studiot

. It's so much more interesting to trade experiences than insults. Thank you. +1

But not all of them refuse. A couple of years ago we were asked where there was a good place to set up camp by a lone elderly guy on a bicycle. In the end we gave him a bed for the night and it turned out that he was excellent company during the evening. Over dinner, he turned out to be a professor of geology at the University of Otago who was doing the grand tour. One night in the West Country and then on to the East coast where he was heading for Norway in a couple of days.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this. The same words as what ? Really ? Didn't you also say ? You are the one who has misread posts by others (who I note have all taken you to task) . You completely misread my post, which was an answer to a specific and very sensitive post from Markus Hanke. It had nothing to do with dogs or whistling and provided no cause to demand 'reference' in such a peremptory manner. Yes I am aware of some rough sleepers who refuse conventional accommodation (We support a local charity called Open Door which provides this). Please note the emboldened word 'some'. In my original post I used italics, apparently that was not good enough. The actual comment was supplementary to that of Markus, who did not mention the few who refuse, as is the right in English Law.

Thank you for expressing my doubts so clearly +1

The you clearly did not read what I said correctly.

BBC NewsSecrets of birdsongs' 'spectacular diversity' revealedA scientific study has revealed the acoustic secret that connects all birdsong - and it is surprisingly simple

Agreed. And yours is a good answer +1. I would just like to add that some rough sleepers in the UK choose to avoid accommodation available to them.

Indeed yes, and these should be fully explored. But we are not there yet.

A world of caution about politics , journalism and statistics. In the UK, reporting 'Energy' statistics or making policy decisions about them is a variable beast. For some years 'Energy' usage has been measured here by gas consumption, sometime domestic only, sometimes commercial, sometimes both. Both fuel oils and electricity consumption were ignored. Policy rebates such as the winter fuel payment were based on gas consumption statistics. The recent announcement of our wonderful (!*! ?) new prime minister that he was cutting energy bills by removing some tax on 'Energy', refers to electricity bills only. So which 'Energy Requirement' is the OP referring to ?

There, and here is me thinking that D'Alembert's Paradox is just an artifact of oversimplification, that actually yields acceptable results in certain (quite many) cases. But I hope you will agree with me that there is no such thing as an actual point load - it is an idealisation. Yet we apply vector mechanics to them all the time.

I hoped I had provided enough information to explain what I meant about the effect of the impact. If you want more detail please say and I will be happy to oblige. As regards vulcanism, this was nothing new at that time. The Deccan traps eruptions started before Chicxulub and lasted three quarters of a million years, whilst the impact lasted a few hours. Yes I think the Deccan was the second largest known system of volcanic eruptions, the largest being the Siberian traps nearly 200 million years earlier, which last a couple of million years. But also I expect you are aware that human seismology detects activity, on the other side of the world, even from human sized explosions. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aau2422

Yes I'm inclined to support this view. Something that is pretty important to Science in general is the way we knowingly use false models, because they give the right answer. Examples would be Maxwell's mesh currents, Imaginary forces, simplified equations and so on. Is D'Alembert's Paradox a truth a fact or an artifact ?

You don't need to be an expert to understand that the impact wasn't powerful enough have a very big effect on the larger body of the Earth (as a body) , although the effect on life more generally was obviously immense. The evidence for this is that the Earth was not shifted appreciably from its orbit, its spin was almost unaffected, it did not flip or shift spin axis appreciably. It should also be noted that, although by far the largest factor in the extinction, there was also an accumulation over time of other important factors, unrelated to the impact.

I have too much respect for you to want to sound pernickety. What I am doing is sounding a note of caution about oversimplification and the theoretical physicist's habit (pun intended) of packing too much into too few terms, leading to the danger of circular arguments. For instance the term 'states' by itself is not as detailed and precise as the original thermodynamic definition of 'state'. For QM only energy is considered, but then you need a definition of energy, invoking the danger of circular arguments. Considering Relativity v Navier Stokes. By not including compressibility and viscosity variables you will arrive at the conclusion that there is zero force on a circular object in a flow. Physicists would love to drop the Lambda term in the GR packed equation, for the sake of 'elegance', which is a similar mistake (in my opinion). [math]{G_{\mu \nu }} + \Lambda {g_{\mu \nu }} = \frac{{8\pi G}}{{{c^4}}}{T_{\mu \nu }}[/math]

I do think the underlined is an unfortunate example since the word bachelor has (had) several meaning; the original one having nothing to do with marital status. Your point about certainty is on better mathematical ground as one of the meanings of a probability of 1.