studiot

The science of handling large numbers, either large because they have (too) many digits or because the value is too large goes back hundreds of years. Many schemes for breaking up calculations and other data processing were developed during that time before computers. But we still have to use some of them today as the data is too large to 'fit' into a single computer. The instances of this were originally developed by those wanting to produce accurate scientific tables eg Roemer and Kepler, Napier. Later insurance companies and actuaries carried on this development. Most recently the largest data handling has been done by meteorological workers. This started when Walker first started gathering global data via the electric telegraph. So your idea of event data gathering is not so far from the mark.

Look up googolplex (note spelling carefully) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googolplex

Useful background. Thanks +1

I'm sorry I don't understand, though I agree that the gender and ethnicity distribution amongst pharmacy students (not just at school) would suggest the proposal is bunk. When my daughter did her medical degree at Edinburgh, the only compulsory A level was Chemistry (I was suprised that biology was not required although she also offered that). More recently she has completed a Masters in Pharmacy at RGU and there were definitely more females than males on the course, many were indeed of asian ethnicity. Additional there were students from many middle eastern countries, some pursuing doctorates. Whatever, the subjects studied could be said to be Chemistry, Chemistry, Chemistry The year she took up a post at Royal Devon and Exeter, of the 8 new starters, there were either 1 or 2 males, the rest being female. There were actually zero white males. A side issue, was Mrs Thatcher doing Chemistry when she acted politically, against the trend at the time, to push very hard for the CFC reduction and eventual ban ? Or is doing Environmental Chemistry not Chemistry either ?

Good morning. That's a long opening post. Although it contains a lot of thoughts, I was unable to ascertain what you wanted to discuss or question you wanted to ask. I am guessing that English is not your first language as although you have offered some in depth material / sources, some of the wording is a bit strange, we we need to cooperate straightening that out. I note your idea /use of the Gompertz type curve, also referred to a a logistics curve or a sigmoid curve. Interesting. However a couple of points of fact. 1) 11 billion years ?. The Earth is only 4point something years old. 2) Charles Darwin did not offer a 'theory of evolution'. Look at the actual title of his paper/book.

Just a small question, but what do you mean by 'chemist' ? Mrs Thatcher was a chemist, as was the chief accountant of British Gas. The, of course, there are pharmacists. I wonder how what the ethnic dist of these 'chemists' might be.

Yes, perhaps you missed it but I have already mention the evidence. I am in Yes, perhaps you missed it but I have already alluded to the scratch marks. At the moment I am in Exeter so no in a position to post pictures. edit and struggling with this poxy unfamiliar laptop

No worries.

Good you have shown it for yourself as should observers. You may wish to get more out of this question by investigating the bicarbonate buffer. https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-GB&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=bicarbonate+buffer&iflsig=AK50M_UAAAAAY8vtbgWfo9iJwpG9_YTSgvXr7TS-7hdY&gbv=2&oq=bicarbonate+buffer&gs_l=heirloom-hp.3..0i512l10.1050.6838.0.7150.18.11.0.7.7.0.210.1426.1j9j1.11.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..0.18.1700.qXn4PkY5H1s The bicarbonate buffer plays an hugely important role in life science, climate science, oceanography and other places.

It is certainly a very significant reason but not something that can be proven. As Lorenz says, 10 only has two factors so 10 = 5 x 2 and we have two hands with 5 fingers on each. and we see many primitive and not so primitive cultures from around the world that have an equivalent scratch mark of the '5 bar gate' where counting goes 1, 11 111, 1111 and then a new symbol for 5. So 5 units make a 'hand' and 2 hands make 10. But also as lorenz says, 12 = 2 x 3 x 4 and the next such is 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 = 60 Which brings us to the ancient Sumerians and Babylonians who had a number systems based on 60. These numbers which lead to our modern measures of time and angle. Interestingly the ancient cultures in the Americas has even more complicated bases (360) as they measure calendar time not hours, minutes and seconds as we do. A fascinating subject. Thank you for raising it +1

I was suprised at this response from an intelligent, well educated person of significant experience. I haven't seen this book (yet?) so I would be interested in your assessment if you do. The Cambridge Student Guides series are not formal texts or treatises but specially written to provide a depth of understanding not realised in normal textbooks. They are written by modern experts from around the world and some of the one I have show nex material or approaches not seen elsewhere. As such they contain material whch may be of undergrad level in some courses and postgrad in others depending upon the main coverage of any particular course. The single topic volumes such as Lagrangians and Hamiltonians; Entropy; and Vectors and Tensor are particularly well presented in my opinion. It would be a brave man indeed who cannot learn something from each or any one.

Thank you so much for making this effort on my behalf. +1 I have been looking for a resonably priced copy of MTW for some time, bu noone seems to want to pass theirs on. As luck would have it, I found one (hardcopy no less) of a 2021 version new but shop soiled at a bearable price. Fantastic but a lot to wade through as I do not know the book. In particular I could not find reference to the FLWR metric in the index so I wonder if you could oblig by beefing up your reference. !300 pages is alot to read through to find something.

@sethoflagos You might find this book of interest. It is due to be published in early 2023 and a part of the Cambridge University 'Student's Handbooks' series in applied maths and physics. A student's guide to the Navier Stokes Equations Justin E Garvin Cambridge University Press.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-64352634 Interesting observation of UFO shaped clouds

Hello John and welcome. I am suprised some sailors have't yet replied. Anyway I think I can see what you are trying to do, but I have a couple of comments / questions to clear up, I am suprised you are not satisfied with =/- 1.5 lbs as that is less than 0.1% variation. Someone's sandwiches will be greater than that. You seem to have contradicted yourself. You say you are keeping the underwater volume constant but also seem to refer to it as the Y value? I am guessing that you want to keep this volume constant to keep the bouyance force constant in magnitude, though obviously its application point will change wilh heel angle.? However this will only keep it in force for a stationary boat. As soon as the boat moves momentum forces will enter and change the dynamics. Also I would not expect a stationay boat to be heeled over. 1750 lbs displacement means a what, 12 to 15 foot boat ?

My guess is that the referred article was written by the same till operator that gave me the wrong change this afternoon.

Don't be a shrinking violet. What you have posted so far suggests someone capable of holding a sensible discussion. So jump right in and do it. As to 1 + 1 = 2 and this Mathematics (and its history) has moved on a tad since the beginning of the last century but Russell was correct in that the Australian Aboriginals had a number system that goes one, two many. They don't count past 2. Further the business of the + sign; it should be noted that the + sign has two quite different and distinct meanings in maths and science. This causes confusion for some whe the maths pulls in both directions at once. So post your topic in Mathematics

Thank you for attempting to reply to my questions. I will even give you +1 for actually admitting something you don't know. That is the key to satisfactory discussion. To explain continuity, using my railway example, what I mean is that real world objects such as a train have a length (etc). I like the train because it can be regarded as one dimensional for our purposes. Continuity means that the train extends from the all the way front to the back without a break or gap. Similarly a person extends in time all the way from birth to death. Call that his timeline. If I removed a car from the train and placed it somewhere else there would be a gap in the train would there not ? Similarly if I moved a person as a child to some other time (which equals the common scifi definition of time travel) there would be a corresponding gap in the continuity of that persons timeline. Now having accepted that moving someone in time means moving their whole timeline, just as moving a train means in space means moving the whole length of the train along the track, not just part of it in each case, we can go on to look at question 2. As far as the train is concerned the track is one dimensional. So if the train moves 5 miles along the track we know this is OK so long as the track is clear. But what happens if the train moves the whole 500 miles from Edinburgh to London ? If it encounters another train on the same track there will be a smash. With tracks we avoid this by having other tracks for other trains. That is we can have more than a single one dimensional space. With time we do not have that luxury. There is only one time dimension (that we know of). So what would we expect to happen if we had a machine that could move the whole person 50 years along into the future or past ? A temporal smash ?

Have I done you a disservice in assuming that you can actually read ? How on earth is this an answer to my question about your scuba claim ? Please provide proper supporting evidence for this astounding claim. As to your text being an answer to my previous question How does that demonstrate how bronze aged man came to know about iron ?

How would bronze age man know about iron to make this famous statement "lets build iron tools" ? Please provide proper supporting evidence for this astounding claim.

Since you seem to introduce time machines into most, if not all, of your threads. Do you wish a rational discussion about time machines ? If so please answer the following questions What do you mean by a time machine? Something that moves a person from time A to time B ? But what do you mean by 'a person' and how does this play out with continuity ? There are three space dimensions so there is always room (empty space) somewhere to move around other objects in that space without trying to pass through them. But there is only one time dimension so there is no empty time to use to accomplish the same with time. Since everything is on the same track, it would be like trying to pass through the Edinburgh to London express coming the other way. How is this trick to be accomplished?

Gosh, how did you manage to understand any of that non scientific woo we seem to have wandered into ? +1 I am completely lost. Help!

No I don't think so, have you any evidence for this ? There is certainly much evidence to the contrary, since at all stages in history later stages could only accomplish or know certain things once a 'critical mass of knowledge and capability' was gained. So stone age Man could make metal tools, bronze age Man couldn't make iron tools, iron age Man couldn't make kevlar etc

That happens to everyone ffrom time to time. But now is the time to move on (or is it for all good men to come to the aid of the party?) You have said your introductory piece and outlined what is bothering you. The response from sensei shows that true scientists and mathemaicians don't automatically react adversely to a statement such as 1 + 1 = 2. Thay ask questions because the statement could mean many different things. Really it is up to the author (you in this case) to provide enough context to make sense of it. You have now done so by observing that two individual small drops my combine to form one larger drop. In the anihilitation of a positron by an electron 1 + 1 = 0. Mathematically I suggest you look at modular arithmetic Your issue doesn't show up well with 1 + 1 but say 3 + 5 (mod 7) = 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_arithmetic Note I don't know when or where you went to school, but they now teach that in UK schools. sensei was talking about computer uses of these concepts eg modulo arithmetic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modulo_operation There are also further developments in the way computer languages use these concepts. So now we have cleared that up have you any further science questions or points to discuss ?

Of course not. Jacob, I don't know if you are still at school, or what they teach in Science these days but try to objectively separate fact from fantasy. We are at the gateway to whole new realms and capabilities in science, similar to the early years of the 20th century, but in different areas from that time. Just think how quick and effective the biochemistry response has been to Covid in the last couple of year. Instead of watching that spongebob rubbish try view the first couple of series of " The Last Ship". An excellent SF adventure story based on biochem tech we are only now in the course of developing. I disagree and the OP asked about Science in general, not Physics in particular. As to your particular point, the first few decades of the 20th century were certainly busy with discoveries in the physical sciences, but this is normally the way. Historically there is a period where important new principles are discovered, followed by not stagnation but lots of very hard work testing, proving, refining and combining with the existing framework. This may appear stagnation to some but establishing the proper place in the order of things is just as important in Science as the glory projects and discoveries.