studiot

I take it this is your reply to my attempts to engage in discussion with you. Where exactly did I do any of these alleged things? In particular where have I described you as an idiot? The quote above shows that I try to pick out statements from you that I agree with, but It's the (mis)use you put these statements to I don't. My main complaint is that you repeatedly fail to respond or show contempt as perfectly exemplified by our brief unfinished discussion about my brick experiment. I note that yet again in your latest post you have not made any reference to my posts, answered any of my questions or attempted to move any of aour discussions on, whilst pontificating at great length about the posts of others. As to your presentation of Feynman, Yes, absolutely, but you entirely miss the point. Interestingly my brick experiment, that you steadfastly refuse to discuss, if a prime example of a guess. And the story of the experiment a prime example of Science in action. His remark is predicated upon the experiment actually measuring the subject of the guess and not something else. If you actually measure something else, either by accident, or by failure to take account of some intervening factor or for some other reason, then your experiment offers little or nothing about the validity of the guess.

That is why so much else would come crashing down if relativity was disproved. But what does disproved mean? It means showing that Einstein's formulae and equations generally and consistently give the 'wrong ' answers ie inconsistent with observation. Indeed SR does this, but has theory been disproved? No it was recognised from the outset that SR does not include gravity. So we have GR, with SR as a special case. There are very few hypotheses (theories) that have been disproved and discredited Noye's Fludde come to mind here.

Well I have no idea who Popper is or was but I am not drawn to bother from your summary. Again I have no idea who Kuhn is or was but I find his views no real improvement. But enough quoting others who are not here. This is a live debate forum so here (appears to me) the view according to Reg Prescott. Yes indeed this happened many times, but how often was this for the reasons you give? I can think of one instance, that of Berzelius, who held up the development of chemistry by half a century for reasons of personal aggrandisement. Another major reason for obstructing progress came in the late 18th and early 19 centuries when many clergymen became avid geologists with the intention of providing a scientific underpinning of Noye's Fludde. Nor are many scientists themselves very good at history (many are too busy with Science itself). Some who can manage cogent works are John Buckingham in Chemistry G I Brown in Chemistry (His book the Big Bang - a history of explosives is good) Ian Stewart in Mathematics Jon Butterworth in particle Physics Fred Hoyle in cosmology Michael Benton Geology Donal Oshea Relativity Mathematics Non Scientists of note include Brenda Maddox in Geoscience William Berkson Philosophy of Physics

Avoided? This has been a main theme of my arguments/non-arguments/specious arguments since Post #1. Well it was the principal point of my one and only post (at that time) in your thread and you made no reference to it. I'm glad to hear that you do appreciate it and would be pleased to learn why you only consider the very very few examples that lie outside this category?

Thank you for this. I'm not really very interested in your continued argeuments with others that never seem to get anywhere. Surely the one important point to your thread that you have avoided was that Science is by and large mundane? Thank you for responding to my question. Yes of course it will cool down unless kept warm. However the important thing from the point of view of the investigation, which was a ministry programme lasting several of decades, though not for me as I just joined the team between school and university. It was my first introduction to true scientific investigation with a purpose, is that the fresh bricks absorb moisture. This is significant because they swell as a result. So the project was all about the effect of this swelling on brickwork built with fresh bricks after cooling. The following rhetorical questions, though I will supply details if you wish. How much did the bricks expand? How long does this process go on for? What does that mean for brick walls and expansion joints? A subject (though boring to most) of great importance to mankind around the world.

Once again I asked a very simple straightforward question, this time about a scientific investigation I have personal experience of. Once again the silence from Reg Prescott was deafening or drowned out by specious arguments with others. Do you have any personal experience of scientific investigation ?

By aiming only at the really big discoveries of Science you are deceiving yourself as to the nature and activities of Science and scientists. There are only a handful of such really big discoveries a century, the rest of Science is prosaic and mundane. Perhaps what has been said this gives you the idea that (we think or you think) that all scientists are sitting at their desks doing nothing but challenging what they already know. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have made a few very small discoveries/innovations, but have never had the need or opportunity to challenge the basis from which I was working. Can you tell me what happens to a new brick, fresh from the kiln? Well I spent some time researching this question because the answer is of interest in the building industry. By far the most of Science and scientific activity is of this nature. So it is against this background that you should be discussing your question.

If you are going to do any sort of degree you are going to need to do some degree level thinking. So I suggest you get your thinking cap on and re-read what I said about the common core.

Hi, It's good to think seriously about the future. Here are a few things you need to know. Most colleges/universities that teach engineering degrees have a 'common core' for the first year for mechanical, aeronautical, automotive, production, civil, building services and so on. One bonus of this is that it is easy to switch after the first year if you decide to change the emphasis of your studies, when you specialise. The studies will include the basics of mechanical science, materials science, electrical science, engineering mathematics, engineering computing and so on. The computing element will be about the use of computers. Specialist computing courses will be about the design of the software that engineers (and others) use, and/or the design of the computers themselves. It is not usual to get several first degrees (Batchelors) for several reasons. The usual route is first degree then a higher degree - a Masters (which may be in accounting or business and taken after a few years industrial experience) Remember much of the art of engineering is about best use of money. The other reason is that full/top professional qualifications for most engineering disciplines used to be available at Batchelor degree level, but have now been elevated to require Masters. Does this help? Please ask if you have further questions.

I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear. I was only asking about Maxwell and not referring to your magic instantaneous capacitor at all. That would be off topic here. Theories of gravitation are probably also off topic since the thread was about 'what is space?' I'm sure you have interesting questions to ask. Please ask in these in their own thread (one topic per thread) though by all means refer to another thread and say "this was inspired by" and refer to another thread.

Can you provide references for this idea? Maxwell reviewed the attempts by many others to explain gravity and found them all wanting., for example he said of the separate theories of Le Sage, Challis, Kelvin:_ He did show that In other words he showed the form of what we now call gravitational potential is the same as that of what we now call electrical potential. He also rejected what was known as 'the electrical theory', whereby it was proposed that the force of attraction between unit charges of opposite sign was/is marginally greater than the force of repulsion between unit charges of the same sign which was offered to account for gravity. As the greatest physicist of his age he was busy with many thigs which is probably why he never had time to get round to relativity. That came half a century later with Einstein. (he died in 1879)

Update pictures. There has not been sufficient progress to determine anything new. However it is clear that the items in the river at the base of the wall that were asked about are sandbags. Here is the site board stating that there was scour and that they will underpin the wall, but this is not certain. I am trying to see if the masonry below waterline has deteriorated. Lias is not the most durable of building stone.

A true pedant would include the third possibility of both. Thanks for the pic but Somerset has not been periglacial since the last ice age. https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=Y9x-W-OnLOTIgAab47uoBg&q=periglacial+environment&oq=periglacial&gs_l=psy-ab.1.4.0l10.932.3458.0.7670.11.8.0.3.3.0.446.1052.0j3j1j0j1.5.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..3.8.1138...0i131k1j0i10k1.0.0qSFFbDNCZU We sometimes get clay heave due to clay expansion on taking up water after a (hot) dry spell or subsidence due to clay shrinkage in the dry spell. And Keuper Marl has a high clay content/ is a form of clay.

Thanks for the continued interest folks. The quick sketches may help. The river channel generally varies from about 15 metres to 25 metres in this area. At the weir it turns through nearly a right angle (about 75 - 80 degrees) and impounds a total of about 3metres of water. So the water flows from right to left behind the weir at the top of the diagram and from top to bottom once over the weir. There is a further offtake, through a sluice, to feed an old mill stream at the top left corner, from the pool behind the weir. The failed flank wall is at the left hand end of the sketch. As far as I can tell there is no concrete retaining wall behind it ie it is not a facing wall. The failure is on the outside of the 75 degree bend and the water flows much more slowly here, and shoals on this side, As previously noted in the first pictures. The inside of the bend sees the main flow and a boxed spillway takes this beyond the weir. Section AA shows the long bench previously referred to that supports the main weir wall throughout its length and terminates in flank walls at each end, the left hand of these having failed as detailed with a nearly vertical diagonal crack at the drop off from the bench. Yes, Ghideon, that is shown under your blue arrow and has currently been stanked off in the dry but is normally under water. I'm not sure if the object referred to by your orange and green arrows is original or something put there by the workforce temporarily. It is certainly in the position you might expect to see a scour pool from the water tumbling over the bench in the photos. But I also note that the water is at its most sluggish here and would expect to see scour pools more towards the other end (but don''t) As noted hopefully riverbed investigations are now proceeding and I will report when something is known. Klaynos this is the River Tone in Taunton.

Good questions but this is not in the (former) mining, earthquake or fracking part of Somerset. This is a near flat river flood plain at the lower end of its course. Without the system of weirs this river would be tidal. The ground is Keuper Marl on top of a layer of river gravel.

It's a nameplate screwed on the wall I can't get there to read it as it is old and corroded, but it says that some Lord Muck built/opened the installation etc.

You may have noticed I have been away on holiday.I went down last evening to observe progress and took some more photos. The investigation has not yet revealed the cause. During the last couple of weeks, they have completed the cofferdam and knocked a small hole into the crack. What can be seen is that the weir and the sound section of wall is sat on a concrete bench, now dry in the first new picture, taken across the river. The failed section is at the back and left of the picture. No movement is evident in this part of the structure. The end of this bench is shown in the new closeup of the failure. This also shows that coursing lines of the failed section suggest it has rotated anticlockwise relative to the section on the bench, which has horizontal coursing. However the coursing in the triangular counterfort section of wall is still horizontal. The wall is constructed from blue lias blocks. A few of these that have been broken out are lying in the bench, not shown in the picture. The lias appears sound. Removal of the blocks makes the crack appear wider (perhaps it has also been cleaned out). The removed blocks came from the upper part of the wall, so I'm not sure what information was gained there as there is no subsidence behind the wall. There is no evidence of investigation in the river bed yet.

I don't know what text you are using and not all textbooks bring out the differences btween Sn1 and Sn2. This extract from Geissman is particularly clear.

Yes some old human relic may be uncovered. I'm sure there are no natural cavities in the gravel and marl of the river bed, which is in the middle of its flood plain extending at least half a kilometre on both sides. Ghideon, I remember the refurbishment of the old (13 century) packhorse bridge in Trowbridge, which I underpinned in the 1970s. A surprise then was the old Roman oak foundations (piles and cross beams) that were in better condition that the stones of the walls (Bath stone). It was extremely difficult to remove these oak foundations, jack hammers etc just bounded off, unlike with stones.

Not often, perhaps once in 25 years or so. The wall has stood several hundred years. The failed section of wall appears to have gone down and moved to the left, parallel to the line of the riverwall, - downriver - both about 75mm. It doesn't seem to have rotated in any direction or displaced into the river at right angles to the line of the riverwall. The crack appears sensibly of constant width. One thing to note is that this side of the river is very shallow and slow running. Looking at the downstream picture you can see the gravel islands that collect on this side. This is surprising since the river scour will be least on this side. There is nothing to suggest the earth behind the wall has become active. If active earth pressure developed, it would be greatest at the bottom so the wall would have rotated outwards at the bottom.

Thank you for the reply. I don't know the answer, hopefully we will find out when they pump out the cofferdam. However the movement of the wall suggests one thing but the stability of the ground behind it suggests something else.

The upper case Pi is reserved in Mathematics for the continuous product (Like the sigma for continuous sum), although I have seen it written as a super large lower case Pi as printers are not always au fait with the Greek alphbet. The Rhind Papyrus from aroubnd 1550 B.C. offers the value 3.1604 but not in decimal but in ancient egyptian fractions.

You are the only one abandoning scientific rigour. Exodus does not contain the number 3.14. Indeed ancient hebrew numbers did not run to decimals at all. Even the decimalisation of the paragraphing in say the King James Bible is relatively modern. The modern decimal separator had yet to be invented in 1604! However the Bible does indeed contain a pretty accurate figure for Pi, considering its origin date, in the Old Testament. I Kings VII 23 So be Scientific and get your fact straight before you hypothesize.

Would anyone care to hazard a guess and say why?

Oh My God I will have to say Oh My Pi in future. But it doesn't have the same ring.