studiot

So why do the reflective surfaces not emit this light under other conditions ? And when they do emit light, that light is not generally of the same colour as the incident light that they reflect ? Have you ever 1) Built a laser 2) Experimented with a laser ? 3) Used a laser for any (practical) purpose ?

+1 The funny thing is that he has said this (only two things), amongst other things in his 'papers' .

That is contrary to my direct experience. The rest of this nonsense seems to me to be a best a hoax generated by some computer program to create quasi logical links between entries in a scientific dictionary. At worst is could be advertising for the commercial sites you have linked to at lexiclonedotcom.

Do you have figures to prove this ? Since America probably provides both the largest supply and market for SF I very much doubt it. Though glowing compliments for British writers are welcome, I think they are undeserved. I see that clarion workshops are still going, after a hiatus during covid and the recent death of Vonda Mcintyre. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarion_Workshop

I note this thread has now been moved by the moderators to speculations. I'm sorry but if you can't or won't clarify your misuse of other people's terminology I can't see this thread surviving much longr before it is closed. It is a shame you do this whilst claiming What respect ? How many centuries ? As a matter of record Avogadro did not claim a particular number when he introduced his postulate in 1811. "Equal volumes of different gas under the same conditions of temperature and pressure contain the same number of molecules" As @joigus has pointed out that we have derived a number (Perrin 1911) from this postulate that is applicable in our current system of units. I am particularly concerned with your unsupported misuse of Mathematics, whilst invoking Cantor. In particular in the set {elephant, monkey, tangerine} all those three objects are accumulation points, quite unrelated to whatever you mean by 'accumulation points'.

There is a difference between photon as such and a photon that has become part of а set (of elements, other photons). Until the photon has become a part of the set it does not exist, it is not observable in any way. For example, photon from a supernova 1 billion light-years from Earth is not observable, it has not become a part of the many elements of the observer (human). That is, such photon is a part of the "dark matter". A not distinguishable from others becomes unique, that is it acquires qualities (such as color) only by becoming a part. Sorry for the tautology, I am inspired by the String Theory. I don't know who (or what) you are but I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt since you are obviously not the usual crank with a particular agenda. All these responses are almost what I might expect from an AI that had been told to read a Science library in order to to learn Maths and Science. Not random but not yet making appropriate connections. I hope you are really human! So I will tell you a true story of my own experience. When I was about 13 I learned about forces in structural frameworks (roof trusses etc). I was also learning about other Sciences as well, in particular about molecules when the ball and stick or framework models were popular. Anyway I conceived the idea that I wanted to apply structural framework theory to molecules, as no one seemed to have thought of it or tried it. I did not then know enough to know how inappropriate that was or why. Many years later I know know why this was inappropriate, but I also now know how a variation called structural dynamics can be applied to molecules. This is very important in Spectroscopy and some other aspects of Chemistry. I understand your description of accumulation points, also called limit points, cluster points or interior points, in set theory. I can now tell you that these are mathematical (topological) conveniences but that they do not need the 'orbisphere' to have infinite, or indeed any measurable, radius. We use the shorter term 'open ball'. This conforms to the topological idea of open and closed sets, which is closely tied to accumulation points and leads to the study of continuity and measure theory in Mathematics. But Mathematics requires no connection to anything in the physical world. Sometimes (often) it can be a useful mathematical model, but it is not the same thing. So press on, but try to reduce the number of your ideas to one or two at a time. You just have too many at once.

Has the 5 post rule for new members been suspended or deleted please ?

You can tell a red photon from a green one. If this is true I recommend reading and study over guesswork. There have been several great Russian Physicists, you could then be one of them.

Which clearly demonstrate my point. You and MacSwell are talking about different things when you say 'the government'. And changing the name local government to local authority does not make any difference.

Tha language of this website is English. I hope this is not a preamble to a religous offering. Well go on then, I asked for the connection between set theory and your topic here. I quoted your statement for detailed explanation. I hope this thread is not just a wind up.

That's a remarkable claim. I look forward to your jsutification / explanation. Please explain the meaning of this statement and its relevance to the subject.

At the risk of getting my head bitten off from both sides of this argument. I think you guys are arguing at cross purposes. I am with Mcswell in considering a lumped public sector. But I am with Cuthber for most of the comments about this sector. BTW firemen work for local government is that not 'government' ? I also think there are far too many entrenched outdated attempts to create an 'us and them' by dividing society and its activities up into the private sector and the public sector. Also a little bit of history. In 1984, at the time of 'the miner's strike' the miners worked for the nationalised National Coal Board. They fought pitched battled with the Police, employed by local government but funded mostly directly by central government, as local government itself. So I repeat my earlier comment that no one has taken up that two parts of the state or public sector engaged in a very minor civil war with each other. Not a desirable situation.

Singularity functions are not new in Mathematics. Here are some ways of handling them and indeed making good use of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_function note this can be downloaded as a pdf. All these oddities and fractals us rethink our ideas of 'points' and point set topology. This is because the classical view of a point is as a 'static' identifiable object. But if we look the other way for a fractal, (expanding to larger and larger scales, rather than contracting to smaller and smaller ones) our 'static' points (I would rather use the word fixed, but Banach has already bagged that in the fixed point theorem) are not static at all but change as the scale increases. So if we take the traditional isotropic and homogeneous n dimensional ball about a point, ie as a neighborhood including that point as an interior point, we find the properties of that point depend to some extent on the other points in the ball, which in turn depend upon the scale of the ball.

Hello and welcome. Seems you are a bit of a dreamer. Perhaps you should either study some real Tech or write science-fiction. There was a series of stories about a superstrong cable dangling from a geostationaary satellite carrying an elevator as a way of getting into space. I can't remember the author but think it was either Asimov or Clarke. With regard to your siphon, the theoretical maximum lift of a siphon is the height of a water column supported by the atmosphere, ie about 32 feet. For practical applications see the charts in the pdf. https://scdhec.gov/sites/default/files/media/document/Temporary Siphons.pdf

I don't know. I would have added +1 to your original statement I quoted if you had included 'big' in it, because I think the differences I have outlined are major ones, not small ones.

No not really. It's just that some people confuse the two. You aim at a target or you aim somewhere else, if you are aiming at all. But a target can exist independently of whether anyone is aiming at it or not.

but there's a insert 'big ' difference between target and aim...

Other strange mathematical constructions, of potential interest to cosmologists are Gabriel's Horn and Peano curves. Gabriel's horn is part of a family of infinite n dimensional objects that enclose our bound a finite (n+1) dimensional object. Peano curves are n dimensional objects that fill (cover) spaces of greater (n+1, n+2 etc) dimension. These completely cut though and violate conventional metrics such as Euclidian, Riemannian etc.

Your original question implied to me at any rate larger objects than 'point object', which can be truly modelled by single events. When you consider objects made up of some/many event points you can run into simultaneity issues. I think this is what Markus was referring to, but I should wait for his and swansont's comments as well.

+1 for having a go, but realising the safety implications of higher voltages. A few points about you results. You are calculating resistance, whereas it is more usual to use conductance with liquids. Yes this is just the reciprocal of resistance but standard tables of values are all in conductances or conductivities. Do you understand the correspondence between resistance and resistivity v conductance and conductivity ? Also you have not put units to you 'resistances' I have multiplied my conductances in this graph by 10,000. By the way Desmos.com/calculator is a useful free simple online graphing tool. Looking at my graph which has only plotted the points, you are not justified in drawing the two straight lines as you have wiht only 4 points. The graph 'turns over' to become asymptotic to somewhere around 4.5 conductance units. Two other notes about your setup. Yes there is an ohmic aspect to conductivity of water. As the voltage and therefore the current rises some ohmic heating will inevitably occur raising the water temperature. This is the basis for certain types of water heater. The conductivity or resistivity of water, both pure and contianing impurities (eg tap water) is quite heavily temperature dependent.

+1 And a single point in space, ie a single point in spacetime. So it is not just not a car crash it is also not a car.

The Romans built hundreds of miles of canals and aqueducts in the country that gave birth to modern California.

As I have already mentioned, how ironic is that ? Who would be the greater threat to our society Comrade Putin or Comrade Scargill MK2 ?

Thank you for your clarification. +1 Of course you have plenty of higher ground in America. How much do you think the Dutch have ? I take your point about the headlong rush for progress in America, youngsters were ever that way inclined. This Mississippi system (we used to have spelling contests at primary school as to who could spell 'Mississippi' backwards the fastest) includes some of the longest waterways in the world and the Midwest has plenty of potential space to hold back water for dry years and save the stretch from St Louis to New Orleans from repeat serious flooding. The river in my local town empties into the channel with the second highest tide in the world. Historically when there is a combination of spring high tides, adverse westerly winds and additional rainfall in the catchment area there have been floods in the town centre. The new country park provides enough low lying holding area and a brand new parkland, unusual in the 20th century, for the forseeable future protection needs. It can be done, it has been done, economically and beneficially. It just requires the political will.

No But they may look different to an observer in a different frame.