studiot

Senior Members
  • Content count

    6937
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    33

studiot last won the day on June 12

studiot had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1112 Glorious Leader

About studiot

  • Rank
    Genius

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Somerset, England
  • Favorite Area of Science
    applications of physical sciences
  • Occupation
    Semi Retired Technical Consultant
  1. I once had a teacher who said " The more times you write something down, the greater the danger is that you will remember it." So here goes. When I was at university in the 1960s I started taking some scientific magazines. I soon encountered your problem, but worse because there were many things I could not (fully) understand or realise the significance of. So I got a pack of 6" x 4" cardex cards and started an index. The card headings were initially conditioned by the subject titles in the mags. New cards were started as new articles arose. Later I learned to add particularly useful bits inside some of the articles. So I started with say the card power supply. This was followed by a new card just for regulators Eventually the cards were stored in a suitable card drawer. I have kept this up ever since and continued widening the scope. Cross reference cards were also introduced to help searching. Sometimes photocopied articles from other sources were added and stored in File boxes. Some revision was also undertaken as I gained knowledge and experience. The cards were colour coded according to subject type so when I started wrting down the titles etc of books I thought worth noting I used pink cards. So I have generated a wide ranging library of articles and knowledge going back to the 1960s as a result, that is easy to extend and modify as you go along.
  2. Stop arguing and get on with it. Never argue with the ref.
  3. Of course it's possible. But, like your glasses every prescription would be individual and different. To date I only know of it being done for optical astronomical telescopes that use mirrors. But this is at enormous(tachio ) expense. With the technology of modern flexible coatings for clothing, I can see it being possible more cheaply but would still need the personal tailoring part. Since this modern technology enables wearable computers, perhaps it could incorporate an adaptive solution.
  4. Endy definitely deserves a +1 for spotting this. Matt you can clcik on the heart at the bottom right of the post to upvote someone's post. As a matter of interest how would air get into the pipe if the oil stopped? The pipeline will contain air when it is first laid and perhap gas if it is used for gas transmission at some point. You may wish to know that it is common to pump water through subsea pipelines in the absence of oil or gas. Also water is pumped into the geosubstrate to help remove the maximum quantity of oil/gas. You have to fill the pipes and pores up with something.
  5. Your figures are very different from the widely accepted graph I posted and therefore need substantial backing so please explain.
  6. Maybe I am wrong, but I think CharonY was saying "The content is independent of the discussion etiquette, or should be." And she was specifically talking about discussion on this forum, not some larger picture. How often has the intial response to a post been antagonistic ? (Not yours in particular, but someone's) And yes I would agree if you said that some invite such response, perhaps even 'deserve it'. But equally many do not and hold, and more importantly present here, sincere if misguided views.
  7. I fail to see what any of this has to do with discussion etiquette on Science Forums? Please educate me if this is not the case.
  8. The Heisenberg principle is a direct result of the mathematics. The quantity of interest is the product of two quantities, but that product does not commute. That is AB is not equal to BA so the result depends which you take first. #That is Uncertainty 101. Incidentally there is a similar uncertainty in the same quantities in classical mechanics for the same reasons, they are just trivially small in the classical case. Edit But 'uncertainty' is not probabilistic ans Heisenberg is not the reason QM is probabilistic, which is why I said it to be a red herring here. QM descibes probability distributions for aggregates of energy states and their populations, as Boltzman in thermodynamics. There are several distributions available, including Boltzmans. That is what makes it probabilistic. /Edit Bells has no such 'proof' in mathematics. It is the result of observation and the results could have gone the other way without breaking the mathematics. This is similar to the Michelson Morely experiment in Relativity, determining the presence or absence of aether.
  9. Again, Yes, (but some things are unpredictable, yet can be measured afterwards.) Yes Yes.
  10. @Delta1212 and Lord Antares There is a difference between prediction and measurement. Not only can we not predict certain properties of an individual particle, we cannot measure them either. So we can never fully know this data. But for many properties that we cannot predict we can measure them and then know the data. QM is a red herring here.
  11. 1) Yes and 2) Yes There is a difference between random and probabilistic (and all of probability theory). 1 is a random number, as is 15, 328 and many more. But ithey are all quite definite, there is nothing probabilistic about them.
  12. Some have replied to something I didn't say yet we managed a civil conversation. Others actually replied to my words, again resulting in a civil conversation. Two posters chose to attack the person rather than hold any sort of conversation about the words. I asked a question in the title of this thread. I apologise it appears to be missing the question mark. Clearly my fault. I asked my question because it seems to me that the preponderance of non-scientific posts in this forum is growing rapidly. And too many of the originators of non-scientific threads offer the 'reasoning' along the lines of; "It is too much of a coincidence, so that must mean intelligent design" And all to often then revert to preaching mode. For the record, I agree with swansont's terse point. "Coincidences happen."
  13. I like the way you have hardened up on facts, I was getting worried this thread was getting wishy-washy, handy-wavy rather than logical. and yet and yet if your board is made of suitable paper, water will run uphill in/on it. This is a direct consequence of statistics and is amenable to statistical mathematical theory. and yet the theory of evolution is a direct counterexample to Cladking's "against all odds", if indeed one was needed because that is a logically self defeating statement since as you have already points out, all odds must include the odds of something not happening as well as happening. I say again I agree that your grey area is enormous and that most things happen for statistical reasons in this grey area. And further that much of that statistics is amenable to proper mathematical analysis and quantification. Take for instance chemical activity, which is going on all the time in the world around us. Its scientific analysis based on two aspects of mahtematics. Firstly the deterministic laws of macro-thermodynamics tell us if such and such a reaction can happen. But the statistical laws of reaction kinetics (which are based on the chance meeting of the relevant molecules) tell us how fast it will happen. So once again, don't sell your idea short.
  14. Feel free to demonstrate your claim by proving that every one of the dozen to a dozen and a half statements in the article are false.