studiot

The OP very clearly started this thread to discuss space. This attempt to hijack it to discuss time has been reported at the original hijack.

So you don't exist either then? Weren't you the one who ran away from answering my question about shadows? I am still waiting for that answer.

Hello Martin and welcome to SF. I will be interested to view your first scientific thread or comments. Meanwhile, the sandbox is for testing things such as presentation, Latex etc. The Lounge is the best place to introduce yourself. I suggest you private message (PM) a moderator and ask him (or her, yes we have lady scientists here too) to move it. Be warned that you have 5 posts total on your first day (excluding the pm) - this is not personal, it was brought in to combat spammers and works quite well. Cheers

The Postman : David Brin Lord of the Flies : William Golding On the beach : Neville Shute

Greybeard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greybeard

This could involve you in a debate as to whether bitcoin is material or non material.

I too like Strange's analogy +1 I also note some unnamed member voted me a -1 for giving two other members positive feedback. Stand up and be counter Sir or Madam.

What a good idea, +1, shame it doesn't work on my PC. However you have prompted me to look further. Hold the windows key down and hit the letter R.Type charmap.exe into the runbox. Choose your symbol(s) Choose copy Paste them in here. ∆ √ Note you can also then select and increase font size, as I have done to 36 in the examples.

Like both the sober detail from Mordred and the tongue-in-cheek soundbyte from MigL. +1 apiece. Long may the double act continue.

Maybe it doesn't like your spaces, MathJax won't parse your code for me. However [math]y = \int {f\left( x \right)} dx[/math] But you have to click on page refresh in your browser to get MathJax to activate. SF has stooped to the (low) level of other forums.

I know that. That is why I said that you did not say it. It is also why I did not accuse you of it, or contradict you. What I think you mean is that some truths are absolute. In which case one counter example is insufficient. But I did observe that you chose a poor example in mathematics since it is not about about 'absolute truths. And I gave an example of the mathematics of where the truth varies according to the conditions. It would be really nice if you could be bothered to acknowledge my posts properly and accurately, especially as they seem to be the only ones offering you any support.

Mike, you have actually made a clear and cogent point that I can understand. And a good point it is too. +1

I did look at your examples and you totally ignored me, This was despite your replying to others, who were not actually addressing what your wrote. Fir the record most (including some of your posts which makes things confusing) replies seem to address the statement you did not make viz "Every truth is absolute". What you actually claimed was there is such a thing as absolute truth, and even gave a definition. It was that definition that is not matched by your example, given in the same paragraph,that I have challenged.

I think the pit you have dug for yourself in this thread is due to your constant assumption the right and wrong / correct and incorrect / true and false / provable and unprovable are all binary choices in Philosophy. They are not. The whole thrust of most philosophies (and there are many) is that most, if not all, observations and assessments belong on a sliding scale. Almost nothing is black or white, shades of grey prevail. As a for instance take your assertion above that absolute truth is valid in all times and places and that a good example of this is mathematics. Seems clear enough doesn't it? And yet there are huge branches of mathematics devoted to the difference between 'local' and 'global' properties of particular mathematical objects, wherein some property may hold locally, but not globally. Yet more telling is that much of this mathematics is vitally important to modern technology.

There are clearly as many views on the meanings of philosophy, science and reality as there are posters here. Small wonder there are such differences or that this type of discussion belongs in the pub. Let's all go down to the pub to finish it.

Multiplication and division can introduce some funny effects when applied to quantities with units. for instance multiplication can loose all the information as in frequency times period = 1 Division, on the other hand, can loose the units as in velocity ratio or mechanical advantage or many other dimensionless ratios. It is also clear that whilst multiplication / division can be modeled as repeated addition / subtraction for integers, the model suffers when we introduce non integer quantities. Physically the model is also suspect with say a hydraulic force multiplier which multiplies the input by a fixed scalar.

Not sure why you are replying to me, Mike? I don't recall ever discussing grad, div & curl with you.

Isn't referring to 'fluid dynamics' a bit limiting? How about Continuum Mechanics which includes FD and much more besides? I say this because there are many texts at many levels including this in the title.

Reflections on the political year in Parliament.

What did you make of my reference? One way to look at what you are asking is like this. Consider the parabola y = x2. What do you need to be able to draw it (for it to exist) ? Well you need the +x axis and the -x axis and the +y axis. But you do not need the -y axis. In fact you do not need the entire half plane below the x axis. So you are asking the equivalent of Does that half plane exist for my purposes? Would you agree?

Not exactly but I think you are referring to what is known as intrinsic geometry. Perhaps if you would like to explain in greater detail? This extract from Elementary Geometry : Roe : Oxford University Press might help. Read paragraph 12.1 in particular.

Was there a question or discussion point or was this just advertising?

As as said backalong, your study is intriguing. My position is that at the moment I am reserving judgement as it is still incomplete. The geographical limitations have already pointed out by others and I suggest that it is illogical to use the Scottish/English border as a cutoff. However that is not a refutation, rather it provides opportunities to extend the study. Also the test of the value of such is "Can this be used for prediction either in hindsight or into the future?" That would be the logical next step and if the effect is repeated in other temporal and spatial domains it would greatly strengthen it.

You can find one of those any week The House is in session, particularly on the day of PMQT.

I note that Oban has suffered two earthquakes in the last week so I wonder what riots you will tie into these?