studiot

A current report on who is responsible for coastal protection https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0kxkqy8nlpo East Devon District council is preparoing Exmouth defneces for storm Ciaran today.

You have mentioned two things without explanation. 1) In the title you refer to The Principle of Relativity. 2) You refer to the isotropy of space. Can you enlighten us as to what you think these two phrases mean please ? Where , for instance, did they come from ?

There is no right answer to this and no wrong answer either. It depends both on where you are coming from and where you are going to. Environmental Science is a second tier science in that it rests on and draws from all of the basic sciences of Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and Biology as well as in some courses Economics and Sociology. Being such a broad discipline it specialises into areas of interest. So Bath Spa University leans towards the economic and social aspects. Plymouth, The University of Wales (Aberistwyth) and Southampton are very hard science oriented and are all home to marine science laboratories. But here you would need to consider would you lean towards Physical, Chemiical or Biological aspects ? Exeter is home to the Met office and I believe there is a tie up concerning atmouspheric and climate science. So where you are going to depends upon both your immediate and long term goals. Robert Gorden University in Aberdden also has a good reputation for a hard science course and much energy industry backing. So in the short term how far are you prepared to travel ? In the long term you will need to narrow down your plans as already indicated and do some research on the net, there are over 250 'environmental' courses in the UK. The long term will also be coloured by what you are doing now. That is what courses you are currently taking and what grades you might expect. Queen Mary College, London for instance sets the bar high Others have lower entry requirements.

What is a free choice? Right. So in the 2023 Wimbledon Men's Singles final Alcaraz beat Djokovic in a long match that was hard fought right to the end. Either competitor could have won right up to the last ball. So I am to conclude from this that you think Djokovic did not want to win ?

Good stuff Joigus. +1 The observer is at rest in his own frame. But it is also worth pointing out that in his additional papers and books, Einstein took great pains to address the issue of simultaneity. That is how does the observer know (measure) this ?

Good afternoon dan and welcome to ScienceForums. You will find quite a few knowledgable members here, but some take a while to respond. Whilst on the subject of responses please be aware that new members are only allowed 5 posts in their first 24 hours and I see you are up to #4. After that you can post at will. Right, so many different bodies 'manage' different parts of coastal protection in England. The other three Nations have similar but also some different arrangements. As part of my career as a highway manager I did some of this myself along the North Somerset Coast. Highway Authorities are responsible for that part of the coast which supports/carries a highway. Similarly the Railway Authorities in their various constantly being reorganised configurations are responsible for sections where the railway is adjacent to the water. For example they have just completed a multimillion scheme at Dawlish in South Devon. In the Severn Estuary the Environment Agency is responsiple downstream of the lock at the entrance to Gloucester Docks. Of course the Severn continues upstream for another nearly 100 miles and all this is the responsibility of the Inland Waterways Board. Dotted along the coasts are sundry harbours, moorings and beaches. Usually these are the responsibility of the Local Authority, parish, town etc. Then as John notes bodies such as the National Trust, The RSPB own and operate coastal (and inland) environmental patches. Trafalgar House are responsible for the Lighthouses. Remember also that all the land between high water and low water is officially owned by the Crown. I hope this helps. Also please also look at your university course question later today as I am gathering some material to help you.

This is what I understand you viewpoint to be. Please confirm or correct this. 'The free will only exists if there is a choice' Consequently if no choice exists then free will cannot exist.

And you are making the classic(al) mistake. That of mixing values in two different frames. When you specify or calculate a value or ask a question about a quantity that result is meaningless unless you also specify the frame you are working in. This is true in both galilean and einstinian relativity. So I ask the question again In which frame are you measuring D. Note you also need to do this for time quantities.

What plain rubbish. What does that have to do with the faculty of choice ? If and only if you do have options then you have the faculty of choice. That does not mean you have any will at all. If you exercise one of those choices that particular choice and no other is your will. That still does not mean you actually realise or achieve that choice, only that you try to follow that particular path. Taking my competitive example if the competitor did not want to want what did they want ? To loose ? What other choices are there ? And even if they did loose why does that preclude them wanting to win right up to the finishing line ? It is the will to win that drives them on. How is that will a faculty of choice ?

What do you think will means ? It means 'I want.... ' It does not mean I can have or I do have or even (pun intended) I will have.

Not even a tiny bit ? So perhaps they have the will to loose ? This is not a black and white subject, it is more complicated than that or there would be nothing to argue about.

Not always as I have demonstrated. We try, but we do not always succeed.

A a distance D in which frame ?

I think this thread has reached an impasse. Everyone seems agreed that the definition of free will is vital to the proceedings. Yet no one seems to have the free will to give an inch. Each with their own definition of free will seems comvinced that theirs is 'all right' and the others are 'all wrong'. A most unlikely situation. A couple of questions/situations to test your definitions on. 1) Two runners, teams, contestants are competing but there can be only one winner in say the Wimbledon Tennis Championship or the World Cup. Yet all have 'the (free) will to win'. So many do not win, despite the will 2) In one sense a man can have the free will to murder another. But in another sense this is obviously against laws imposed by society. So free will prevails despinte restrictions. Incidentally @Eise this second example contridicts or at least dilutes you anti christianity argument about the concept.

Yes that is one hypothesis, thought some references would have been nice. Here are some A bit of a sensationalist site https://www.syfy.com/syfy-wire/ancient-terror-crocodile-deinosuchus-ate-dinosaurs and a more measure one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinosuchus Note that both refer only to supposition, not hard evidence. But both sites refer to older ideas about cretaceous environemntal conditions, although the central N. american shallow sea was mentioned. I suggest that the skin of a creature that spends most of its time largely submerged would need to have differences from that of a creature that spends most of its time in the open air. The most modern reconstructions by respectively Lascouara (Dakota) Attenborough (UK) and Packham (UK) suggest some differences including the intriguing question Were the flying dinosaurs beginning to dominate before the end , especially as it is known that sea levels were rising duting this period. These can all be seen from the BBC 'The Day the Dinosaurs Died' presented by Roberts and Garrod 'Earth' presented by Cchris Packham 'The Final Day' presented by David Attenborough

Thanks, swansont +1 More detail from 'The Oxford Scientist' https://oxsci.org/geologic-hydrogen-the-future-of-green-energy/

Even with the latest ideas as to the age of the Andes, they are less than 20 million years old. So that part of South Americal has changed significantly since say 100 mya. But yes, such a region would have supported lots of food species.

Use Spherical coordinates for the angular momentum operator [math]{I^2} = - \hbar \left[ {\frac{1}{{\sin \theta }}\frac{\partial }{{\partial \theta }}\left( {\sin \theta \frac{\partial }{{\partial \theta }}} \right) + \frac{1}{{{{\sin }^2}\theta }}\frac{{{\partial ^2}}}{{\partial {\phi ^2}}}} \right][/math] to solve [math]{I^2}Y\left( {\theta ,\phi } \right) = {\hbar ^2}\lambda Y\left( {\theta ,\phi } \right)[/math] for eigenvalues.

I meant to say +1 for reaching this conclusion for yourself and admitting it online. Remember that a T Rex needs a lot of food so will either have to hunt a lot of small game or some very big game. So it will hang about well stocked places. That is places that are also good for other creatures, perhaps plant eaters. So the lush areas of the planet.

How is this the answer to my question ? The thermal conductivity of Aluminium is about 237 W M-1 K-1 right the way down to zero K so your piece of wire must be drawing (thermal) energy into the ring at a rate given by the usual heat transfer laws. I do not have data for the mobility of phonons in a n Al lattice. The cirtical temperature for superconductivity is 1.14o K As drawn I think your wire is a red herring as charge equilibrium will quickly be established and there will not be two way electrical currents in it, otherwise conservation of charge leads to the inevitable conclusion that there will be a build up of charge somewhere.

Isn't 'free' a qualifier ?

Now we are discussing perhaps it is worth setting the question in the context of geological history. The dinosaurs age lasted about 150 million years between 210 mya and 66 mya when there was the a series of cataclysmic events which caused their mass extinction. This time period spanned from the middle triassic to the late cretaceous, during which there were significantly no ice ages. Prior to this time the land masses were mostly concentrated on the equator but had begun to spread out towards both poles. By the middle triassic (the first dinosaurs) these land masses had crossed the tropics, but significant portions of what is now North America, Europe and Asia were still between the equator and the tropics. The first T Rexes came somewhere between 90 mya and 75 mya, and they lasted until the extinction event. Now a T Rex is a very large animal that clearly requires a good deal of food. Good supplies are unlikely to be available in arid to desert conditions. Note there are no large predators in these conditions today. So the question of swamp living is not a bad one. The height of a T Rex is about 3 - 4 metres. Far greater than that of a modern crock or gator. This means that shallow water would be unlikely to be an impediment to the creatures. But as already pointed out, their anatomy is entirely unsuited to deeper waters. Even today you have to go a long way offshore to get to 5 metres depth in most places. T Rex would definitely not be at home in such conditions. From the triassic into the jurassic and cretaceous there were extensive areas of shallow warm seas and extensive areas of swampy conditions. So the dinosaurs were able to spread out over much of the earth's land mass and out competed other forms of animal life. Competition also further developed them into prey and predators, aerial and land based.

Can they ?

That was a friendly hint I offered. It would be sad if a possible good topic got closed by a moderator for rules violations, which is after all why they close things.

The problem seems to me to be that you have posted this as a speculation. So strictly you are speculating that T REx may have been aquatic or semi aquatic, rather than asking the question Why do we not consider that T rex was aquatic in a biology or geology or section ? A speculation is a guess by you and a question is a request for information. And as swansont has said, you need evidence to back up your guess (speculation).