studiot

Thank you for your reply. I suppose it all hangs on your definition of 'truth'. In Mathematics truth means 'consistent with the axioms'. Note that this does not mean 'derivable from the axioms'. Other disciplines employ different meanings. In Philosophy you can have irresistible forces and immovable objects. In Physics you can't have these things. You also need to beware of differences in terminology. You used the word 'ideal', so beloved of ancient Greek philosophers. In Physics this means possessing certain specific properties as in ideal gas or ideal conductor. But in Mathematics, an ideal is a particular algebraic structure which has even more variation because you may have a left ideal or a right ideal !.

Nonsense. It collapsed a long time ago.

Since you like latin/french derivations and asses here is what the french ass herder said about the difference between the words etre and suivre. Je ne suis pas ce que je suis, si je suis ce que je suis, je ne suis pas ce que je suis.

Perhaps it is worth mentioning that there is at least one further meaning and parts of speech for 'wind', after all it's what roads in Somerset do.

Another way to look at this is to take E = mc2 and combine it with E = hf to obtain f = mc2 / h In words The wave function of a state with energy E vibrates at a frequency given by this equation.

Just to add a little to swansont's post (+1) @kba I advise you look at Earnshaw's theorem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earnshaw's_theorem This classical theorem applies to systems with centres of charge (gravitational, electric, magnetic) and the field interactions between them. It basically states that for any system with two or more poles, rest is an unstable state so such a system must be in motion. But it does not state that the field or the interactions are caused by the motion.

Nonsense. Science was sufficiently advanced for Cavendish to measure the gravitational attraction of stationary bodies as small as a few kg placed near each other before 1800.

I don't see any good reason for welcoming a new member inthis way so I am adding a reversal to the negative vote. That does not mean in any way that I agree with kba's proposition. If is a very very big word. Why should the gravity of the Sun have changed significantly, or indeed at all ? Where is the evidence supporting this. A couple of comments. Instead of resurrecting a long dead thread from an obvious crank I suggest you start your own discussion. (Talk to a moderator and ask to split this off) In suggesting this I am doing you the service of assuming you are amenable to rational discussion. You will need to take into account that any change in gravity will have affected many things, not only the dinosaurs. All of these things will have left an evidential trail. And we have found no such evidence to date. In fact proper evidence of the most probable sequence of events was released earlier this year from the Dakota dig and 15 year investigation.

I'm sorry, I have told you something very important about Fields and you have failed to address this point each time you have replied. Instead you have introduced all sorts of irrelevant material.

Thank you for taking the time to actually think about my proposition. +1 Yes that is basically what I mean but I will provide some examples. As to self consistency it is fundamental to mathematics. Have you heard of The german 'Erlangen pogrom', Felix Klein and David Hilbert ? The most famous mathematicians of their day set out to axiomatize the whole of mathematics in a systematic and self consistent way. There was mush upset and furore when they failed and Godel came along and proved that such a task will always result in failure. However the idea is so seductive that another group in France also tried this under the banner 'Bourbaki'. There was an original soldier called Bourbaki. Subsequently it became the name of a secretive group of elite mathematicians which has continued to this day, despite knowing that the goal, like the holy grail, cannot be achieved. You will often find references to the terminology, structures and definitions set up by these two groups when reading about mathematics. As to an example of what I mean. In maths you cannot have an axiom system that containsIn physics consider the atom, for instance Axiom1 for all a, b : a + b = a - b Axiom2 [math]a,b \ne 0[/math] Axiom 2 directly contradicts axiom 1. In physics you can have two principle that may pull in opposite directions for example 1) Systems tend to minimum energy 2) Systems tend to maximum entropy Physics allows both agents to coexist, the result being a balance between the two. The atom exists as a balance between the twin opposite forces of attraction and repulsion. A book on a table does not fall to the gorund because the table is pushing it up just as hard as gravity is pulling it down. This is what I mean when Is say that maths wants to make everything part of a grand consistent scheme where everything always works with everything else, whereas physics allows schemes where everything pulls 'every which way'.

Externet I love that Newton quote. +1 🙂

I just have visions of megalithic mercury man scratching his head when he came to this signpost. Today, of course, he would just use a Falkirk Wheel. 🙂

Don't you think these are rather adversarial ? I agree that stone age Man knew nothing about the core of the Earth. But serious work began in the rennaisance with studies of gravity. Later work by that reclusive genius Cavendish was able to establish that it must be made of something very dense by careful gravitational measurement. The late 19th century brought new tools to bear with the beginnings of seismology by Ernst yon Rebeur-Pasebwitz, techniques that have continued to develop ever since. Current work in Canada, Sweden, Antarica, out in space and elsewhere continues to probe the working of the core via the Earth's magnetosphere, which can only be generated in the core. A good book to read here is 'Aurora' by physicist, Melanie Windrush who specialises in this stuff.

I didnt say it did or that it didn't. I said This, for your information and in accordance with the rules of the English language reffers to the last named nound, this this case "thread" I even added, for clarity, the reason why this thread is not about consciousness. Please read the postings of others before you react. I have other mundane things to do this evening, like the wahing up, before the evening film.

I'm sorry you have completely missed the point of this thread. This is not about consciousness I carefully separated it out from a thread about that subject, because it is not about consciousness. You were having, let us call them discussions, with the moderators in that thread. This thread is there to help you understand what they and others are saying to you about Science.

Fair questions. Jasper said "all sciences" , in which I include Mathematics. The point is that Mathematics is (or would like to be) axiomatic based. Whereas Physics has no axioms, only principles. In fact whilst is is a requirement of a system of axioms in Maths to be self consistent, Physics (and many other sciences) is a study of the opposition of different agents and what happens when the result needs to satisfy both (or them all) in some way. Does this answer your question ?

I have started another discussion thread for your benefit to discuss this idea.

I have started this thread to help jasper better understand science as a result of this comment. I have placed the discussion in Philosophy to be even handed to both Sciences which I propose The underlying approach to their subjects by Physics and Mathematics are the antithesis of each other, curious because Physics relies so heavily on Mathemstics.

Really ? And I object to someone claiming a Masters in Physics (note there are PhD's and above here) producing no Physics at all here. Please read the rules about needing to go offsite. In any case Seth has already pointed out the simple fact that Archimedes does not apply here. Archimedes applies when the bouyant object is musch much smaller than the immersion medium. So the state and geometry of the immersion medium (ocean. lake, atmousphere etc) is not changed by the immersion. What does apply is used in foundation engineering where fluid pressure is an important consideration. It is emminently possible that fluid pressure could be applied to reduce the burden of horizontal force required to drag the stones along. After all fluid pressure has tipped over our concrete dams and othere structures in the past. Finally a question for you. If you did manage to float a large heavy stone in an even larger and heavier tub of mercury; how would you move the whole sheebang, given that you are floating it in the mercury to get over its weight in the first place ? Please provide a specific Physics answer not hand waving.

I really can't see the interest in this idea. Cladking's hydraulic system at least made mechanical sense and could have been implemented with the technology of the time in ancient Egypt. If you are going to make a containing channel strong enough to contain the pressures involved in supporting a 100 (remember the OP actually said hundreds) tons block you have to ask how would neolithic Man have constructed it ? It would surely have been a more onerous task then making the block itself. Having consrtucted the channel how would the stone have been lifted in and out ? And of course how would they have made 180 miles of channel ?

I was under the impression that there is a religion section in this forum for discussing the scientific aspect of religion, not for expounding individual religous beliefs.

Yes there are different ways of specifying many things in Mathematics, but in the case of a Field they all specify the same thing. However a Field in Physics can be shown to directly contradict any of these specifications.

Yes agreed. +1 to mrmack who originally pointed it out and to exchemist for confirm it. But also seth (+1) has noted that it might be a lubricant, which uses different mechanics. However I know nothing about the possible use of mercury as a lubricant. I do know its meniscus is the 'other way up' as it doesn't wet many materials.

Paradoxically, it's very difficult to define a field in Physics without some mathematics! +1 I would say that in Physics if, in a simply connected region of space(either abstract or physical), some quantity (again either abstract or physical) has a defined value at every point in that space then a Field is said to exist in that space. thjis means that a Physics field may be either abstract in the sense of a direction field or have some physical presence as in a stress field. Mathematiclly a field is a non empty set of elements equipped with two binary operations, usually called addition and multiplication.such that the set is a commutative group under addition and the set, with the exclusion of the zero element, is a commutative group under multiplication and that multiplication distributes over addition. This makes some sets of numbers to be fields and other sets of numbers such as the integers not fields. The smallest mathematical field has two members 0 and 1. But they don't have to be numbers, they could be other symbols such as T and F or H and C or 'square' and 'circle' or 'facing forwards' and 'facing backwards'. However it is conceivable that an (infinite) Physics field variable has values running through all the integers, but is still not a field in the Mathematics sense.

I like the connection between coarse/fine graining and fractals, I had not though of it that way. +1 But connections to number theory ?