studiot

That's a heap more helpful than any of your other posts. +1 Now perhaps you would like to describe your idea using the ball ?

If you wish to discuss your offering there is nothing to stop you starting your own thread with a better OP

Yes that is a fair point +1, a pity you are too late to make it to the OP. The OP was rather rambling and ill defined. The only question (point) for discussion I can see is Which has already been answered.

Does this mean you are now ready to listen ? The straightforward answer is 2.

🙂

Spectacular pictures and great question. +1 (Volcanic) Horseshoe islands are uncommon but not unknown. Here is a link to another. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/146164/the-island-shaped-like-a-horseshoe As you say the eruption was asymmetric. The obvious dipping of the volcanic layers down from the high side to right under water suggest this. The layering can be traced through the cleft as though a slice of cake was removed. The cleft is wider at the top than the bottom. There is evidence of several less dramatic vertical breaks segmenting the island in the photos. So how did it happen ? Well there are three conceivable mechanism I can think of. Firstly the eruption may have issued through sea bed faults. This would have accounted for the original asymmetry of the eruption. But it would not account for the clefts or large scale vertical joints. Then there may have been a series of small eruptions, perhaps many, building up the layers around a central plug. This is common in such marine islands. One day the central plug was blown clear in a massive explosion and the surrounding ring fell backwards and outwards. This would have increased the ring diameter and perhaps caused the original segmentation. This would also account for the taper in the gap. I say perhaps because jointing is also a common feature of volcanic rock which shrinks as it cools. A determination of the rock type would help identify any such activity. Jointing is most common in granitic and basaltic roc, as opposed to the tuff lavas associated with pyroclastic events. Kartazion has mentioned the third mechanism, subsequent erosion. A gentle correction here to help your English. The word is seismic not sysmic. There is little scope for erosion by the usual forces but I suspect that the lodged rock was the result of rain erosion of the upper dipping layer to the high side of the cleft, causing a large boulder to separate and lodge lower down in the narrower part of the cleft. The rounded shape suggests it is within the reach of the spray from the sea. The general rounded shape of formation itself further suggests soft rock and tropical rain erosion. So the story of this island is entirely different from the famous 'rock of ages' cleft in limestone scenary on the english Mendip hills. Here the result was from the interplay of limestone scenary with first ice and then running water. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrington_Combe

Thanks. Do you like Caro Emerald's music ?

I'm guessing a "Tesla Ball" is one of these

Fair point, I wasn't implying any disrespect. So what do you make of this ? https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/chemical-substances/challenge/batch-7/1-4-dioxane.html

So what ? Mandelbrot worked on many things. Your response it a bit like saying Maxwell's theory of colour is wrong because he wrote the laws of thermodynamics.

In another thread you stated that you are not a Mathematician. Perhaps you might like to enquire of your favourite Mathematician if this claim is in fact true as there are non deterministic computations available in Mathematics that were first discovered in the 1960s by Mandelbrot and later by someone (I'm not sure whom) extending Ullam and Von Neuman's work from the 1940s.

Oh dear, I was going to say that about your answer to my last post. But now you have taken my lines. I'm glad to hear you have repented. How is that relevent to my comment that I don't know what the phrase means? That's more like what I said. But you haven't commented on the fact that no man can feel whatever a woman suffering (and it can be great suffering) feels when she has an ovarian cyst. I don't understand what you are getting at here. I must also confess my ignorance as to who Shania Twain is.

If you are not trans then you probably can't know what a trans person means by saying "I feel like a woman", though I can't say I have ever heard one use those words. But then you can't know what an ovarian cyst feels like either. So would you condemn a woman for having an ovarian cyst ?

So would you rub 1.4 dioxane on your face ?

an equation??? Here's a hint: Einstein's General Theory of Relativity starts of as 16 equations. Because of symmetries in the quantities this reduces to 10. Further relationships, described by....yes equations reduce this still further to as few as 6 plus the extra relations of course.

Yes you are correct dioxins are different but are they quite different ? Dioxanes have one (saturated) cycle formed by the links through two oxygens connecting two aliphatic chains. Dioxins have two oxygen links connecting two aromatic rings as in the diagram, and the dioxon concerned is also chlorinated. I did say So here are the formula for 1,4 dioxan and its isomers Wiki also says pretty much what I said in the other link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1,4-Dioxane#Cosmetics

I'm neither sensitive nor insensitive. It's just that I don't see why if I were to compete in an athletic sport I would suffer the disadvantage that someone 30 years or more my junior would win and I have to accept this. But are you saying if a fit and healthy definitely and inarguably female competitor of that younger age were to come up against an similarly older trans person they would be at an unfair disadvantage. Every competitor (except perhaps one but not always the same one) is at some disadvantage compared to other competitors.

Fairness is one that I omitted from my list of competing parameters. Here we have the age old situation that it is impossible to be equal in all directions since one cannot have equality of opportunity and equality of result. This applies to many situations besides sport. When I was small I wanted to be a pilot, like my father. Unfortunately my eyesight was never up to the job so I i had to accept that I could never become one. When a make a plane journey, I really don't care whether the pilot is a she or a he or something in between but I really want them to have far better eyesight than I do. More directly in sport, whilst at university my two favourite sports were rugby and table tennis. My eyesight was adequate for rugby but not really good enough for table tennis. However I never expected an special category for people with poorer eyesight, although I would point out that they far outnumber these currently vociferous groups. A good example of why governing bodies can't be trusted to create 'fair' rules is this nonsense from the 2020 Tokyo Olympics https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-57687096

You are quite right to be concerned. Dioxanes are not a single compound but a class or group of them. Since the 1960s regulatory bodies have been steadily cutting back on what is allowed as more and more (potnetially) harmful effects are discovered, especially with the halogenated (chlorinated) ones. I would think the one you are describing here is 1, 4-dioxane or dioxan, which is banned in Canada, but definitely still used in the US. https://www.safecosmetics.org/get-the-facts/chemicals-of-concern/14-dioxane/ Here are some less desirable ones, used for herbicides, pesticides, funcicides and bactericides. What exactly are you using them for ?

It's not magic, just simple algebra [math]{e^{2i\pi }} = {\left( {{e^{i\pi }}} \right)^2} = \left( {{e^{i\pi }}} \right)\left( {{e^{i\pi }}} \right) = \left( { - 1} \right)\left( { - 1} \right) = 1[/math] Does this help ?

No I mean those who cannot distinguish between the word 'Science' and the word 'scientists'. Thank you for the support from whoever does not want to derail this thread.

Perhaps we should make this BBC presentation a sticky for members to point out to those not understanding how Science works. https://www.bbc.co.uk/ideas/videos/why-getting-things-wrong-is-good-for-science/p09mb351

Good advice. Thanks. +1

If you are competing against someone in rubber waders and mackinaw and a Devon hat and do you care what category they fall into? Fishing is a fiercely competitive sport in the UK and one of the few that as far as I know has no gender based categories. Many of the record catches you see displayed (especially in Scottish castles and museums) were caught by Lady .... 🙂

Suprising how much ground such an old book (1912) covers in such a very modern (if elementary) fashion). Certainly gives a beginner a feel for the use of calculus. But I don't think it addresses Magnetar's basic problem in that he has mixed up the different sums involved in integration. However this is probably moot since he ahs not been back for a month. The book can be downloaded for free as a pdf https://www.gutenberg.org/files/33283/33283-pdf.pdf