studiot

So what is the question ? I am sorry that Fundy may not be the best place for a tidal station and I am certain that the author of that NYT article doesn't understand the engineering of tidal power. The tidal generator over here in Strangford Loch has been so successful that they want to install another one. And a new more powerful one has just been finished off Shetland. There are three parameters that determine the output of any hydro turbine. 1) The mass of water throughput. 2) The pressure head. 3) The water flow velocity. A successful design will balance all three of these for the best performance according to requirements. The requirements will include. 1) Peak output. 2) Continuity of output throughout day. 3) Environmental requirements such as maintenance of navigation, protection from storms, protection of marine life.

Thank you for attempting to reply to our questions. No computation is necessary. Claiming that one is necessary is like looking around, calling the earth etc 'creation, and then claiming that there is creation therefore there must be a creator. It is just religeous cant. As an example consider a 15mm peg. It will either fit into a particular hole or it won't, and whilst it may be sufficient to measure the peg and the hole and then perform a calculation, it is not necessary to do so to find out if the peg will fit the hole. There are other ways. Since some particles can indeed interpenetrate, are you now restricting your speculation to only certain particles ? You OP was pretty general. Excellent I am glad you have learned something and dropped that previous erroneous speculation. +1 for that. Are you claiming that whichever paticular particles you are no including in your discussion are only two dimensional ? (our) Space is three dimensional. The mapping of one two dimensional space to another is irrelevant to the 3D properties of space, especially as 3D space cannot be completely described by complex numbers. The complex construction (a + ib) is perfect for such waves as voltage and current but iextending this to 3D as a triple (ai + bj + ck) only works in some circumstances but not all. Once again our space is 3D

Which means exactly what to a particle ? Are you still arguing that you can only apply numbers to a 'space point' on a one to one basis ? and what do 'space points' have to do with complex planes ? What exactly is complex about a real space point ?

This really is a difficult and complicated subject to untangle. Not least because Michael McMahon has made some quite perceptive comments as well as posting that flawed diagram. Nor do I see this as belonging in the speculations section. As a straight forward question about Newtonian Physics there is a straight forward answer to his question Yes indeed that is straight forward but the fictious force required is the radial centrifugal force, not the tangential Euler force. This accounts very well for the easily measurable fact that observed gravity is apparantly weaker at the equator than it is at the pole. The Maths of this used to be on the first year Physics course at London University, I can post it if you wish. However you have entitled this thread Gravity Mysteries and even offered some tantalising comments. which show deeper perception and understanding. When forces are first introduced in school Physics, they are defined some along the lines of without being specific about where or how that push/pull is generated. This is the level your diagram is pitched at, but unfortunately it also erroneously shows the normal force displaced from the 'gravity force' forming a couple that should not be present. But the diagram does hide some deeper stuff such as the question How does the adding the box onto the table develop into forces at a distance from the box pressing on the floor under the table legs ? Treating this question requires revisiting the basic force definition and significantly expanding it. You also mention contact forces, another part of the basic treatment, that description needs to be expanded to include th concept of 'body forces' for any sensible discussion.

Not this rubbish again please. Speculation upon speculation upon speculation upon...... BTW do you actually know what a Riemann Sphere is ?

My apologies this should read On the other hand I don't think that it is as simple as you make out.

Well I don't think this speculation should be lightly dismissed. On the other hand I think that it is as simple as you make out. We already have terminology for things which display the characteristics which define what makes a particular type of cell. But we have more general terminology starting with the word system. And cells represent particular types of system, but not the type you seem to be thinking of. The Earth can certainly (and often is) regarded as a system for some purpose or other - there are many types of system. So I suggest to you, since it is your speculation, that you consider recasting your thoughts in this more conventional terminology, so you can have more profitable discussions with others. The basic characteristics of a system is something we can draw a boundary around which divides the system from the rest of the universe, also called the surroundings. Properties, processes and objcts that are wholly inside the system, wholly outside the system and cross the boundary as a result of interaction between the system and its surroundings can then be identified and evaluated. This model is a very powerful tool.

Indeed so. In fact the naming of the equations is somewhat arbitrary and discipline dependent. Classically both the wave equation and the diffusion equation were derived from the more general telegraph equation by setting some of the coefficients to infinity or zero.

At last someone wants to discuss some actual Science. +1 What has been said is true you have to go back to the permo-cretaceous period for the continental configurations to have been clustered around the south Pole. We have a lot yet to discover but the story so far is that there have been at least four great periods of glaciation (geologists talk about glaciation, reporters talk about ice ages), thoughout history. These have been separated by periods of little or no glaciation, for isntacne during the Jurassic period. During these glaciation periods there have also been advances and retreats of the glaciers. Here are a series of diagrams that help conflate glaciation with continental configuration and geological timescale. Starting with charts of the timescales. The Quaternary cenozoic 'iceage' corresponds to the iceage in the OP.

That's good but you didn't answer my question about the model put forward by the OP for discussion. I really don't know why no one seems to want to discuss it. It is quite interesting - though hopelessly incorrect as I have already pointed out - but it does demonstrate action at a distance. The thing about models really needs another thread of its own so I will just say briefly here that a model is basically a copy of some (but not all) aspects of something. Since things - and models are things - can be abstract or concrete that gives four undelying types of model, but it is further complicated by the fact that the model may only indirectly copy the thing. This stems from its old French roots where it meant 'to draw'.

Very nicely put. +1 I would add that there are observable and measureble effects in real physical systems. as a result of of this precision tradeoff.

Are you really familiar with Newton ? I described the opening post as Do you know what was wrong with it ? And yes I realise you are not Michael McMahon and this is not a criticism but an offer to dispel some common misconceptions you may have picked up since you have always struck me as a level headed member.

If you were more specific our answers could also be more specific and this discussion might then progress.

The Michaelis (enzyme) reaction has a particular form and uses the Michaelis constant. Have you not studied this and is this homework/coursework ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michaelis–Menten_kinetics

Not always no. For instance you don't need any reference frame to work out and then predict the phases of the Moon.

Don't give and certainly don't count trees. Did you do the simple sums I suggested ? How about this one ? Say you bought £1,000 to invest for three years so you bought some shares in a company. In the first year the value increased 30%. In the second year the value increased another 10% In the third year the value increased another 50% Based on these figures what would you expect the value to be after another 2 years. Well you would need a (geomtric) average increase for the first three years and project that average forwards two more years. So in the first year the 1,000 increase by 1.3 to 1300 In the second year this increased to 1.1(1300) In the third year this increased to (1.5)(1.1)(1300) or (1.5)(1.1)(1.3)(1000) So the geometric mean is the cube root of (1.5)(1.1)(1.3) and this represents the yearly expected increase based on those figures It is the number that if you kept multiplying by would keep the same average increase in the future.

Firstly let me say that you can do a great deal of statistics without knowing or doing any calculus. Calculus is a calculating tool (hence its name) for many other disciplines and its principles need to be learned separate from and previous to the applications. So sorry there are no 'shortcuts' for staticians. You can save a great deal of time and effort however by passing over the clever detail and tricks that someone intending to work out a lot of calculus will need. You only need to understand what is going on. Calculus is mostly used in the proofs of formulae in its statistical applications and your teachers will probably say things like The average value of a function in the interval a to b is given by the integral of the function divided by (b-a). So you will need to know what an integral is. But you will not need to calculate it, just how to use the formula. From that point of view calculus is divided into two parts the differential calculus and the integral calculus, with the latter being more important in statistics.

Taking an average is choosing or calculating one number to stand for a whole bunch of data. One sort of average is a statistical mean. There are three common types of 'mean' in use. 1) The most common is the arithemtic mean and is used when we add things together. It answers the question If all the numbers we added together had the same value individually, what would that value be. Suppose we had a rectangle with sides A and B, So the perimeter = 2A +2B. The arithmetic mean answers the question what number C represents a square with the same perimeter [math]C = \frac{{A + B}}{2}[/math] So the square with the same perimeter is the square with sides [math]C = \frac{{A + B}}{2}[/math] Where the primeter = 4C 2) The geometric mean is used when we have the result of numbers being multiplied together, instead of being added. It is eqaul to the nth root of n numbers being so multiplied. The most usual place to find this one used to be in finance where you wanted to know an average rate of return on an iaccumulating investment, where the return rate might vary from year to year. More recently such geomtric means have become important in population growth studies, where the growth equations are similar and involve multiplication of numbers. The geometric example that follows from the rectangle square example works if you ask for the area of the square that equals the area of the given rectangle. That is the rectangle has the same area as a square of sides = geometric mean of A and B which is [math]\sqrt {AB} [/math] 3) The harmonic mean is also used iin finance. It is known that the 3 means appear in the order Arithmetic Mean >= Geometric Mean >= Harmonic Mean [math]\frac{{A + B}}{2} \ge \sqrt {AB} \ge \frac{{2AB}}{{A + B}}[/math] With equality only occurring when A = B you can check these with the square - rectangle example putting A = 2 and B=4 and then A = 2 and B = 2

+1 to Markus for pointing out that the full definition of exponents needs to work for any number. and I agree that the definition you have found is absolutely crap. However it is more usual to introduce exponents by not saying the number of multiplications performed but the number of '2s' multiplied together. You don't then need to go into that long series involving 1. The exponenent n is the number of original number multiplied together. For example One two on its own = 2 = 21 = 2 Two twos multiplied together = 2 x 2 = 22 = 4 note this is only one multiplication Three twos multiplied together = 2 x 2 x 2 = 23 = 8 note this is only two multiplications and so on. So the number of multiplications is always one less than the numer of 2s You can then go on to find out what 20 and 2-1 mean and finally fractional and decimal exponents

Agreed. It also oxidises readily.

Interesting bit of intricate modern machining of hard workpieces made from hard substances such as silicon nitride and boron nitride as well as more ordinary metals. But I didn't see any kitchen worktops made of silicon. Do you actually mean resin bonded artificial stone which can contain up to 95% silica aka quartz ?

Well you learn something every day. +1 I have never come across this material. Have you any links ?

Are you sure you don't mean slilcone, not silicon ? https://www.primasil.com/explore-silicone/

That would be equivalent to claiming that because there are two streams in an electrolyte, the external wiring is unnecessary to make the cell work. I agree that two streams are necessary but there is a whole lot more to it than that. I would observe that exchemist's reference looks at the microscale and disregards the macroscale circuit. Equally Kraus' conventional discussion looks at the macroscale and disregards the microscale. A further comment neither of these address the question of 'Where does the energy come from ?'. A good place to start would be global meteorology. I say this because it was in the same period of development that the mechanism for moving large quantities of energy from the tropics towards the poles is due to a handful of giant cumulus cloud structures at any one time and the internal mechanism of these clouds is most interesting and strangely relevent. Sarah Dry Waters of the World (2019) Chapter 5 Hot Towers page 147 ff.

Nexfin appear to be a new venture capital company, run by 3 investment bankers in London. You could try emailing one of them from this link and asking for a link to download the software from https://www.nexfin.org.uk/meet-the-team/