studiot

Where did this problem come from please ? Is it coursework ? Also you should not post duplicate threads, even if you second picture is prettier than the first. It is a form of generalised Malfatti Problem in computational geometry, with the outer boundary being a circle not a triangle.

What I am suggesting is that what is happening is schools and what is happening outside schools ie in what I am calling the wider community all are linked to a common cause or trend in society. That is, of course, different from a causal relationship between each other.

Are you disputing that a far greater % of women now go out to work instead of being housewives ? I didn't mean to allude to feminism in any way. Sorry if you thought that. I am not even sure what feminism is. Perhaps you missed the part where I suggested that what is happening in schools (and colleges) reflects what is happening in society outside ?

I am reporting this video as it contains so many fallacies I couldn't count them all. So here are a quick few Why is Mars shown bigger than the Earth ans quite a lot bigger than Venus ? Where did the varous constituent elements of the planets come from ? The video say 'fusion induced by proximity to the Sun' The planets were apparantly derived from gas plasma balls ejected by the Sun. So what is the fusion pathway involved ? The american cordillera is ascribed be created as a mid pacific ridge. So why are all the rocks of the wrong type? And so on. At the end of the video other crank videos such as viruses came before life. Yet viruses require life to replicate? I agree this is just advertising the OPs You Tube panel.

Rubbish. A sphere is a two dimensional object. If you want to ask questions please do so but stop criticising what you clearly do not understand. Also 'should' is not a scientific term.

I had understood you were 'taking a break'. But from subsequent post I see that perhaps I gained the wrong impression. Anyway and others have ploughed on so here are a few thoughts. When driving an automobile we use at least two pedals. We call one the accelerator (some americans call it the gas pedal) its purpose is to develop more power for some reason. Now that reason may be to go faster (increase speed). Or it may be to change direction, whilst maintaining constant speed. (A touch on the accelerator as to get you round the bend as my long ago driving instructor used to say.) Now I have never heard of anyone calling the other pedal a decelarator, although that it what it does. Of course we call it the brake. Whenever there is an acceleration, whether the speed changes or not, there is an aassociated force or forces. Next time we will consider the difference between force and energy, a distinction so many get confused over. Amazingly Mordred is a physicist teaching you maths and I am a mathematician (retired) explaining physics. Sometimes it is worth considering from another science point of view. So explosions and expansions. Chemists distinguish explosions as reactions that accelerate indefinitely. This is either because the rate of energy input is greater than it can be distributed. Or it is because the reaction is of the 'chain' variety where there are several stages and one stage produces more than one output (next stage) for any input.

If you were not bent on criticising others you might be more prepared to discuss the subject that apparantly interests you. That involves replying to those who have bothered to answer you. What do you want from yhis three dimensional model ? Remember a model is not the territory it is an attempt to represent one or more characteristics of the 'real thing' only. Obviously one (those much criticised scientists) will choose a characteristics that are of interest and ignore or only treat lightly the rest. For example here is a model that studies the effect of plate tectonics on organic evolution.

Yes I agree the change is accelerating. But I see this as in some way linked to wider social changes. The pressure on 'instant solutions' has increased apace with the changes to working patterns and female emancipation. Fewer and fewer women today remain at home cokking the dinner (amongst other things). The commercial world has responded with greater 'sell' of ready made 'meals' and fast food more generally. So we see a declining % of the population cooking from scratch or even able to do so. Since this first started the 'role model' effect on the next generation has now had time to begin to take effect. Further pressure is coming within schools as they outsource school meals, saving money on kitchen space. This is also happening in practical subjects where workshops, sports facilities and laboratories are being reduced.

I usually say "it's complicated", but in theis case a simple question deserves a simple answer. The clue is in the word 'plate' -- Which refers to two dimensional objects. See for instance the classic work The theory of Plates and Shells Timoshenko and Goodier.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0lw0nxw71po Now for the first time scientists researching the brain of a fly have identified the position, shape and connections of every single one of its 130,000 cells and 50 million connections.

You have now posted twice since my simple questions. I see you are new here so please note the forum's requirement to support your claims.

Condolences on having a bad day, everybody has them. The good news is that after a few good/bad/goodcycles you realise that the bad parts come to an end. As I continue my tour, you may have noticed I am introducing gently new stuff as it is needed. To try to throw it at soemeone all at one would blow anyone's mind. I will come to velocity as it is needed. Although I am mentioning forces, force analysis is moree difficult than energy analysis some I am concentrating on the latter. Please re read this post where I layout the programme as I am trying to show that quarks, atoms solar systems,galaxies and so on have remarkable similarities in the way they work. There is no sharp macroscopic / microscopic divide, as is often touted. We will look at you question of what holds things together and find out that in energy terms its the same principle of least energy. Please also read this short extract from Sean Carroll - he has put the changing view of particles and fields so well, and quite sufficiently for our purposes.

Thank you it does, +1 Sounds like the (Ivor) Catt effect again. I will investigate further. Thinking about your quote, Phase delay comparison is only appropriate for continuous waves. It is inappropriate for one which is absorbed and re-emitted at some random phase. Perhaps the full text will explain it better.

Gosh so where will all the water in the atmousphere and oceans go in this unlikely scenario ? When in geological time did we ever have near 100 desert conditions, even in much hotter periods than we have or are heading for ?

Yes I agree,. I think this has been going on for longer than maybe people realise, at least in the West. I understand the Asian Tiger economies favour a more traditonal curriculum. I remember at the end of the 1990s having a disagrement with my daughter's maths teacher pre GCSE. I took an interst in the stuff they were teachi ng and asked, "well when are you going on to the final stage, GCSEs are very close now" I was referring to my recollection of 1950s/1960s school where GCE were taught. My point was that exam questions were oten in two parts. The first part demonstrated knowledge of some theorem or technique. The second part (whcih carried the most marks) demonstrated the use of that theorem. But not directly, as now. That was covered in practise before the exams. The student woudl be asked to demonstrate or calculate some result that was not directly obtainable from the material supplied. She had to understand and realise the intermediate result that was needed from the supplied material, to then obtain the final required one. This I think is what CharonY means. I I hold it is vitally important.

Since you haven't told me what you understand the 'principle of causality' you cannot claim that any, let alone all theories rely on it. My question was simply. What is your version of 'the principle of causality ?' I also told you in outline what I understand by it and in particular wha my version allows, namely that it allows tow event to be causally connected or not to be causally connected, yet be in the same light cone. It tells when two events can be causally connected, but it does not tell you they have to be. You introduced uncharged particles apparantly changing into charged particles, not I.

A slight digression from my main thrust to explain a point that Mordred keeps making. If you look at a weather map (perhaps watching the forecast on TV) you will see circular patterns of isobars travelling acrss the map. These represent cyclones or anticyclones (pairs again ? 😀). Although not solid objects they behave and feel as though they are and as folks in central Europe and south eastern US have recently found out to the great cost. They are semi persistant disturbances in the isobar field thaat can (and do) act as a single entity. In Physics, field theories regard 'particles = solid little balls' as disturbances in the same way. You can also see this effect in eddies in a stream bed. Does this help at all ?

+1 Thanks both I note quite a few posts about oil pricing strategies. One strategy that has been prevalent in the UK is that since oil companies control the end user supply, even if they no longer control the production or bulk supply, is for them to price domestic fuel oil competitively (ie slightly lower) than the equivalent gas or electric alternative. This has ensured continuity of market for decades. They could have 'price gouged' those who are not connected to the gas or electricity grids.

The works of Darwin that I have read offer in substantial part a report on actual experiments and observations, not any 'theory' at all. In all the cases I can recall he works from observation to theory, not the other way round. I have not heard of Neo Darwinism and in any case you shoulld make your own arguments, rather than draw upon the works of others. Quotations should be employed to illustrate what you have already presented in sound (thank you Eise) argument.

Well you certainly don't understand STR if you think it is in any way connected to charge, or for that matter temperature. If you are studying the motion (STR is all about motion) of a charge particle or particles then you have to consider charge as well as STR. FYI Dirac was the first to do this successfully. Please also reproduce your definition of 'causality' in relation to STR. In mine the may or may not be a causal effect , STR simply defines the conditions under which such an effect can be observed or exist.

That wasn't an objection that was an attempt to supply additional information. If there is more than one premise either the premises are totally independent from each other or they are not. This has a bearing on the deductive process. All I was offering was a link to some well presented tables tabulating possibilities.

No you have neither explained nor supported your answer you simply made statements about something called STR What is STR or SRT the one time you used that version please ? I think I have managed to decypher IFR please confirm you mean inertial frame of reference ? If that is the case you clearly misunderstand what a frame of reference is, let alone an inertial one. Frames of reference are abstract constructs to aid calculation. Real world objects do not enter or leave frames of reference, they do what they do regardless of such abstract overlays.

Perhaps this See commentary https://www.quora.com/Does-Lawrence-Krauss-s-book-A-Universe-From-Nothing-justify-its-title-Is-what-he-calls-nothing-really-such-What-is-wrong-with-defining-nothing-as-synonymous-with-nonexistence-to-ask-Why-is-there-existence-itself

I really don't understand this thread,though I too have read every word. For instance I have a 'feeling' of what price gouging as, as probably does everybody else. But I really think matters are far more complicated than is being portrayed here. Surely Zapatos example on the previous page is not a result of disaster or market disruption ? Here is another example, that illustrates the complications that may be hiding in the background. If I go to a fair, an exhibition or other temporary event I expect to find that ice cream, burger and hot dog prices etc seriously inflated, sometimes by integer factors rather than %. Is that price gouging on behalf of the suppliers ? Well the hidden factor is to consider a typical ice cream vendor van who may have taken a pitch at the event. His costs will be increased substantially by the organisers' charges for the pitch as compared to setting up on a layby on a summer afternoon or trawling a housing estate. So who then is price gouging or the organiser ? Or perhaps the premises owners ? Or perhaps the financial institutions wanting a return on their investment ?

Thank you for this link. Quite a good presentation. I do note however, that the examples given are examples of what I was talking about, namely fallacies that arise from combinations of premises. swansont has already pointed out that he specified a single premise only.