studiot

In my humble opinion the time has come to put an end to this charade so I am formally reporting this direct refusal to engage in good faith discussion when I have offered exactly what you made such a strident and offensive extravaganza of demanding.

I agree measurement is not a Law. Measurement can refute or support (but not confirm) a Law and can sometimes lead to a new Law being formulated. I am using your terminology here, although personally I don't like the term Law, it is very short and therefore convenient. Mathematics has Axioms, Physics has Principles. Although serving a similar purpose they are different, leading to different meanings for 'true' in these disciplines. Well I hope you can be more reasonable that the other guy here, who seems to be calling white, black. So really? You are willing to honestly discuss this, and concede valid points one by one if I should make any? Then APPLY those valid points to the hypothesis? Ill start by asking "Is Physics ONLY interested in comparing predictions of Equations to observations, and any explanations of why or how the equation was derived is simply irreverent? Swansnot seems to be saying that Einstein may as well written, "Donald Duck doesn't wear trousers, and e=mc2, go check it out. (the textural explanation is not required because of peoples opinions.) Math alone is what Physics is all about. Funny, I thought Physics is what Physics is about, and Math is about Mathematics. But Swansnot is then more than willing to believe certain peoples opinions over others opinions regarding the meaning and interpretation of experiments. (which we know can not be proof of a theory) Only a couple of lines in response to my comments, plus a load of unconnected nonsense. Strange, most folks ask "What is in the box?" , when offered a closed box of something. You did not ask a single thing about what I was offering. Further, for your information. The name Swanson has been proudly held by several eminent Physicists, over the centuries, on both sides of the Atlantic. About Einstein’s thought process in the1905 Paper. Einstein made two comments which he then elevated to the status of Postulates. First is: "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate," Second is: "and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." I want to stop here and examine the logic of so far. Please consider the words “which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former,”. So in what way is the simple statement that light has a constant determinable velocity, irreconcilable with the Laws of Physics, of the Laws of Kinematics specifically, as the study of Motion is called Kinematics and Einstein's moves on to “the Kinematic Part” of his Paper immediately after the introduction. So what is “apparently irreconcilable” about Light having a constant determinable speed with the Laws of Kinematics? (Newtons Laws of Motion to be precise) Pause for your consideration and reply. But Einstein actually spelled out exactly why he believed there was a conflict. Because the Purpose of the whole paper is to SOLVE this conflict, thus opening the door to new explanations for other related "problems" such as Maxwell's work and Observations such as M&M interferometer. So what is the answer? The answers you seek are contained in the box I offered you so I will start with the first one. The Principle of Relativity is another way of presenting the homogenity and isotropy of empty space. The idea that if something works in a certain way at point A in empty space it will work the same in any other points B, C, D etc. Note that condition of empty. This simple statement can be much expanded and explained. I look forward to your honest response.

Nor does Einstein 'continue to any Math' before he presents his motivation. However teasing out his chain of reasoning is very subtle and needs to be done in the light of the knowledge of the turn of the twentieth century. It also needs to be realised that the chain of reasoning, postulates and derivation we use today in modern theoretical physics is different from that of Einstein. At the very least you need to study and correlate carefully the hints he throws out on pages 1,4,5 and 8 of his paper as collectively they identify his chain of reasoning. I see you also have issues with light clocks. Again it is worth noting the historical context, because the 1905 paper was produced at a time when the nature of light was still in contention. Einstein's approach managed to be independent whether light was is a wave or corpuscular or something else entirely. I look forward to honest discussion but I fear this threads is degenerating into irrelevant personalisation.

Yes your reasoning is essentially correct. But it will be a much smaller effect than I expect you are expecting. Remember that the fluid column moves upwards about the diameter of the ball in the same time as the ball falls the whole depth of the colum. Ie the fluid velocity relative to the walls is much slower than the ball's velocity relative to the fluid.

Sorry I didn't make myself very clear. Firstly let me repeat You cannot get acid ar basic consitions in pure water, you can only get neutral ones. You can get acid or basic conditions only by adding something. If you add something that is ether acid (eg sulphuric or hydrochloric acid) or basic (potassium or sodium hydroxide) you will get and acidic or basic mixture that now contains other ions than OH- or H+ If, as you suggest, you add a neutral salt then you will also change the pH according, more or less, to the solubility and the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation Either way you will have additional ions in what is now a solution. How would you use the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation to calculate the pH of a solution that is 0.120 M in HClO and 0.185 M in KClO? | Socratic To then get to the effect on the cell potentials you then need to apply the Nernst Equation What is the equation that connects pH and its effect on electric potential of an electrochemical cell? | Socratic

I see you have studied on this somewhat. So I will give you a pointer to help you answer your own question, beforelaunching into any detail. Pure water has a very low conductivity on account of the very low concentration of ions, both hydroxyl and hydrogen (or hydroxonium). Pure water is neutral, and there are no other ions present. In order to acidify or alkify the water (ie change the pH) you have to add other ions. These afect the half cell reactions.

Although it is not my name for the AI process, I think it is quite a good simple general one so I use it. Consider the following situation. A Turing Machine has a small defect. It does not have a symbol for the character 9 in its set of allowable characters. So it can calculate 2 + 3, 2 + 4, 2 + 5, 2 + 6 but not 2 + 7 but again it can calculate 2 + 8. Now the question arises "Is an AI capable of coming up with the deduction that 2 + 7 exists so it needs a symbol for the result, when asked to calculate 2 + 8 " ?

Thanks to all for offering some discussion points rather than taking up stances. Good information listing many extensions to a basic TM (all including a qualifying adjective) +1 However these are extensions, rather than restrictions as I don't think it is possible to simplify a TM further. It is sometimes difficult to follow your oblique thinking, but if you mean 'potential' as in the Greek's used potential in relation to infinity, then no that would not be a TM. Note that Turing did not predict his machine he specified it and finiteness is a very important part of that specification. Probability itself is philosophically problematic since TMs cannot directly handle the infinite. And the probability function has an infinite (though bounded) range. I'm not sure hot sure how many appreciate the implications of finiteness. Part of the specification includes a finite character set that can be input or output by a TM. The same applies to the instruction set and the set of operations that may be carried out. Finally there is the 'one character at a time' requirement. This is why a TM cannot fully compass a multicharacter 'message'. This in turn, leads to the probability pattern matching in use by current 'AIs'.

Practicality as mechanical engineering developed probably played a large part in this. Early machines were generally reciprocating, curiously with the exception of the first steam engine by Hero. Not only that but they were simple in that they only used one or at the most two cylinders. As machines developed, particularly the internal combustion engine, more was required than a simple machine output shaft to drive auxiliary equipment such as pumps, fans, generators, camshafts compressors and so on. All this has to work against that other mechanical beast - friction. Furthermore as engines became more sophisticated the Carnot 'hot' and 'cold' reservoirs only exist for a small part of the machine's cycle. Does this help ?

Really ? The Bureau International des Poids et Measures is not French, though its official language is? And what's this ? really ? So what is all the fuss about the difference between 273.15 and 273.16 and why did they need to redefine the value of Boltzmann's constant ?

Nice answers. +1 I would just like to add that much equipment has succumbed to the mania for chrome plating (often poorly made plating). Acids readily attach chrome plating on taps etc. An alternative you might try is steam cleaning.

I had to laugh when I saw this so +1 to John. As far as I can tell you are both a bit right and a bit wrong. The relevant body here is the French Authority responsible for Systeme Internationale, whose unit the kelvin is. They redefined the kelvin in 2017/2018 so the first trap is "which elvin are you using ?" As far as the French are concerned, the unit is spelled with a lower case k, but the symbol is an upper case K, because the lower case k is already allocated to the Boltzmann Constant, to which the kelvin is related. Perversely the English speaking world as represented by the UK and US National Physical Laboratories use upper case for both Kelvin and K. @Genady A perfect example of a camel (which in an English saying is aa horse designed by a committee.

I wasn't going to recommend any books without further discussion at this stage, but I will second Arfgen as a good choice. +1

The switch on routine in a current computer is meant to place the machine in a 'standard' state. This could be further strengthened by hard wiring to include the AI routine as part of that standard state.

Yes a Batchelors in Mathematics will certainly give you better grounding than one in Astronomy, so long as you are careful with your choice of syllabus. This should include a modern foundations of maths course, followed by lots of applied maths. But even then you would have a long way to add to that to get up to advanced theoretical Physics level. Good luck and I hope others will add useful comments.

I know the official line is that so called AI programs are nothing more than glorified TMs But is that really true ? One of the characteristics of a TM is reproducibility. That is a given input always results in an identical (and predictable in theory) output. Yet we have noted that repeating a question to, say CHATGPT, sometimes results in several quite different answers. A true TM should not exhibit this behaviour. I wonder if what is happening is that when the AI program does its data search and subsequent statistical 'pattern matching' this happens because the dataset for comparison varies each time the search is conducted or that the same dataset is invoked each time but there are additional limiting or cutoff instructions in the program to mean that each time a different dataset is actually compared.

Hello newcomer and welcome. It would be better to have started your own thread concentrating on what you want get out of the discussion, rather than reviving a short question from many years ago. Yes there is a big difference between practical engineering and thermodynamics, just as there is a big difference between practical applications and theoretical considerations and simplifications in almost any subject you care to imagine.

Good morning and welcome. Thank you for your polite enquiry +1 for encouragement. Going from your handle and use of a teaspoon for measurement you are not a scientist so I will try to put my answers in non scientific context for you. I have therefore numbered your question as above. There are about 600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 water molecules in 18 grammes of water so the each one has a very small weight. No one molecule is very small - about 0.000000000002 metres across. This is way to small to see with the naked eye. It is even about 100000 times too small to see with the most powerful optical microscope. You may have guessed that one molecule is too small to measure out by teaspoon. In fact there are about 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 water molecules in a one eighth teaspoon so you wouldn't notice just one on the spoon. Water can exist i9s solid (ice), liquid or gas (water vapour or dry steam). In the solid or liquid states you would not find isolated molecules, but in the gaseous state there are generally isolated from each other in a body of water vapour. They would not be isolated in any water droplets contained in that vapour (or wet steam). It is good to see someone enquiring about things around them so keep the questions coming.

This is a case of the inappropriate conclusions being drawn from inaccurate (insufficient) data. Antarctica is neither circular in shape nor is it centered on the pole. Compare the maps from 1962 and 2022. The left hand peninsula - Graham Land - is in approximately the same orientation as the long island in the 2022 on the 1962 map Map 1 Stanford's Whitehall Atlas 1962 Map 2 from Higgins Wild Maps 2022

Well this is really rather distressing. Dallaswin is a bunch of physics teachers trying to develop some physics tutorials and works just fine on my old Windows XP using fox. But windows10 doesn't seem to like it, although I can find the page, it tell me it is not secure, which is not surprising since is is just http not https. Here is a screenshot of part of their explanation on W10.

It is not necessary for the action - reaction pair to touch. Note carefully the use of the word 'pair' - that is two forces between two objects or bodies. You should never introduce a third body directly into this as this complicates matters. If the forces are due to touching, they are called contact forces but here is an example of a non contact action - reaction pair. Coulomb's Law (dallaswinwin.com)

Whilst I agree that the terms data, information, meaning, message, context, source , random, true, false, neither true nor false, form, and many more, all have applicability and are interrelated. I stand firmly by my claim that statements such as these constitute data with a definite truth value. From such data and other data I have drawn a conclusion which itself constitutes new data. Please read my conclusion more carefully. By themselves the statements 8% and 10 % do not constitute data.

It is important to specify the condition that the bugs always move directly towards their target, not just at the starting gun. This leads to the spiral path you mentioned. It also leads to an easy solution without adevanced maths.

First thing to remember is that correlation does not imply causation. Taking that on board look for some factor or factors common to both say the years 1970 to 2020, a convenient half century. You could also try geographic classification by state or region. You could look at age. I expect others will offer more choices.

Was this for me ? No the data is by definition correct. But yes I thought it to be a particularly good example of incorrect/inappropriate conclusions drawn from correct data. It is statistically true that the appropriate candidate is most likely to be a man. So what? Why is that a big surprise ? It is statistically true that Usain Bolt is most likely to beat me in a sprint race - yet I am not in the least bit surprised by that piece of data. In the interview Professor Christiani states that (in his view) there are many forms of 'intelligence' and some have been around for a very long time, longer in fact than humans. This is one of the key points he wishes to make. Another is that machines do not 'think' like us. However I suggest that statistical 'pattern matching' as another member here has called it has been thoroughly incorporated into the human modus operandi, for instance in limit state theory in Engineering. The interesting thing would be if the Machine AI were to come up with a conclusion that does not copy/reflect any existing pattern to be found in its input data.