studiot

good faith ? something a bit ironic there. 😄

Great summary +1 The only thing I would add is not only is the 'Bible' a folder containing several books from disparate sources, there are different versions with a different selection of books.

Considering the rant from a few days ago I don't see why I should help you but I am not like that. The forum uses Mathjax. Mathjax also allows MathML I use this. The following code appears as [math]{z^2} = \sqrt {{{\left( {\frac{{\Delta y}}{{\Delta x}}} \right)}^2} - {{\left( {\frac{{\Delta p}}{{\Delta q}}} \right)}^2}} [/math] As a model I have removed the leading and trailing square half-bracket math]{z^2} = \sqrt {{{\left( {\frac{{\Delta y}}{{\Delta x}}} \right)}^2} - {{\left( {\frac{{\Delta p}}{{\Delta q}}} \right)}^2}} [/math What is in between the mathml tags is pure Latex others will perhaps offer other methods such as using the backslash, I am not so familiar with that. Due to other vagaries of this forum you may have to either refresh the page or the go to another page and then return. Finally I told you right at the beginning you are hiding some Physics by using natural Units. Here is a useful explanation from the University of Otago Physics blog. I have emboldened the most important part. Finally I amstill waiting for a response to my previous post.

Interesting subject geordief. Is your question asking about the misinterpretation of the flash of light or something else ? There was a most interesting discussion, with plenty of examples, in Stafford Beer's book in the late 1960s of such situations. Unfortunately my copy got lost in one of my many moves and I can't trace it on Wikipedia (he has written quite a few books). This is sad, not only because it contained lots of cogent thinking, but because his books are now fetching hundreds of £s S/H. The book I am thinking of I'm pretty sure was a Pergammon publication.

Thanks for the quick answers folks. The only person I know (and who made a pretty good living out of being one 1975 - 2005) sort of fits CharonY's first definition. But her research was conducted at the Bodliean on a self employed basis, mostly for specific topics on contract.

A number of new members recently have arrived describing themselves as 'an Independent Researcher' It would be interesting to hear what other members understand by this self reference.

I find the term 'unbeliever' to be perjorative.

I agree that practicve has defoinitely crossed the line. We are meant to be discussing extremism here, not benign exceptions.

Unless of course a or m or both = 0. Which also applies to anything Anton Rize writes. Nor do I accept his use of 'emergence' or we could be saying things like if 2p + 3q =7 and p + q = 1 then it emerges that p is -4 and q is 5. That is not what I understand by emergence. Nor can nabla 'emerge' from anything.

I must say that since you came here to discuss the relationship between science and your beliefs, you have show remarkably little interest in what they have to say, despite starting several threads and posting a great deal about what you think. I don't see how that can lead to sustainable discussion.

Not too sure who 'they' are. However 'they' clearly are those who are ignorant of all science has done in the past and is doing to this day to discover anything that can be corroborated from religous writings, partucularly the Bible. Of course this branch of science is not Physics since Physics has little or nothing in common with the Bible. In the modern ages archaeologists, anthropologists, historians, geologists etc use some techniques from the physical sciences. You would do well to read this book about such matters One further comment. For some reason, the humans have a definite tendency to try to pigeonhole anyhting and everything into artificially drawn categories. Indeed that is a very important part of the work of science, so often forgotten. On the other hand 'nature' has shown a remarkable reluctance to fit into these categories. In particular when discussing the scientific method scientists often say that the 'effect' must be reproducible and predictable. This is actually not completely the case. There are instances of effects which are one off or one time only. Yet science still manages to deal satisfactorily with these.

@nizar You and your wnating to learn attitude are welcome. but you now have only one more post in your first 24 hours (your are allowed 5 for security purposes), so do not waste it answering me. I do not know what resources you have access to but Jones and Lambourne are a fabulous resource for cosmology. here is the relevant newtonian maths extract. there is so much more in the book. Click on the image to get full size

Your original post mentioned centripetal force, which is correct. Your second force refers to centrifugal effect, which is imaginary. You misunderstand central forces. The centrifugal force is a real force that must be supplied by a real agent of force. In this case gravity. In the case of a stone whirling on a string it is the tension in the string.

Yes ditch the helicopter. Centripetal forces are radial Helicopter forces are Torque forces which are tangential. Further there are also helicopters that balance these torques by twin counter rotating main rotors instead of tail rotors.

Despite swansont giving the impression that science is only about analysis there is far far more to science than that. There are other classifications, but thought and physical processes can be classified into two camps (since you like binary so much). Explanations come from the first camp - Analysis. The second camp - Synthesis is very different and much more difficult than analysis - Synthesis. Both religion and science practice synthesis but science is just so much more effective at it. Analysis of questions like Why or How does the Sun shine ? or How fast did the apple fall ? are so much better handled by the scientific method. This leads to much better synthesis in relation to providing our own light ( a light bulb rather than the blinding light of angels) or being able to create, fly and land an aircraft, rather than expect to be carried of by angels.

Why would I hate it ? I don't agree with it, but that is another discussion. Perhaps the speaker has never done any marine biology or read Stafford Beer.

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.