studiot

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 ?

So you can't support your claims, you are only dreaming. I am self consistent in my like of lasagne, so I am pleased to eat some. I don't see any mathematics in that unless it is in the 10 of 10cc in their words "Life is a lasagne." Go well.

Can I borrow your rotating microscope ? You will get more help if you 1) Post a large enough trace to read 2) Post it the right way up 3) Post any thought you already have as to identifying the peaks ? This is, after all, a university level question.

Yes the title refers to number theory and 'the field'. Both have very specific definitions and places in Mathematics (they are mathematical terms). Some of their properties are borrowed for (extensive) use in Physics and other sciences, but, and I have already pointed this out, The type of field you are referring to is not a field is the mathematical (algebraic) sense of the word. The Physics definition is not compatible with the formal algebraic definition.

Looks like a corian worktop. They suggest ammonia, (you mask will come in handy and wear gloves) https://www.corian.com/-use-care-

If what you say as gospel is actually true you will be able to support it with mathematics won't you ?

+1

Go easy on the poor soul, PHI, he's just been watching too many marvel movies during lockdown. +1

What on earth does this have to do with number theory ?

Contrast this statement With this one If you don't/can't read responses how are you going to be able to respond (anywhere) to them ?

Short and sweet again. +1 Lack of Gravitation was the reason Einstein moved on from SR to GR.

Thanks for the reply, yeah it is beginning to look like a dodgy connection where the lead enters the back of the plug.

A funny thing happened, leaving me perplexed. A week or so ago a pair of usb powered + 3.5mm jack speakers stopped working. On removing the backs I saw that one of the leads connecting to one speaker itself had come off so this morning I soldered it back on. After testing the speakers on an older laptop where they now worked I returned the speakers to their original laptop where they also worked again. This evening the speakers had stopped working again, on firing up that laptop. Yet they started came back to life immediately on plugging them into the older laptop again. Back to their normal laptop and -- No joy no workee. Back to the older test laptop -- no problemo. Back to their original no workee. I am very puzzled. Another set of the same types works perfectly in either laptop. Final test the dead? speakers do not display the blue on light when plugged into a usb wall socket supply. Any help welcome. Is any other info needed ?

Especially relevant. +1 I stopped bothering with this thread since it left the title subject of number theory far behind.

Very quickly There have been some very good animations of the 'distortion' caused by speed. 1) Ask Janus, he posted some. Also this earlier thread, I havent had time to review it though. The university of Oz seems legit.

The point of spacetime is that the timelike and spacelike dimensions have a quadratic relationship, not a linear one so you can't separate them. 1-D space has no curvature. Space has to be at least 2 -D to have curvature. Please go back a few posts and read (the translation of) what Minkowski actually said. At the top of page 88 in my attachment. Euclidian space is the name given to space with the usual or standard metric distance function [math]dis\tan ce = \sqrt {x_1^2 + x_2^2 + x_3^2 + ......x_n^2} [/math] for n dimensions. The space can be physical or abstract.