Ghideon

Hello @Owen Martin Ok! Your suggestions does not seem intuitive to me, even without using math i get: -If the goats were identical and not possible to tell apart, would that change the possibility to win a car? No -If instead of goats there are nothing behind the two doors so that an example is Car/Empty/Empty, would that change the possibility to win a car? No The 4 possible outcomes does not have the same probability. It seems you think it is a 50/50 chase of picking the car in the first selection. That does not seem intuitive since there is one car and two goats. I prefer to use math to show that 50/50 is incorrect. But I think it is can be fun exercise to see that by intuition a 50/50 answer seems incorrect. Try this thought experiment: First change the rules as a comparison. Let Monty do the first move and open a door showing one of the goats. Monty must pick a goat, he is not going to reveal the car. Your chance is now 50/50 to get the car from behind one of the two remaining doors. Compare to the original rule is that you must choose first. Monty must now show a goat, he is not going to reveal the car. Now is it intuitive that the outcome is not 50/50 in this case? Intuition may not give the correct answer, but it tells that 50/50 seems wrong since the rules are changed from the case above where the outcome was indeed 50/50. It does not seem intuitive that you have the same chance as in the case where Monty had to remove one of the goats first. Logic and "intuition" can help in the analyse but to get the correct answer I prefer math.

Just trying [math] for the first time... (Vfy)^2=(VisinΘ)^2+2ay⋅Δy [math] V_{fy}^{2} = V*sin( \phi )^{2}*2a_{y}* \Delta _{y}[/math]

Agree, I can't see anything new. Not sure if it means anything but are there other cracks than the large one?

If I put my pedantic head on for a while then your comment dimreepr actually seems like scientifically sound reasoning and not a joke One reason why I asked about freezing in my first post. In the area where I grew up it was not uncommon for subsurface ice to push stones upwards: ref https://www.skogskunskap.se/vagar-i-skogen/drift-och-underhall/slitage-nedbrytning-och-skador-pa-vagen/skadekatalogen---vad-kan-vi-gora-at-vagskadorna/

Some thoughts: The bottom of the crack is very close to what looks like a solid construction not covered by water. Is the part of the wall (that has not failed) resting on top of this structure? See blue arrow in picture. The red arrow shows some sort of structure under water. Does that continue in under the failing part of the wall? If so, is the gap at the green arrow a crack? Does it look like the thing underwater at the red and green arrow has moved down?

Thanks for the update! +1

I am curious; did you find out what happened?

Guesswork from what we have so far: If there was an old wooden wall built before the current one, is it possible that the stone wall was build at exactly the same location? Since the wood under water may have been well preserved it was used as a foundation. Now, after hundreds of years, the old wood is decomposed and cannot support the stone wall. This caused the stone wall section to move almost straight down.

Was the wall built on top of parts of an older structure? An old wooden construction could possibly have supported the wall for a long time. Here is an example; oxygen-poor and humid environment slows down decomposition of organic material.

Is the water frozen in winter? (If the river is near your location in your profile then I guess not, according to a quick googling)