studiot

Only 7 ? I missed one then because you are even lucky enough to still have a job, unlike all those 32 year olds whose jobs have been trashed by covid, or just never had one. In the 1950s there was a saying about this attitude. "I'm all right Jack" There was even a film (sorry movie) about it.

Well following the same logic, (using a sample size of one) I could judge all Americans as rude and ignorant. You are lucky enough to have the right and the resources (unlike many in this world) to receive the vaccine or to reject it. Make your choice and shut the f up about it.

Well I'm sorry I can't see any hostility in my response. I even suggested you do exactly that - hear and evaluate the evidence, but from the medical professionals directly concerned. Ultimately the decision is yours alone. I have had no response to this I do see that others are consistently offering the same message as this this new apparantly unbiased member, Xelo +1 Since you want figures, here are some to chew on. The UK thought (hoped) it was past the worst but, today it was announced that new infections are rising rapidly again (daily figure up 50% from Wednesday to Thursday) and that 1) over 80% of new infections are in people with one or no vaccination. 2) over 50% of the new infections are now from the new (indian) variant. This has risen from nowhere in the last two weeks. 3) New infections are significantly affecting a steadily increasing % of much younger folks. The average age of a covid patient in hospital is going down. 4) New infections had just fallen below 1000 per day but are now back in the several thousand per day again. 4) Yesterday it was announced that there was one death from a (rare type of) blood clot in a youngish female radio presenter a couple of days after an AZ vaccination. The coroner is looking into the possibility of an adverse reaction. There is no cover up. 6) We do not yet have outcomes for those who have recently caught covid but the death rate is still many times per day that sad outcome for that one radio lady on one day. 7) I believe that the total number of deaths in the UK that might have been come from reactions is 33 and the total number of deaths from covid is 127,000. All this information (and more) is reported daily on the BBC. So the clear message is that your chances of catching covid are many thousands of times greater without an innoculation and still a few thousand times greater of dying from it than from the innoculation.

I think perhaps I was a bit harsh on @Alex_Krycek in my comment when he perhaps genuinely thought he had found a reputable presentation rather than one of those deliberate misinformation sites. My apologoes if that is the case. But you have now passed up at least three opportunities to engage in an objective discussion, choosing instead to play the injured martyr. This is not the case and you have already been told so by swansont. Why do you think the weblinks from others and even one by yourself have not been removed, whilst another of yours was indeed removed? Have you read the rules or aksed a moderator for amplification ? But back to the subject in hand. I agree, as I have agreed with some of your earlier statements. But you can you or anybody really claim to be in possession of all the facts ? This is why I offered you pages of data by another investigator here at ScienceForums. Have you looked into this, you have made no comment about it? This thread is entitled and there has been some discussion about design and the level of knowledge of the 'designers'. Now a design implies that you know what you want, where you want it and how you want it before you start. But even to this day constructors acknowledge the difficulties of laying out structures that have a wide horizontal spread and perhaps sloping surfaces. This has significant implications for the designer and his level of knowledge. For this reason, I asked you a question about the foundations but you ignored it and did not answer. The construction of the pyramids was a massive undertaking, by any standards, so much can be deduced from any knowledge of the builders' construction methods.

The purpose of the WM is to convert mechanical energy to electrical energy to charge a battery. A bit ironic to need a battery and motor to provide the mechanical drive ? Obviously you would get back less than you put in. Sorry, missed the reference again. Electricity and Magnetism for Degree Students by Starling and Woodall. First published 1912. eight edition 1953

Firstly, yes the machine would operate satisfactorily in a vacuum. However a source of drive for the contra rotating disks is required. Sealing the drive might be possible with today's technology, but Wimhurst certainly did not have access to such means. Would anyoneone like me to post a description of the operation of the machine ? Edit. The actual operation of machine is not simple and does require a 'seed' charge to get the whole process going, but this could come from anywhere and may well come from the atmosphere if there is one. But the machine is still physically mounted and charge may arrive via its mountings. There must be a limit to how fast this process can occur, but the basic 'charge multiplication process' does not depend upon the presence or absence of air.

That will have implications for the density and actual dilution you make. You didn't answer my earlier questions to which I would add a request for more information on what this is all about. What is this solution and what is it for and what dilution regime are you intending to implement ?

So is this homework or practical work or what ? Unless you know the density of your solution, how would you measure it other than by volume, especially with a pipette ?

I have learned from this response that you are not interested in an objective discussion of known facts to sort the supposition from the supportable.

Think about it before you post such rubbish. A wave has maxima and minima. This picture has neither.

Just to see how wrong this is, here is a calculation using spherical triangles. This distance from Giza to St Petersburg is 4903 km and the circumference of the earth is 40075 km The longitude of the Giza pyramid is 31.1325oE and the longitude of StP is 30.3609oE a difference of 0.772 degrees. So if we let Giza be vertex A and StP be vertex C of a spherical triangle, and proceed in the direction of StP 0.772o W this gives us angle A of the spherical triangle. Now the perpendicular from C to the line due north through A strikes this line at B, giving angle B of 90o. Side AC is the distance from Giza to StP and subtends an angle to the centre b = 360 * 4903/40075 = 44.044o. So we have two angles and a side of the spherical triangle ABC, which is enough to solve it by the sine rule for spherical triangles. We only require side a = CB = the offset of C from the true north line (AB) through Giza (A). [math]\sin a = \frac{{\sin b\sin A}}{{\sin B}} = \frac{{\sin (44.044)\sin (0.772)}}{{\sin (90)}} = 0.0093670[/math] Hence a = 0.53669820 leading to distance BC = 59.74 km So St Petersburg is 60 kilometres off the north line through Giza.

Please not more Ley Lines voodoo and rubbish. Those points alone remove any validity that video might offer.

Have you tried cleaning with a steam lance ? Test a small part first in case the steam temperature would be too aggressive.

Also a device that eliminates the single-slit diffraction effects of a Young’s double-slit apparatus. OOps As far as I know lloyd's mirror was an optical device to reduce the number of mirrors in fresnel's experiment from 1 to 2. from 2 to 1.

My question as well. As far as I know lloyd's mirror was an optical device to reduce the number of mirrors in fresnel's experiment from 1 to 2. Edit from 2 to 1 Here is a description of a similar acoustic one that may answer your question. Taken from The Student's Physics, volume ii - Acoustics.

Perhaps yes and then again perhaps no. There is a fundamental difference between the meaning and use of the word 'space' in Maths and Physics and the little detail you have provided seems to have mixed them up. That is the reason I started this thread a week ago. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/125094-consideration-of-the-difference-between-the-use-of-the-term-space-in-physics-and-mathematics/

Actually I did give the reference in my immediately following post. Yes I think this is a pretty fair summary although it should be recognised that ancient egyptian civilisation and culture spanned many centuries (rather more than our own) so to say that they did or did not know Pi you would also need to specify a time period. However I have already asked for proper substantiating references to this extraordinary claim and a moderator has pointed out the rules here over this forum requirement. Over the rather fewer centuries of our civilisation there have been many investigations of the egyptian pyramids, rather fewer comparisons with pyramids in other parts of the world, and many 'egyptologists' and hypotheses, including attempts by modern engineers to recreate ancient building techniques etc. So I ask you again which egyptologists ? I find this comment at direct variance with cladking's long thread on the construction of the pyramids. In deference to Alex, I will refer to this thread. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85760-soft-science-and-evidence-of-your-own-eyes/#comments I assume this is a further reference to the diagram you originally posted withhout any explanation, and later perhaps referrred to as a double or two square. Again can we have some proper explanation please ?

Here is a very strong hint. In my example both what you have and what you want to convert to measure the same thing or quantity. All you are doing is 'converting' from one unit to another. So in my exmaple you are measuring distance ( 8 kilometres) and you want that distance in miles. So you apply the conversion factor for kilometers to miles. Now look again at your answer. You might like to try asking google for convertion factors for pints to litres, pounds to kilogrammes, dollars to Euros etc and see what the results are. You cannot turn apples into donkeys by means of a conversion factor. Although one famous mathematician defined a Mathematician as a machine for converting coffee into theorems.

Well I wouldn't call any of these conversion factors. Here is an example of what I would call a conversion factor. Convert 8 kilometers to miles. the conversion factor is 5/8 and it is multiplicative (you multiply what you have by it to get what you want.) So 8 kilometers is 8 x 5/8 = 5 miles. So what were the exact words of the question ?

Conversion of what to what ? The molar mass of Lithium is 6.941 grammes per mole. Do you understand what this means ?

I suppose it boils down to what you have been taught about moles. The first line is true The second is not. 331 is a pure number that has no units because it is the ratio of two masses. Tha mass of one gram-mole of substance (lead(II) nitrate in this case) is 331 grammes. So if N is the pure number of gram-moles in one litre of solution, Then the mass in one litre of solution is N times the mass of one gram-mole. So you would weigh out how many grammes ? As a matter of practical interest, since chemistry is a practical subject, how would you make up exactly one litre of solution ?

In my catalogue space expanders are £1 million and space compressors are £1.5 million per unit. Since gravity shields are impossible, they cost a little more £100 million per set. How many do you wish to buy ?

Lots of claims but no supporting evidence or references. More to the point, what is the specific point you wish to discuss or question you wish to ask?

Yes that paticular papyrus was indeed written about a thousand years after Giza. Writing and papyrus documents were well known at the time of the building of Giza so any knowledge that was recorded could have been copied forward, just as the knowledge in the scan I posted was transcribed forward over thre and a half thousand years. I understand not many papyri from antiquity survive and fewer as we go back in time. Today of course we rely on the hand copying forward onto parchment, for the knowledge of a thousand years ago. So, although we cannot have proof positive that the Early Dynasties did not know about Pi, we cannot disprove it either. I omitted the reference my attachment before. Sorry. It was from Algebra by Archbold Pitman 1958

Yes I have seen this before and quoted it here in that long thread about the building of the Pyramids we had a couple of years back. However the ancient Egyptians knew about Pi See the Rhind Papyrus (about 1650 BC)