studiot

If you think mothy looks bad, you should see the other guy. I picked him up whilst walking along a lane in very rural Herefordshire a few days ago. Had a great holiday tramping the Malverns and visiting the oldest rocks in England. We have had noticeably fewer insects here in Somerset these last few years, but they still have plenty in Herefordshire.

Thank you I think you have found it. +1 The male Oak Eggar on Wiki looks very much like it, including the two small wingspots

I have worked on oil rigs and barges that do this. Many small pleasure vessels also still do this.

Not really. mistermack is hinting at what developed in classical mechanics and and is now also used in quantum mechancis and fractal mechanics (in computing) This is the system of Generalised Coordinates, of Dimension n. Definition If the configuration of a system S is determined by the values of a set of independent variables q1...qn then {q1.....qn} is said to be a set of generalised coordinates for S, of dimension n. The qn are often momenta in classical mechanics. The set, S, is called the phase space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_coordinates Generalised dimensions are more modern and there are many modern texts on the subject https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-GB&gbv=2&q=generalised+dimensions&oq=generalised+dimensions&aqs=heirloom-srp..0l5

Never seen one like this before. Can anyone idnetify it please ? It is dark brown with yellow bands on the wing edges and tips.

For Ronnies fans. Notice seen recently in a hardware shop in Ledbury.

There is an existing framework within Theoretical Physics for this. This is because the concept of 'dimension' appears in several different forms, each with its own characteristics. You are proposing a different mix of traditional continuous dimensions as used in traditional geometry to descibe shapes. Such mixes have been studied, and when Relativity came along, Eddington discussed in some detail the possibility of employing 1,2,3,4, ... n spatial dimensions and 1,2,3, ...m temporal dimensions early in his treatise "The Mathematical Theory of Relativity". Minkowski added the possibility of 'imaginary' dimensions by using complex numbers instead of real numbers. The possibility that the Universe is not continuous in the traditional sense was also studied and that fractional dimensions (fractal) may be required This was demonstrated most vividly by Mandelbrot with his question "how long is the coastline" In a different line of attack, it was realised that there is a tie up between the number of variables needed to completely specify the condition of a system and the concept of dimensions, since these variables can be plotted on a multidimensional 'graph'. So in Thermodynamics we have state variables ( +1 to @OldChemE ), in Mechanics we have phase variables and so on. The physics of the particular system gives us a new relationship. That of constraints and degrees of freedom. The Physics of the system gives us a set of relationships (usually equations) between the variables and all these quantities are called 'dimensions' in some system of analysis or another. The new thing is that we can use these relationships to trade off between the total number of degrees of freedom, variables and constraints. So in thermodynamics we need one less state dimension than the 3 - P, V, T as knowing 2 will always allow calculation of the third. This brief survey hopefully shows that there is much more to this question than at first meets the eye. Good topic, +1

Hundreds of thousands is a bit of an overestimate. But that is still a large number so you are right it is not practcable to pretest all possible interactions. But many potential interactions are predictable by biochemical means and some will never occur simply because there is also redundancy in the drugs list. In other words if there are say 5 antibiotics all 5 would not be normally prescribed at once for the same condition. Some interactions are beneficial eg omeprazole with drugs like dichlorofenac to prevent the latter attacking the stomach lining. In some cases different routes into the body can be used (oral, intramuscular, intravenous, patches, inhalation, suppositories etc) can be used to avoid a potential unwanted interaaction. The body itself also plays a part, as only some people experience any given interaction. As a result of this latter, there is a comprehensive (in the UK at any rate) reporting system for any new information that arises. Sadly despite all this, something serious occasionaly goes unanticipated. Doubtless others will have additional views on the subject.

Fine so let us compare two examples. You supply one example and I will supply the other. We can then work both examples in accordance with your laws and Newton's laws and compare. Here is my example. On my table sits the book I am reading. It does not move, it just sits there. It is midnight here so good night, I will look for your example and analysis of mine tomorrow.

Thank you for your answer, now we are actually getting somewhere. Since this is a speculation, not established Physics, you are entitled to posit a statement similar to A body requires to be acted on by a force in order to move. Of course as a speculation you will need to demonstrate predictions that result from applying this statement that can be checked by direct observation. I will tell you now that this was the belief held for thousands of years before Newton. Newton's great insight was to show that a body only requires an acting force to change its state of motion.

In response to the last superlarge dish of word salad I offer a simple analysis, I offered on a maths site to someone who thinks they have discovered a 'pattern' in the occurrence of primes. Since there are a very large number of primes (the ancient Greeks proved this large number to be transfinite) it is not only not suprising to be able to find not only a pattern but any finite pattern inclusded in that infinity.

Perhaps it is philosophic, but it is not a trick question. You talked about "fundamental grounds". So I am trying to establish what are your fundamental grounds. If by saying motion is the property by which it demonstrates its relativity (I have shortened this to the important part) I think in English we would say All motion is relative to something other than the moving object. I would agree with you. That leaves my second question unanswered. Are you aware of Newton's Laws of Motion ? The first one says N1 : A body will continue in its state of motion in a straight line, or of rest, unless acted upon by a force. So once again please state whether you agree or disagree with this. ?

So do you disagree with Newton's First Law ? What is your definition of motion please ?

Fair enough, but you wrote that , not I. and it was in the quote of your post that I responded to. So what about my request ?

I am not a cosmologist, and certainly give way on the formal detail to Markus (+1) although over the years I have seen cosmological theories come and go. Here is a less formal 2022 summary of Dark Matter and Dark Energy from someone I respect greatly, Frank Wilczek.

Really ? How does a meteorite impact show that "the distance from the planet's centre is constant " ? And if I was standing at the North Pole ? Apparantly not. Repetition does not improve understanding or veracity. Actually responding to the points of others migh go some way to achieving this. No, in my day (the 1970s) we did gravimetric surveys the hard way from on board ship or sometimes aircraft.

Well part of g depends on G, but as I said, G is a scalar constant. This means it is the same everywhere in the universe. g is a vector so how exactly do you derive the direction part of this vector from a universal scalar constant ? Your equations only tell part of the story, but omit the all important direction part. You also have yet to answer my comment that for the Earth it is just not true that Nor, for that matter have you defined 'the surface of the planet'.

So why did you not address the question I asked you ? G is a universal scalar constant. g is a vector which is not proportional to G and is the variable that measures the Earth's gravity field. They do not have the same units or dimensions. I quoted exactly which of your many points I was objecting to. Here it is again. And here is what I asked you. I should like to point out that there is a whole branch of Science called Geodesy, which I studied for postgrad, devoted to measuring and studying the fact that the Earth's gravity field does not follow these predictions.

That wasn't what I asked you. Do you know and understand the difference between g and G ?

I went to the time and trouble of carefully reading and analysing you longish initial posting. Then I asked you only 4 very clear questions about It has taken you two weeks to not answer even one of them. The above short reply was a repetition of what you already wrote and not a response to my question about that particular point. I'm sorry I wasted my time.

Why does the gravity field of the Earth not follow these predictions ?

Peter, if you don't tell us more we can't help you properly. I gather that English is not your first language, but the more you use it the better and easier it will become. Letters are symbols and so is infinity, although it is not a letter of any alphabet it comes from ancient Greek. In mathematics limits are not part of Calculus, although they are often taught just before calculus. The letters you refer to in the limit expressions are called dummy indices, which means they stand for integers and that you can use any letter, although, l,m,n i,j,k are the most common. Infinity itself does not correspond to or replace any integer, and only appears at the end of the limit arrow. This should be read that n 'tends to infinity' whcih means the process of getting larger larger for ever, but never actually becoming infinity so you don't replace n by infinity.

That's rather like saying to me "You have one penny in your pocket, I have two so I am very much richer than you are !" We could only just measure the difference two hundred years after Newton's death. So he was not very much wrong.

The point of Newtonian (gravity) and Maxwellian (electromagnetic) treatments is that they are couched in terms of mechanical forces. Mechanical forces are vectors that can be added in vector fashion to produce a vector resultant to work with. So when applied to field theory you have a vector field of forces for each source contributing to the overall result.

Somewhat depends upon what you mean by a Concept. Some would say that all numbers are concepts. It also depends what you mean by a number. Any number is of no use on its own. They are all part of some system of numbers or another. We distinguish many different number systems. There is no number system that contains every individual number. When others are telling you that infinity is not a number, what they mean is that infinity is not a 'real' number, or a number in one of the many simpler systems of numbers. If you would like to indicate where you want to go with this and also give us some idea of your level of mathematical knowledge we can give you are more detailed answer.