studiot

I think we are divided by more than a common language (if you understand that quote because I didn't understand half of your last post)

Because of the emotive language and binary terms you have classified others. I am a don't care. I do not need an emotional crutch to justify my actions or beliefs. Here is an interesting Poem from Robert Service My Father Christmas passed away When I was barely seven. At twenty-one, alack-a-day, I lost my hope of heaven. Yet not in either lies the curse: The hell of it's because I don't know which loss hurt the worse -- My God or Santa Claus.

To me this reply also shows a certain measure of contempt for the opinions of others. I do not fit into any of the categories you describe.

I think it is worth pointing out that not everyone who is non religious (me for instance) is aetheist. In fact I consider it rather insulting to be lumped with them (aetheists).

Wow you have been busy with your typing since we last spoke. What a great pity you did not post the piece I have quoted at the very beginning as I think it explains what you are trying to achieve. You may wish to know that the technique is called Relational Geometry and is a favourite of psychologists. Here is some more information on the subject, including references https://superdarn.thayer.dartmouth.edu/downloads/rgs1.pdf Unfortunately your diagram fails to properly represent Newton's Laws. In the first instance your words do not reflect N2. Newton's Laws do not admit of a speed limit. Further your representation fails to be able to represent the condition where there are no forces (as opposed to zero net force) acting on a body since there would be no curvy lines at all. Equally with N3 there is a problem since it fails to bring out one of the most important conditions of N3 and the difference between N1 & nN2 as compared to N3. All the forces in N1 and N2 act on a single (ie the same) body. The two forces mentioned in N3 act on different bodies, but you diagram suggests they act on the same body. Further there is the situation that so many forget with N3. The statemetn with contact forces is clear enough, but the statement with non contact forces such as electrostatic, gravitational etc forces it is often forgotten that: if the gravity of body B pulls body A towards it then Body A exerts an equal but opposite pull on B. What is forgotton is the question what holds B in place in those circumstances ? Nor do I see how you diagram leads to numerical solutions of the questions How much force? How much momentum? How much velocity ? and so on. Quite unlike the conventional vector polygon diagrams to solves them directly. Finally how would you analyse the so called 'Rocket Equation'

They do ? Multiple frequencies ? Really ? Helium atoms ? I did say, don't ask AI, tell us what you know or can deduce. AIs are notoriously unreliable. Today in America armed police seized a pupil at high school because it mistook a packet of crisps for a gun Armed police handcuff teen after AI mistakes crisp packet for gun in US https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgjdlx92lylo

You have acutually asked answerable question this time so big improvement there. Consider this smart alec saying If an expert is someone who knows a lot about a little. A true expert is someone who knows everything about nothing. I suggest the question is of this sort since it assumes that the belief, whatever it might be, is the only point of consideration. But observation tells us that we live in a complex world the requires consideration of the interplay of many points, which runs counter to the belief in one thing above all alse. As to the second question there is no one single line, it depends upon circumstances so I would suggest the line has been crossed if one single consideration excludes all others. So often questions like these are couched in terms expecting a binary answer when most of our world works in shades of grey.

Moderator please, we are all agreed on this so put the thread out of its misery.

seconded. Four years is a long time in terms of Moore's Law.

The point is This is not a blog site. And this is not your blog. Ask a specific question or state a proposal for discussion. This is what everyone has been telling you.

Yup

Why when it's off topic ? Though I have to admit that after four posts I have been unable to divine (pun intended) what the topic is.

Thank you for all that. But I see no answer to this So the E p and m in the first equation have different units from the E, p and m in the second. Instead the last post appears to contain more instances of the same symbol used to represent diferent actual variables. As a mattter of interest since projective geometry has no distance function it cannot support a metric or function variables based on distance. I have been rather busy with some domestic emergencies today so have not had time to progress further study of your circle, but realise that if you are referring to spacetime it must be a hypercircle. That sais J L Synge introduced a further analysis method for GR in 1957 in his book Other interesting approaches are to be found in Needham Visual Differential Geometry and Forms Deans The Radon Transformation and some of its Applications.

There is a really interesting derivation of how this leads to chaotic motion in this book (which is fascinating in itself) Oxford University Press 1997

Don't be silly, of course they alone don't explain it. If you are fully aware you would know both that they don't and also know what other factors are involved. Let us start with a definite example of a regional inconsistency or a wind anomaly and try to look for an explanation. If you are genuinely interested this book is a very good start. Can we return to actually discussing the subject now please ?

Spindizzy ? James Blish SF stories

😄

So the E p and m in the first equation have different units from the E, p and m in the second. Yes please I am always open to other routes to a common answer. I am still studying on your circle idea and the (geometric) effect that must occur on the circle when expressed in 'natural units' I do not know if you are aware of the different other routes eg Hilberts variational method or the Ludyk's matrix only method ? Posting this is often posted as a postulate to start off GR, both the above methods lead to a derivation of it instead. I prefer matrix methods to tensors because tensors hide things. Whenever you actually want to put numbers in order to get numbers out you have to expand them because they are a compact form of many simultaneous equations, especially via a computer.

Thank you. So what version of your equation should I substitute these into into since they make the one you quoted dimensionally incorrect. ?

So what are the units of c, m, E, p and v in your system ?

To whom is this addressed ?

Please post your sources for claiming this.

Also I wonder how much has been going wrong recently as a result of the Amazon Web Services debacle ?

Whilst I am sorry your earlier thread was closed as I has some further pertinent points to make in it, I do not expect to see such a blatant attempt to re introduce it. In particular whilst you have made some interesting points, you are not listening to or perhaps just not acknowledging worthwhile or forum protocol points made by others. For instance you have your history in the above quote quite the wrong way round. Einstein's 1905 paper was the result of experimental 'confirmation' which predated it by some years.

Try clearing your browser's cache. I've had sundry problems with the way the forum has been behaving (not the members) lately. Clearing my cache helped a lot.