studiot

Does all this have any meaning or is it just gibberish and should I report it as such, as well as breaking the rules here ? I should not need a ytube video to make sense of it.

I'm sorry to need to post this but it seems we are enjoined to give time wasters what is, in my opinion. excessive rope. I put a deal of thought and effort into trying to offer help, at an appropriate level to one such who was a self confessd novice at science. After several tap dancing replies to my moderately lengthy explanations, I was beginning to smell a rat when this person decided to no only question what was being said, but also expound his own gospel of the laws of physics something he had already said he knew little or nothing about, all the while carefully ignoring simply prepared explanations, just for him. What other behaviour would this suggest, other than trolling? I further note that since I and other regular members left the thread in question, he has opened a series of increasingly far fetched new threads.

Upvote Thanks, glad I haven't wasted any more time. Upvote

Exactly. +1

Thanks for the information, how did you get on understanding that energy is not a substance - there is no such thing as pure energy?

Very much so. +1 It's a bit stuffy, but adopting Genady's suggestion. Premises 1) P is a valid statement. 2) We are forming the conjunction of P and itself. (This is a valid statement) Conclusion The statement is invalid For the reason you stated Not because the premises are contradictory, as you originally stated. You are correct, but haven't followed through explicitly using your method for the benefit of the OP.

That's not how I read it, though I will grant you that the opening post is not strictly correctly formulated, as the stated null hypothesis is not actually a null hypothesis at all.

MathML works (actually can be made to work) very well for me here. Not perfectly as there are some things not available in mathjax. But I am perfectly happy to explain how I work it. [math]\sqrt[{15}]{{5983249}}[/math] math]\sqrt[{15}]{{5983249}}[/math MathML does look very similar to LaTex, especially the simple stuff. But the TEX for arrays, tables and more difficult stuff does not. Incidentally there is newer form of MathMl, I'm now having to use on a maths forum I visit called inline mathml. But it isn't recognised here [imath]\sqrt[{15}]{{5983249}}[/imath]

How do you make this out ? (I agree that the conclusion of the proposition is invalid)

It's entirely your choice but I suggest you reflect on your method of discussion. You can see from Dima's tally of negative points that he has had difficulties here. I have had better success communicating since I found out he has to do everything both ways through a translator. Communication thus requires a deal of patience on both sides. But the end result of your spat with Mordred is that Dima seems to have abandoned his own thread. As to this thread, I have been here 10 years now and this is the first time anyone has ever called my efforts to help with post maths as trivial. In my opinion the IT industry could easily have offered the facility to directly type maths in, but chose not to do so for reasons known only to itself. So we are left with unwieldy workarounds for the situation, including learning yet another computer language or languages.

I am saying that whilst the term hypothesis is a general scientific and philosophical term meaning a proposal that may be (is hoped to be) valid, the term 'null hypothesis' is a specifically statistical term that means something more and has to be set in a way that can be numerically compared. There is for instance a form of descriptive statistics that cannot have a null hypothesis. How does that square with the opening post examples ?

I was coming to that but it will entail you knowing exactly what 'energy' is. Being a science novice is just fine; one of the main reasons for this site to exist is for novices to ask questions. So this is not a criticism, but I suspect you think of energy as a sort of thing or substance of some sort. That is not the case. Energy is a property of things and substances. Scientists often say loosely that 'energy is transferred' whilst they actually (or should) know that 'energy transfer' is really an accounting device. 7 take away 3 leaves 4. You question about loss into is similar. I hope you can see that the 3 above does not evaporate into space. As a physical example let us consider boiling a kettle on a gas hob. The burning of the gas raises the temperature of the gas particles, which means they move faster. When they strike the bottom of the kettle they slow down - we say energy is transferred to the kettle, but what we mean is that the impact of gas molecules makes the kettle walls vibrate faster than before we heated them. In turn the kettle walls transfer some of this additional motion to the water inside which means the water molecules now move faster, eventually fast enough to boil. Working out all the maths of this chain of events takes several pages. Far easier to just say X amount of 'energy' is transferred from the gas to the water. So when you are asking about electrical energy dissipated to space what exactly are you thinking about and why do you think the conductance of space (if any) plays a part ? The better you can explain your question the better will be the final answer. Incidentally we do say that all bodies give off and receive electromagnetic radiation at all times which results in a transfer of energy. But this is a thermal process not an electric one.

Since about 3 upgrades ago (thank you IT whizz kids) preview has been pretty clunky. Most folks soon find out that if you leave the thread and then return to the post the missing presentation will be correctly displayed. But no, preview itself often doesn't work. How did you get on with my suggestions about Charmap and super/sub script ?

Indeed not. But then adequacy, internal consistency, external consistency, and fruitfulness are not scientific terms in general nor statistical terms in particular. Think about it. You have already stated the difference between a statistical hypothesis and a logical conclusion drawn from premises., notably you have several hypothesis any of which could account for the data. That is the null hypothesis only ever concludes that the hypothesis could account for the data, and usually that it is the most likely of several hypotheses It never actually concludes that the hypothesis does account for the data. By contrast a sound or valid logical conclusion formally excludes other hypotheses, given the validity of the premises.

Obviously this AI has received some substantial 'training'. or, as you suggest there is a man hidden inside the fairground booth as of old. Responses in other threads simply say that the AI claims to only work within material provided, that it does not have access to 'the internet'. This provided material must have been substantial to output both the earlier poem and Ghideon's test.

A No situation exists This assumes 1) That an undefinened term 'situation' is capable of existing or not existing. and nothing else. 2) That statement A is capable of having a truth value. This sort of paradox caused much heart searching in the foundations of Mathematics, particularly set theory, when they were first introduced and still have not been fully resolved. The only thing we have determined for certain is that some part of the underlying definitions have to be restricted. 'Type Theory' was one was to do this by restricting the nature of what can be a 'set'. my underline and nothing else is another way leading to what is called second order logic, with does away with the 'Law of the excluded middle'. Other ways have also been found but we cannot proceed here until you provide / fireproof definitions that you have been asked for. Note the definitions have been spread over several similar threads by yourself and others have also asked for them.

I'm sure it can, but you can also smile ?

Cool.+1 Move over swansont, CHAP is coming.

Things have gor rather hectic here so it doesn't look like I will make a full reply tonight. Anyway the short form is that the electric force is probably the most important force in our everyday world. Our bodies run on electricity. Chemical reactions run on electricity. If you have a fish tank aquarium, you will monitor the water quality using a conductivity meter. The chemical reactions that cause weathering in the rocks run on electricity so conduction in the earth is vitally important to us. This is not the spectacular lightning storm but none the less all due to a form of conductivity unlike electricity in the power wires in our homes. To expand on this I will need to post some basic explanations so more to follow.

Thanks. BTW, I'm not sure brainee has much access to high school education ( that's no criticism) but is trying to get an education the really hard way.

This is an interesting question that has many ramifications in GeoPhysics, but could you narrow it down a bit ? Also you say conducted, do you know the difference between conductive current and displacement current ? Finally the Earth is far from homogeneous and the values for sigma and epsilon vary with local materials eg seawater v granite.

This next comment is very important. The Physics an Chemistry of how what we call electricity is very difficult and complicated. Futhermore there is not one single mechanism, but several. And they all have a part to play. As a result, abstract models of how thing behave were developed, models that show measurable quantities like voltage, current and so on. These models are called circuit theory and are set in the mathematics of the relationships between the various measurable quantities. Have you heard of Ohm's Law ? Of course since they are both approaches about the same thing there is a lot of overlap and common stuuf involved. But there are also important differences and flow is one of those differences. Flow appears in artificial abstract circuit theory, but not really in a physical description of what is actually happening. And flow refers to flow of charge, as Mordred said, or current which literally means flow of charge in electricity theory. Anyway the important thing to remember is to know which version you are using. You ask about electric and magnetic fields, so it is important to know just what a field refers to. A field occurs in a region of space (along a line, on an area or in a volume) for which some quantity has a single defined value at every point in the region. The defined quantity may belong to matter or be totally abstract. So a temperature field or a density field are both about properties of matter that can vary from point to point. A placement of arrows on a weather chart showing which way the wind is blowing and where is purely abstract and called a direction field. An electric field shows the strength of attraction (as a force) that would be felt by a unit electric charge at any point. A magnetic field shows the strength of attraction (as a force) that would be felt by a unit magnet at any point. Neither of these are used much in circuit theory, but both have lots of different uses in Physics and Chemistry, often where there is no circuit involved at all.

OK so here is a further analogy Take a string and either tie one end to something fixed, and then take the loose end and pull it out straight. The flick the end you are holding up and down. You will cause the flick to travel along the string to the far end. You can also do this without tying one end but is is ahrder to get the flick to go all the way to the other end. Now here is the thing. That flick maintains its shape and size pretty well all the way down the string. That flick is a packet of disturbance that travels along the string. That is what we mean by a photon being a packet, but in a way suitable for EM radiation, not exactly the same as the flick on the string. One definite similarity. Both the flick on the string and the photon packet contain more energy than the undisturbed state. So the travelling pulse (flick) is a method nature uses to tranfer energy from one place to another. The next thing we need to do is to deal with fields, but I will stop there for you to digest this and to point you at your electricity question where the discussion of fields is better placed. Then we can return to this thread and complete it.

It doesn't. The hosepipe analogy is best forgotten.

I think Dima uses a translator. His aim was stated very clearly and coherently, as I have already noted. However the conditions he proposed to achieve this aim were not, in fact I agree that instanteity and simultaneity are both nonsense, quite apart from the 'acceleration into a moving frame a v' whatever that might mean. So I described it as nonsense. Your post was next and it could only have been reply to Dima's opening post as it followed on straight after th op (How I wish this forum would go back to its original format and number the posts). But it made no sense either. The cars couldn't have a reference frame once they started moving, given your stated conditions. So if you were trying to say the same as I am now saying, viz that Dima's original aim meant his conditions were inappropriate that's fine, But I don't see it put very well. BTW who is MD please ? I think most participants is this thread know and agree that these conditions are neither necesary nor possible. Ditto Forgive me, I don't see any explicit reference to such a rod, although rigidity is again not the issue. I respectfully suggest that both of you are getting tangled up trying to square the circle and start accelerating all parts of a train both instaneously and simultaneously, with or without magic signalling. If you want to accelerate a train, just tell tha man to put the engine at the front and pull or at the back and push. No part of the train will ever be moving sufficiently fast, relative to any other part of the train, for either SR or GR calculations to be needed. If you want to introduce an outside observer (which may be what Dima had in mind) then again say so and introduce relativity appropriately.