an imaginary force introduced as a mathematical device to transform a dynamic situation into a static one, to make the maths more convenient. There is an acceleration called centripetal acceleration. This is provided as a real force by some agent eg gravity or tension as a real force. (Netwon's Second Law) Forces do not affect heat energy directly.

The sun emits all sorts of energetic particles, some guided by its magnetic field. I am not an astronomer, perhaps one here will link to an energy emissions map.

What makes you think it is isotropic?

Are you not able to reclaim the cost of your action in the US, if you win? I don't think this is usually the case in the UK.

@sidharath I do not feel insulted by anything you have said to me, so if you wish to continue working through SHM I am happy to do so, continuing from my post#18, until we find which one of the various wrinkles about SHM has tripped you up.

This is an imprecise statement, so would you please clarify the ambiguity in what you actually mean. By comparison take the measurement of length by a ruler. The actual length being measured and the lengths marked on the ruler are static and require no motion in order for these lengths to exist or to offer side by side comparison. So in this sense no motion is required to measure length. In particular length does not depend upon motion. However in order to place the ruler alongside the measureand, motion of the ruler is required. In order to view the comparison, motion of the observation photons is required. In order to write down the reading on the scale, motion is required of the pen over the paper. In order for a living measurer to make this measurement, she must breath, requiring motion. So please explain at what level you are making this statement with regard to the measurement of time. This should save a great deal of 'He said - She said' argument.

Tensor mathematics contains a deal of notation designed to achieve compactness in writing. There is also Einstein's own summation notation, dropping the sigma symbol and leaving the reader to understand (guess?) when a sum is meant and when it is not. Unfortunately it takes years to become familiar and comfortable with the notations and, when it comes down to it, they don't reduce the calculative effort one iota. As every engineer knows, the fancy compact notations in the textbooks do not mean that when you want to actually calculate a result you can shortcut. You still have to perform the full calculations kin each direction (dimension).