studiot

I do this all the time with both my own petrol car and my brother's all electric car. Simple question How many litres of petrol or Kwh of electricity do I need to tget to Bristol / Plymouth and back ? Really I want to know whether to top up before I go or not. So yes please @Arthur Smith What are you actually trying to do - The answer is unclear to me. Not so because this is incorrect maths .

I have had little time to follow this squabble but several things are unclear in your OP. Firstly what do you want sulphuric acid for ? In other words, how much and how pure ? The stuff is produced and used in large quantities in most developed countries and readily available, suitably prepped for purpose. The scale of the enterprise is such that it will never be economically viable to produce your own. But then you may not want to actually perform the synthesis, you may just want to discuss how to do it from different starting materials. Over to you to enlighten us so that the best help might be offered.

Perhaps, but nevertheless the summary is good and perhaps useful to the OP as I said. Furthermore if it is genuinely the output of an AI, known to be unreliable, then confirmation of its worth from a unreliable greybeard human may also be welcome. 😀

I think that Laplace's great insight was to realise that action-at-a-distance is not the same as instantaneous. Also to be considered is the fact that the universe is an Earnshaw system. (1842 again after the death of Laplace but before Faraday introduced any sort of field, near or far.)

Whilst there is some truth in both statements in this exchange I do not think this does justice to either Newton or Laplace. In fact from Newton onwards the problem of 'Action at a distance' was known about and considered by many scholars up to and beyond Einstein, That is for at least four centuries from 1650. Laplace did indeed consider the possibility of a finite speed for gravity, amongst other possibilities available at the time. But he did not prove anything about it. In fact, unfortunately both he and Newton were misled by erroneous observations by Halley. Generally the problem was considered too dificult and kicked into the long grass Both Newton and Laplace were dead before Faraday proposed the first real field theory. A good, not too long, best current evaluation of who did what when up to the present day can be found at https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath690/kmath690.htm

That wasn't what you said, literally and does not follow either. Why do most folks go for plain featurelees barren white walls and ceilings, by design ? It is true that a barren featureless universe could be a characteristic of a no design universe, but it could also be a feature that a designer wanted. Such dual purpose characterisitcs are of little use distinguishing. What is needed is a characteristic that can only derive from either lack of or priduction by design activity. The OP is looking for the former, but I agree that is no easier than the latter. Thank you whoever liked my last post.

+1 @Brainee This is a nice summary, I hope you will look at it.

Would this be your point ? Because if so how do you account for the intricate patterns that arise quite naturally in Nature, without any intelligent design whatsoever? I agree that at one time some of these were afforded mystical significance, but only cranks do that today.

I hope so. Thanks for the info +1

Exactly so, except you didn't originally specify a minimising geodesic. But even then you must be careful since the ame piece of geodesic can be minimising or maximising depending upon the final endpoints. For instance London, Brighton, the North nd South Poles are all on the Greenwich Meridian, which is a geodesic. But is it minimising or maximising ? Well if I start from Greenwich and travel south I am travelling along a minimising geodesic, But if I am going to the North Pole it is a maximising geodesic !

Yes, you are correct. I confused myself there. I understand the sectional geometry given in your Fig1, along with the necessary exaggerations for clarity, though I welcome your later additions to improve communications. In particular your article should start by saying a nucleus is at the centre of your donut. But as far as I can see the choice of alpha and gamma are arbitrary so you should make clear at the outset how you have divided up the fixed Bohr radius. I asked you " orbiting what ?" and you have now added a nucleus for the first time. Thank you. But what happens if there is no nucleus or the nucleus is from another atom, say He+ or Li++ ir Be+++ ? The energy level depends upon the square of the atomic number and the Bohr radius is define for one electron systems. How does this affect you numerical coincidences for these and all the other atoms, since their ground state radii will be different? I also asked you what was orbiting and you have simply called it a quantum, which is a poor nomination since a quantum is not necessarily small but should be a very specifically defined amount of something, which you have not provided. This is a crucial question because of the Physics. If this something has mass the question of its speed immediately becomes important since its mass appears in the physical equations. If you are thinking of the model with a photon travelling at the speed of light, then the problem becomes Can then electrons exist without an associated nucleus to produce this toroid and helix ? I ask this because I can easily produce a beam of electrons free of any nucleus. so how can an electron be a photon trapped in a toroid ?

Are you tryng to tell me that if I travel the 21,404 mile route from London to New York I am not following a geodesic ? In that case how would you describe that path ?

For the purposes of identifying/observing or communicating with life, intelligent or otherwise the universe available is not infinite. Anything material beyond a certain distance is forever unavailable/inaccessible to us on account of the expansion of the universe. The reverse is also true that they can't access any of our space either. Perhaps one of the astrophysicists can put a ficure to the size of this universe, I can't remember it offhand.

Your section shows it is (nearly) twice that. Quantum of what ? (those pesky units again) Orbiting what? Geometry is all very well, but what about the Physics?

My queries were meant more as a prompt for you to look more carefully at the mathematics you are flinging about, rather than a request for information. You are wrong here local v global ? The great circle distance London to New York is 3451 (minimum) or 21404 (maximum) miles, depending upon which way you go round. Interesting there spherical geometry is an example of your second statement where all pairs of points are connected by an infinity of great circles.

Isn't it also the longest path in some cases? Also what about connectivity ?

Are they right? Personally I wonder if they haven't already found it in New York https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-66970292

I'm sorry but what has this to do with the OP ?

Thanks for the reply. It is interesting to think back to when I was at school. Some of my teachers issues two exercise books. One was for rough working and the other was for fair finished copy/output. This was actually a pretty decent system, although they were very hot on the 'fairness' of the copy. (note I am using the english words fair and copy as presentab;le and output). We were just coming out of post war, when paper was at a premoium. The previous generation had tales of writng first in pencil, then going over in pen with new stuff later and writing a block of text, then writing around the margins. Interesting that you only had one maths teacher (you didn't really did you ?) 😀

+1 for two fascinating pieces of information. Although it is (was ) my currency I never noticed that discrepancy or knew about russian geography teachers. Here is another quote from Ellenberg who has the ability to offer remarkably simple yet penetrating insights in his writings.

Flubber ? +1 That was a good film, (the 1961 original), complete with a mad professor.

So the last thre pages (of 5) are flawed. You have also agreed that at least the first page is also flawed and I invited you to correct it. I presume you are therefore going to withdraw this paper and perhaps substitute it with something better. When you do please be aware that your Fig 1 is very worrying. Since you have identified the length Beta (and gamma) with the bohr radius, which is the radius of an atom, it follows that your model electron must be several times the size of an atom. That is if Fig 1 represents you toroidal model of an electron. You should also be aware that the Bohr radius is the radius of a hydrogen atom in the ground state. Other electrons have different corresponding radii. Alternatively if you are confusing quantum orbitals with the Bohr orbital model of the atom then this is even more difficult to square with your model. Also to be considered is that the Bohr electron is in a bound state, whilst the Compton and Classical electrons are in essentially a free or unbound state. There is a lot of Physics for you to account for. There is a good summary of toroidal models and their faults from the original 1915 one to the present day here in pdf. https://www.ptep-online.com/2018/PP-53-06.PDF

Examples are really good when we are talking about words such as objective and subjective, so we both understand what the other means.

Not that you will ever thank anyone for the effort they have put in on your behalf, but let me Google this for you. It's all there for the asking. Cheap pens are made from polystyrene or polypropylene however https://www.faber-castell.co.uk/corporate/magazin/recyclates-marker

Phi is most used for a general or unknown angle, both in calculus and other uses of angles in Mathematics. The Golden Ratio is also known as the Golden Section and appears in mny places in maths and natural science, as Joigus says. Associated with the Golden section or ratio is the Golden Angle.