studiot

Let me repeat a previous post. OK so to continue with the Mathematics, though Euler also had much to do with applied maths. Princeton University has been home to some of the greatest geniuses in History. They also have a small publishing house which publishes specialist topic books, most of which become standards in their field (see another use of the word field ?). I am recommending one about Euler and his constant, gamma to you as you should find much of interest in it. Most of the book is lightly mathematical to be more generally accessible but read the introduction here and see what you think. Gamma - Exploring Euler's Constant Julian Havil - Princeton University Press 2003 & 2021

You chose to quote the vertical deflection, yet the horizontal deflection can be from a few to hundreds of kilometres. People always forget tidal streams.

I suppose they both depend where you live. We have 30 metre sea tides where I live.

It should be possible to make a reasonable estimate of the loss of rotational kinetic energy, which as Moon says, must be degraded to heat. It has been possible to detect 'earth tides' in the crust, but the deflections are tiny compared to the deflections of the water covering (oceans) and energy depends upon the square of the deflection amplitude. So deflection of the liquids in the outer core will also be greater than those in the more solid crust and mantle and of course the inner core. The outer core will generate much friction as it rubs between the undermantle and the inner core. We now have believable models of the (rate of) heat transfer between the various layer of the Earth that can be applied.

Out of interest I looked up the word solipsism in the Oxford English Dictionary. Physics, and not only modern Physics but also classical Physics uses the term isolation or isolated extensively. So in that sense it must support solipsism. But this whole thing is a philosophical/semantic argument as you have not fully defined your use of the term solipsism and its limits.

Swansont is far far more qualified than I am to pronounce on the relationship between physics and solipsism. He is a working professional Physicist, whilst I am a retired applied mathematician. Perhaps that is why he is less sympathetic towards philosophy than I am. And I regard this as a philosophical question, not a physics one. Perhaps this question should be moved to philosophy.

Interesting topic and photos. +1 Thanks for the article. +1

Seems to me that you have combined two mutually exclusive ideas to produce a self contradictory question. If solipsism is true there there can be no Physics, modern or otherwise. Further I wonder why you are asking other 'selves' ? Surely the doctrine that nothing exists or can exist other than one's self automatically denies the existence of other 'selves' and other doctrines ?

Looking forward to the next installment ! +1 I would observe that density is important because there is an unaccounted for force acting here - gravity. We should not losse sight of that in the discussion about central forces. But you are correct that using pressure would be more appropriate since this is a fluids calculation. I hesitate to use the term pseudo-force, since a force is a vector and there is something called a pseudovector which is a horse of a different colour alltogether, which is definitely not non-real. Centrifugal force could be called virtual or imaginary, since it is introduced by the analyst to aid calculation (and perhaps visualisation). Virtual may be too general. Imaginary might be confused with complex numbers. The point is that it does not exist.

Thanks but I don't have the petrol to spare these days. Surely someone in the industry might know this. Seth and Exchemist were both in petrochem industries.

1) Neither are forces. 2) The evidence for each is quite separate and independent of the evidence for the other, as are the effects they describe. 3) Read Frank Wilczek, it will help a lot.

I watched your video, should it have sound ? I didn't hear any. Your weak magnetic field seems to lack any technical definition/description and I couldn't see items (for instance charges A and B ) that were referenced in the accompanying text. In general it seems to require the introduction of entities and dimensions we have no access to and rather than unifying dark matter and dark energy (which are entirely different phenomena) it introduces yet more 'magic media' currently beyond our ken. There are only a few frames and ideas. I'm sure you could summarise them here for discussion. A suggestion for you. Read Frank Wilczek's just published book Fundamentals : ten keys to reality. As an educated engineer you should find it easy reading and Frank does have the knack of bringing most, if not all, your disparate topics together very simply and cogently.

I have been trying to find the density of the detergent powder particles themselves, before attempting an explanation. Unfortunately all I can find is lots of information on the bulk density of the powder, which includes the voids. Clearly I can't directly measure this by a displacement method, as the particles are soluble! So if anyone can help with this I would be grateful as it is the density of the particles (relative to the liquid) that determines what they do. Any object following a curved path (ie non straight) is not in equilibrium - that is it has a net force acting on it, even if its speed is constant. This net force is called the centripetal force, which is a real force that must be supplied by some agent, eg the rope tied to block swung around your head. D'Alambert invented a system of reducing such systems to equilibrium by applying an imaginary force opposing the real net force, thus allowing the equations of equilibrium to be used. This imaginary force is called the centrifugal force. It should be noted that the motion is at right angles to the resultant of the real and imaginary force and is the direction the object will travel if either is removed eg by cutting the rope. That is the object will fly off tangentially, not radially. So there is nothing forcing partcles radially outwards. These systems are called 'central forces' and are often analysed by accelerations, rather than forces directly.

You are going to be a lot more precise to make any headway. What is "the Natural/Real set" ? And what properties do the members of 'the set of square roots of prime numbers enjoy' that have already been proven ?

What might throw some light on your question would be for you to tell us about your printing process. (No trade secrets required. Just is is water bases, oil based or what. Silanes are chemical compounds that penetrate fine cracks in ceramic materials to repel water. Glass surfaces are not as smooth at the microscopic level as you might think and have microcracks. We used to use silanes to do something similar in concrete.

On top of what @joigus said so clearly (+ 1), You have to delve much deeper into the philosophy of Mathematics beofre you can start using symbols such a = ; + ; n+1 and so on. Consider. Until you have defined what a number is how can you define addition ? So how can you give meaning to n + 1 in the definition of a number ? Note in Mathematics defining means loosely 'give meaning to' .

Here is your biggest hurdle. This makes the system non conservative. SHM represents a conservative system. That said when we consider the eqautions of SHM we equate the sums of system forces or energies to zero (because it is conservative) We can introduce non conserative 'forcing functions' by equating an SHM system to the forcing function. Normally we then try to solve the result by building onto the solutions to the SHM core (or 'kernal').

Why ? Like the engineers and physicists of the 1890s 'guessed' the age of the Earth ? Or like the E & S guessed that fusion was 20 years away in the 1950s, 1970s, 1990s, and again in the 2020s ?

Pure guesswork, no better than the "we will have fusion within 20 years" guess of the 1950s. Surely we are talking about now ? A further point I forgot to mention in my last post. The big difference between my proposed human hypothesis and any known AI is that once one human has stated it, pretty soon many humans will understand it and be using it, discussing it and developing it. As far as I know a human would have to reprogram this famous chess AI if you wanted it to 'diagnose like a doctor' or answer symbolic maths questions like Wolfram or MathCad or ........

Some further thoughts. On replication. Sure a robot (note not a just computer but a lot of other sesigned parts) could, if the materials were available, eventually build another robot. We know that robotic arms can perform specific tasks more accurately than human arms. But maroon a robotinson crusoe on another planet. Would it be able to even think of mining silicon to repair its crash damaged brain ? On teamwork. Sure we have linked a couple of computers together to enhance their combined power. Even many hundreds of thousands in the genome project for instance. But these were all outside directed activities. Evidence of a bunch of robots/computers that could think of and implement this for themselves are a long way off in my opinion. On rational thinking. This is my example proposed in the computation thread. When will an AI/computer appear that could have the following train of though by itself? In North America the main mountain ranges run North - South and there are wide open spaces between, also running North - South In Europe, the main mountain ranges run East-West. Both of these northern continents have been subject to many ice ages and partly covered by ice sheets. During such times the southern edges of these ices sheets advance and retreat periodically as the climate was not constant. In modern times it is known that the variation of natural or indigenous species, both flora and fauna, is much greater in North America than it is in Europe. I would like to learn of an AI that could winkle out these facts and then produce a hypothesis as to their connection.

@Genady No criticism but you have spread the subject of the difference between human and AI ( and perhaps other digital computer) thought processes over several threads, some of which are now being left behind and forgotten. This leaves me in a quandrary as I want to post an important comparison, relevant to this topic, but is not computation so would perhaps be off topic here. I have already referred to some differences in the other thread(s).

This is an oft misunderstood belief. That is why I asked the question. Modern computers in general tend to operate on 'digital' principles and for anything computed this way a TM can indeed be programmed to implement a digital computation for. However there are other types of machine that can be used to perform some of the same computations by other (non digital) methods and indeed can perform some computations that a TM cannot perform directly. The extraction of powers, roots and reciprocals, the solution of polynomial equations and even differential equations and also both the integral calculus and the differential calculus can all be performed graphically by a competent draughtsman. So a drawing board, and its associated equipment constitute a computational machine.

I note we have yet to have guidance from our OP as to what sort of 'computational machine' we are discussing. Turing machines are not the only sort of computational machine, and I don't don't see why I can't assume that if Genady meant to limit the discussion to Turing machines he would not have specified one of these.

Me for instance. That said, and with respect to Genady, the OP is poorly phrased. What is a computational machine ? My slide rule is undoubtedly a 'computational machine', but I could dig the garden with it, or stir the soup or with my model make physical measurements with it. Does 'computation' include making measurements ?

Some further rambling thoughts comparing development of AI/Computers and Humans. From earliest times humans developed the concept and implementation of teamwork. that is how they would have taken down a wooly mammoth for instance. Obviously that required lots of humans. On the other hand computers are not (as far as I know) developed in the environment of lots of cooperating computers/AIs. Humans learn and grow up under the guidance of older humans, thus using one way of passing on skills and knowledge. This might even have led to the concept of a guiding being and religion. Computers don't follow this route, so could a computer develop such a concept ? Humans have the advantage of other living beings of being able to participate in evolution of a species by reproduction passing on gene. Again as far as I know this is unavailbale to computers.