studiot

Not a problem. [math]P = \frac{{{B^2}A}}{{2\mu }}[/math] Where P is the raising force. The formula comes from a simple application of the virtual work theorem. You need to provide more detail of your experiment for more detailed information.

So am I now safe to view this site without sunshades again?

Midway throught the festive break and I needed to reply to a PM, whilst briefly here, I saw this. I think it shows that, but more than that as well. This is where my two examples were going. Good to see some responses.

Gosh your thought empire has expanded greatly. But you still haven't offered anything for others in your new proposed property you call direction. Here is an example. I propose a new property called squiffyness. This is what you can do with it. When you are making a jelly (Jell-O), measuring the squiff allows you to tell if the jelly will stand up as a rabbit or slump to a sloppy mess, when turned out of its mould. You measure the squiff by taking a sample in the bulb of a squiff meter, filling to the set-one line in the measuring tube. Squeezing the bulb causes the contents to rise up the tube, the distance up the tube being graduated from 1 to 10 in squiff. A reading of 3 squiff of less means that the turned out jelly will stand and wobble. Greater than 3 squiff will result in a slump.

I'm sure he doesn't because there was a Roman coffin find announced today near me (Ilchester).

I was thinking of this quote Basically this is still being argued in Quantum Physics and offered as one explanation of quantum Uncertainty / waveform collapse. It is the same view that Einstein rejected with his comment about "does the Moon cease to exist when I stop looking at it", except that in Berkeley's case nobody was observing. Yes Wheeler's thought offer another version. Any of these versions have serious implications for Schrodingers cat. Suppose we vary the experiment slightly. Let it proceed as per Schrodinger until the box is opened. Let the opening be delayed at least 50 years. There will then be a feline corpse in the box, but it will be impossible to pinpoint the precise date of decease of the animal.

I'm glad you noted buy or sell, as the second cost is often forgotten. In the UK there is also a tax to add in. Some brokers offer fixed transaction costs, regardless of number of shares bought/sold. I have a spreadsheet I prepared which adds in all the costs and comes up with a target reselling price tabled at various levels of profit (absolute %). The time over which the share price reaches this (hopefully) can be a few hours to a few years so decisions need to be taken buy the transactor as to what is acceptable. The spreadsheet provides the necessary information to do this.

So why mention great circles or introduce references to them? If you must call it a tridentity, then OK. At least you have found a suitable nice new word that sort of echos what you want to say and does not redefine an existing term. This is really good as it avoids confusion well done. The technique I was referring to will serve for Euclidian and non Euclidian space. The term refers to how you calculate distance, not angle. The big stumbling point as I see it is most people look at what you are proposing and say So what? What does it offer me or tell me? When would I want to use it? Show me an examaple of its use (however trivial; trivial is good for an initial example as complexity hides the underlying message)

Thank you for replying, a pity you are not listening. It is common practice in spherical geometry to mean only great circle arcs when using the term arc There are no great circles in 2D.

You should also be aware that more exotic processes give broadly similar but different values (smaller) for the nuclear radius. for example Rainwater and Fitch Hofstadter etc However this makes quite a difference to the nucleon density since the volume is proportional to the cube of the radius.

Yes more or less. Don't forget that this is not the 'real' knobbly nucleus it is an 'equivalent sphere' that has the same total charge evenly distributed all over. Also not only electron (beta particles) scattering but also positive particle scattering (alpha particles).

Thank you. Here is a more complete extract from the Wiki article that Strange linked to (and I had also found but not quoted). The root mean square value of something is a statistical method of deriving an average or mean value from a range. It is used in sine wave curves in power engineering for AC current, but it is also used much more widely when we want an average for a function that is varying, but not oscillating. In the case of the nucleus charged particles approaching the nucleus are deflected away in their path. This is called scattering. The RMS radius gives us the size of a standard sphere of evenly distributed charge that would effect the same deflection scattering as is observed. This is similar to saying the RMS current is the value of DC current that has the same heating effect as a given AC current. There is, of course, theory to attempt prediction of this radius size look in Rutherford, Chadwick and Ellis : Radiations from Radioactive substances chapters 2 and 8. : Cambridge University Press. Since they did the original reasearch (1930) starting with alpha particles as well as the ebta particles mentioned by Wiki.

I answered your question, but you have yet to answer mine. you have not posted a single reference - I only asked for one.

I said most clearly that it is not oscillating. What part of No did you not understand? Edit I don't know why Strange didn't actually answer your question since that was his alleged purpose.

Thanks, Strange, but I was seeking Butch's reference. Edit and still am.

No, do you have a reference?

Steel if often called an alloy of iron and carbon, indeed in UK GCSE this is taught. John may well be referring to a more advanced view that regards true alloys as occurring when there is a direct replacement of one atom for another in the solid lattice. In the case of steel the carbon occupies interstitial vacancy sites in the iron (eg austenite) phase to form a solid solution of carbon in iron. I don't know enough about the Indium-Tin-Oxygen system to comment.

Someone has

Poincare had a hypothesis, different from either of these. Which is interesting because we actually acknowledge an example of this in a physical variable other than time. Bishop Berkeley has yet another hypothesis, which interestingly is compatible with the Copenhagen interpretation, though it predates it by nearly two hundred years. You should read, Berkely because he also expressed a view on ioinion, similar to yours, although I should warn you his philosophies have been largely discredited today.

Well that depends upon if you include Mathematics and mathematical proofs as part of Science. Proofs belong in Maths, Logic and Philosophy. The rest of Science doesn't prove anything, it evaluates evidence and reaches a conclusion, which may change in the light of new evidence, accordingly.

Whilst the Beer-Lambert law is usually met in the context of the chemical analysis of solutions it applies more widely, and even to sound waves as well as EM radiation and ionising radiation (apha and beta particles). https://teaching.shu.ac.uk/hwb/chemistry/tutorials/molspec/beers1.htm So it depends what you mean by 'transparent'. You also have to say transparent to to what. It becomes a question of degree of absorbtion. If you can make the metal thin enough it will pass a given % of the flux. Conversely if you can make the window thick enough it will stop a given %. +1 to John Cuthber, please listen to him about what is actually a metal, and you need to specify what state the metal is in. There is some evidence that Hydrogen can be considered a metal.

In so much of a rush that you can't be bothered to write the question out properly, let alone follow the help rules and tell us what you have done so far.

@Butch This analogy might help get your head round quantum numbers. Take standard screw sizes. Standard Screw sizes are numbered thus 1,2,3,4 ...12...14 More detail is provided by subsidiary characteristics Slotted Crosspoint Brass Stainless Plated Length 1/2", 1", 2" .... If you want to know the more exact details such as pitch, thread size, thread length, etc you look up a standard table or drawing. This is almost exactly the same for quantum numbers. They give you the entry points on the look up tables or the probability distribution plots, which replace the thread drawings. Does this help?

I thought you had banned discussion about the connection.

Well I don't know what your abbreviations QT or RT stand for and I am not minded to look them up. Please stop stridently telling others what the have to do or not do. I really hoped that our last exchange about locality had put all that nonsense behind us, so I am suprised that someone who claims some training in Philosophy persists in that confrontational approach.