studiot

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    10019
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Everything posted by studiot

  1. studiot

    What is "Geometry"?

    Yes this is the most important bit. What it is telling you is that all the posh language and fancy terms are really talking about a glorified graph. Just like we drew in junior school, but perhaps a bit more complicated. All the fancy maths is doing is enabling us to pick out or read values from this graph. This is an entirely geometric process in the junior school meaning of the word geometry, and is used by millions of Engineers every day for this purpose. I fully agree. Short and sweet and to the two points. +1 Here this is perhaps the most important bit. "The mathematical definition will differ." Mordred was offering the GR definition as used in GR, (which is also my glorified graph version ) The mathematical viewpoint is entirely different.
  2. studiot

    Plate Tectonics: A Modern Myth?

    Here is what seems to me to be a well thought presentation of the geology of Kamchatka, including a reason for the two different mountain ranges (Not the one I wondered about). One range is a sedimentary rock area. But the presentation includes corroboration from various different sources, as should be. It also contradicts the previously held theory about the geological history of Kamchatka. It also includes some good detail of the solid geology, much bettr than my small scale atlas maps. Well done the University of Oregon (who are noted for their geological knowledge and prowess) This is a good model of the correct, scientific way to do it. https://pages.uoregon.edu/bindeman/Kamchatka-shrimp.pdf
  3. Takazu Seki, pioneer Japanese mathematician, accountant and chief of the National Bureau of Supply b.early 1640s Edo or Huzioka, d. 1708 We had a long discussion about this subject in a recent thread. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/116421-definition-of-derivative/?page=3 Many of the references I referred to in my first post here appeared there. You do not seem to have heard of at least some of these.
  4. studiot

    Speed of light

    Are you sure? Isn't it more like filling a cup. You can keep pooring water in but the size of the cup determines when the cup overflows. While the amount you poor determines the amount that overflows, while the shape determines where it goes. Actually as your bus driver, not a penny less would apply, but if you want you can put in all the pennies you want. Note - The point of quantum theory does seem to be, simple. My question is what happened in the interim? Maybe on your bus, but not in Aberdeen you can't. If you pay by cash, you have to have the right money. No its nothing like filling a cup. Particularly drop by drop whcih you can do with a cup. The filling is all at once. You cannot add some (a quantum or three) and then some more to make up the total. The observational proof of that was one of the two founding experiments that led to the quantum theory. It is called the photoelectric effect. http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/semester2/c34_photoelectric.html
  5. studiot

    Speed of light

    That's the whole point of the quantum theory. The amount of energy has to be exactly the right amount, like the bus fare on Aberdeen buses. Not a penny more and not a penny less.
  6. studiot

    Plate Tectonics: A Modern Myth?

    1) No, nor are you a Scientist or you would not be relying on one piece of 'evidence' alone. I am trying to help you act like a Scientist, whilst keeping an open mind about your proposals. 2) I did not make this statement, another member did. Please read replies properly beofre you answer. 3) Please be less condescending about the words of others, especially those who are examining your proposals seriously. The animation was interesting because. 1) How can you be sure Asia did not rotate the other way? Afterall the principal plate activity is rotation, not translation and the Asian Plate is not different. 2) I see that your animation contains some actual subduction at the hinge. Whoops!. 3) When you say that the Kamchatka peninsula moves (eg similar to your animation) What actually moves? Just the surface sheet of paper? How deep does it go? This question is important because there are still active Kamchatka volcanoes. As well as long extinct ones So where does the magma come from now? It is one thing to say a whole block of inert rock moves somewhere, quite another for the deep source of molten rock to move with it. 4) Once again you are invoking supernatural forces. 5) Fracture theory. If you are going to lecture me on this topic, please get your terminology ducks lined up. Fracture Mechanics is a particular branch of the subject concerned with the viability and possible propagation of discontinuities within a material especially under what are known as stress concentring geometries, even though the material is well within is theoretical strength limits. Failure analysis is the study of bodies to overwhelming exterior forces cause actual rupture. Failure analysis incorporates brittle, ductile and shear action. You may like to know for instance that the mode of failure of reinforced concrete is ductile if correctly reinforced but brittle if excessive reinforcement us incorporated. This is banned by codes because it leads to sudden failure without warning, whereas properly reinforced concrete will fail gradually.
  7. studiot

    How Voltage is Measured in Circuits?

    Stop right there and follow Sensei's very sensible advice to checkout the basics first. You have this wrong. Voltage is not any kind of energy. (Although it is easy for primary teachers to make that mistake) It takes around 3 million volts per metre to create a static discharge (spark) in the air. This may bite a bite if it catches your finger, but it won't really hurt you. Because the energy involved is minute. Yet a standard 12 volt vehicle battery has more than enough energy to kill a man. So start with Ohm's Law, like everybody else.
  8. studiot

    Speed of light

    Reading the article is better than guessing. You would then find out that the article is additional to the biggie that I first said. I also said that. No it was not to due to gravity. Corpuscular theory require the light to accelerate when it enters a denser medium to meet Snell's Law and the observed fact about which way the light ray bends. Both Newton and Huygens knew this and also knew that wave theory required the light to decelerate to meet the observations. Neither had the means to measure which was true, that came later, as I also said.
  9. studiot

    Speed of light

    Simply , No. Newton's original particulate theory of light (known as the corpuscular theory) predicted that the particles should move faster in a denser medium. This was not disproved until 1750 (Foucault) was able to make comaprative measurements. However Huygens made other less important objections https://www.phas.ubc.ca/~stamp/TEACHING/PHYS340/SLIDES/PDF/P340-08--PP17-Light.pdf Simply refracting light into a denser medium is an observation.
  10. You have references to this? In discussing the OP paper (the purpose of this thread) I note a psarsity of references to Newton and his input compared to that of Leibnitz and the continentals. This bias towards one or the other european originator is common in articles. It is also common to entirely fail to mention Seki.
  11. Of course it does. Harald simply made a mistake. (though please don't ask me why). However he seems to have understood the idea of dimensional analysis since he says he got newtons per square metre instead of newtons for his force, and realised something was up the swannee. This much is good. Remember that acceleration is rate of change of velocity ie rate of change of metres per second or metres per second per second or M0L1T-2 and force is defined by Newtons second law as mass x acceleration which has dimensions M1 x M0L1T-2 = MLT-2 I agree, but sadly that is no longer the case. My guess is that Harald hails from Norway so I don't know their system by I haven't heard it is in advance of the UK's. The bottom line is that too much class time is devoted to astrophysics and cosmology, which are currently more sexy, and not enough to the basics, IMHO.
  12. That is a very good question +1 Inertial frames and inertia are not on the A level syllabus (or similar), which Harald has probably just started. Here is all a standard text says about Newton's law of gravitation and big G v little g. Note it simple says Newton proposed the inverse square law (which is true he did working from Kepler's observed data). This is substantially less than used to be on the syllabus about this. However I think part of the confusion arises from the modern habit/mania of renaming everything to something unintuitive. So the acceleration due to gravity, g has become The gravitational field strength. I have highlighted the important implications at the top of the third page. Note the apparantly different units.
  13. studiot

    Plate Tectonics: A Modern Myth?

    Thank you for replying at last. Your clarification of ductile action is quite a reasonable description. Traditionally ductile action is identified with 'necking' of specimens or real object subject to stress, and this can be seen particularly well in your picture, which is like the simple uniaxial tensile test. However you have not gone into the detail of the subject where not only the stress regime needs to be considered but also the loading regime that brings about that stress. This is important because your rotation proposal for Kamchatka is not simple uniaxial stress. It would need to be more like a giant screw dislocation. You would need to consider the Burgers vector. https://www.google.com/search?q=burgers+vector+in+screw+dislocation&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b You don't seem interested in my references Why is this? They all point to material that is missing from your presentation. For instance the book I referred to contains a treatment of the all important conditions for what is known as the brittle-ductile transition for rock materials. Higher pressures and highter temperatures favour ductility in rocks, although the exact numbers vary from rock to rock. You have not explored this aspect and it is very important. As far as I can see you have simply claimed that a lenticular object (Kamchatka) can be fitted or aligned to a concave or embayed coastline, using paln views at some scale and projection. I am sure that I could fit it to many such bays around the world, from the Hudson Bay, the Great Australian Bight, The Bay of Biscay, the Gulf of Siam, The Culf of Mexico etc etc. Shape alone is not enough. You need to show that the rocks match. And match to depth. The Sea of Okhotsk has volcanic / intrusive activity around most of its margins. But what of the underlying rocks? And did the intrusions match in time? For instance there are a series of (now) low mountain ranges in East Scotland, between Edinburgh and Dundee, that are of igneous orign but the igneous activity was episodic over several tens of million years and overlies the surrounding Devonian sedimentary regime. Compare the ages of the Pentlands, Ochils, Sidlaws. Subsequently major rocks were laid down around the Firth of Forth in the Carboniferous period. Such relative dating should be performed and offered on your 'match points' . That is why I put up the geological data I have on Kamchatka. Obviously I have access to better data from Scotland.
  14. Agreed 100% Yes all agreed and well put, from a professional in the field. +1
  15. Compared to the usual rambling rants against the establisment this paper was clean and tight, with good references. All in all a worthwhile addition to the knowledgebase on this subject and a reminder that no subject is static and that fashions come and go, even in Mathematics. A pleasure to read, I did not know there was/is a movement to re-examine the history of this subject in the light of modern thinking and I can personally vouchsafe the value and veracity of your opening sentence in most disciplines. Nor it seems did wtf. My library goes back to the earlier period you speak of , so I will be comparing some of the texts from that time So welcome and +1 for introducing an interesting subject.
  16. Read Harald's personal introduction. So how would you explain it at that level? Would inertial or any frames be on your syllabus?
  17. studiot

    Plate Tectonics: A Modern Myth?

    Since you are unable or unwilling to expand point (1) on your list, can we assume you have abandoned this claim about Kamchatka and move on to proposal number (2) ? So please explain exactly what you mean by ductile fracture ? Please note this is a serious question, despite your insulting comments towards conventional geoscientists imputing that ductility is not considered. Here is a short extract from the chapter on ductility in a more technical standard work. Structural Geology Hobbs, Means, and Williams (1976)
  18. studiot

    Plate Tectonics: A Modern Myth?

    +1 Sensei for a first class example. Di you know that the first recorded example in history was given by Aristotle? As regards intelligence in general and intelligent design in particular I hope Doug is not intended to introduce these red heerings from another ocean. However he has some potentially worthwhile ideas well worth the effort of looking into. Standard plate tectonics leaves many unanswered questions. Here is some very recent work on plumes.
  19. studiot

    Melting point

    I thought you wanted an answer to this. John Cuthber's answer included nearly the full complexity. Mine started more simply, leading to the all important difference between melting of a pure substance and a mixture. The all important difference is that for a pure substance, the chemical composition does not change on melting, but for a mixture it does change. Obviously I can stop wasting my time.
  20. All heat flow is unidirectional. That is the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics. I can't see how my description can be interpreted as a column? Did you understand my calculations, they were only an engineer's 'ballpark' type?
  21. studiot

    Plate Tectonics: A Modern Myth?

    I am sorry, I understood your original words to mean that you were using actually measure distances on your diagrams, not some values you have adjusted by means not disclosed. As regards the language I would prefer the words convexity and concavity to be used in preference to simply cavity. Cavity on its own has 3 dimensionsal implications and could easily be misunderstood. I didn't say there was a need. I said offered an alternative method of achieving the same results. Any proper scientific analysis must be able to discount these scientifically, not with a contemptuous wave of the hand. Again your words appear to hide any adjustments you may have made to the diagrams. One thing in particular strikes me. I asked you about conformal (shape preserving) projections of your maps . You did not answer this., however you quote ESRI so here are their published thought on the subject of confomal projections. I suggest you are presenting too much material at once and skimming over far too quickly, jumping about the globe and from subject to subject. Each of these deserves proper detailed consideration in its own right. I note also that you are only looking at surface features and also not including regional geological history. Both of these need to be included, but geological data for Kamchatka is sparse to say the least. Here is some showing the relationship to the surrounding geology and earth movement history. So if you want to have a discussion about Kamchatka, let's have a proper rational one, or I can stop wasting my time.
  22. Note when using these equations that Newton's formula involving big G is only part of the story. It implies that that two bodies cannot be in mechanical equilibrium (Think about it) So there must be other forces acting in any real universe system to allow stable solar systems, orbits and so on. The acceleration due to gravity starts with the assumption that the mass of the Earth is so large compared to a rocket or whatever that all the activity can be attributed to the rocket and the Earth stays still.
  23. No problem this is simple to resolve. :) There are two gravitational constants. The one which appears in Newton's Law of Gravity, which you started with, is given the symbol 'big G' (as you did) and has a value 6.674×10−11 N. kg. m2 This is called the Universal Gravitational Constant. Note the units. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant The second one is called the acceleration due to gravity and is independent of mass. It is given the symbol 'ittle g' This is the one you have used the value of in your working. You would nomally use this in kinematic equations such as v = u + at with the acceleration = 9.81 metres per second2 Does this help?
  24. studiot

    Melting point

    First you need to understand what is meant by melting point. A true solid is a pure substance with a definite chemical composition and a definite (crystalline) structure. Such a substance has a definite single temperature melting point. A substance which does not have a definite chemical composition and/or no crystalline structure will exhibit a melting temperature range. It is common in junior school to compare the cooling curves or softening/melting curves for a wax or resin and a pure liquid/solid such as /water ice to plot this difference. Have you done this experiment?
  25. studiot

    Plate Tectonics: A Modern Myth?

    This author has been 'developing' his unusual views for more than a decade. Here is a 2015 reference. http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/author-claims-solon-invented-sinking-of-atlantis-due-to-dogmatic-views-of-geography A more balanced approach to the Atlantis Myth is found in the book Supercontinent by Ted Nield As regards the material presented in the OP Look at the drawn shape of Kamchatka. To map which projection isn't stated so we don't know if it is a shape preserving one or not, but it reminds me of a French Curve, as used by draftsmen. And any user will know that these are designed so you can wiggle one part of the device to 'fit' almost anything. So it is not suprising that a gently curving convex shape will 'fit' another gently curving concave one. Secondly the OP then states that the Asian cost has to be stretched to fit! Wow. There is plenty of evidence for subduction to be found, but it is not the whole story and indeed modern geologists are delving into This is not to say that plate techtonics is not without it mysteries, eg the well studied and documented New Madrid earthquakes in the centre of plates. The theory is far from fully developed and will undoubtedly undergo significant further revision as better evidence emerges. Here is a quote from a more recent book that I have reviewed elsewhere at SF. The New Scientist "This is Planet Earth" But these words were written by senior geologists and geophysicists in their fields and also in proper collaborative and peer reviewed scientific papers, eg the Nicky White 2011 Scottish Study by the University of Cambridge.