studiot

Dare I use that phrase "with you there bro" again without starting another forum war ? +1 😄

Was all this meant to be a response to my request ? After all you did ask for responses. Which perhaps is why you have started with a most unfortunate title in maths. The use of the word 'Real' has very very special meaning in maths so I highly recommend you change your title as you clearly mean something different. Since you seem to have difficulty with infinity I suggest you look at the branch of mathematics called Concrete Mathematics. This has proved to be a very useful concept in modern everyday applied maths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_Mathematics

One step at a time please. No one want to respond to a wall of text. So pick one on the points where your system is different from conventional maths and we can discuss it.

+1 to joigus for doing the unpaid work of technical checking and proofreading a technical document that contained material that had no business to be there, free and gratis.

Wow, not respectful ? from someone who has clearly not read the rules he or she signed up to. I asked very respectfully for a summary instead of a link offsite (which are prohibited in the format you have provided on this site ) What I asked for would at least put you on the right side of the rules here. As I do not know what an electromagnetic vacuum is, conventional or otherwise I asked specifically as I do not wish to guess or discuss at cross purposes. If you are going to be that touchy you will not fare well when the mods read this thread. Good night.

And what would the electromagnetic vacuum be please. Can you summarise what the conventional features are and how your proposal differs.

Yes I did read it it but No I did not understand it. I would say from the responses of other members many are in the same boat. Not understanding is the reason I asked for a slowdown and agreement on basic definitions so thank you for referring me to that rather deficient Wiki article about solids. But at least I know where you are coming from on that now. And since this is your show we can use that definition of solid as opposed to any other, That is all I was initially asking for. Can we discuss the meaning of the term model without all that histrionics ? You didn't answer my query about observables v observations so I still don't know if you understand the term observable. You are also clearly incorrect in your use of the term data. Data is a wider term than observations (or observables) all of which have their particular place in the scheme of things.

It did also bring to mind the problems that came with the post war Orlit and Airey houses buit with prefabricated pos and panel construction. 640 × 481 I know the panels or planks were set hardened concrete, but after decades joints leaked, letting in the water and wind. The panel construction allowed diferential movement. I don't know if the layers of printed concrete will suffer the same in time

The programme was on 8pm to 9pm this evening on BBC. The section of video was a few minutes about half way through. Being in England you should be able to get it on iplayer.

Just seen an interesting bit of 3D printing on the TV programme about the current Chelsea Flower Show. They were using fine concrete as the print material, and the print machine was 2 - 3 times the size of a human. The result was a hollow cellular wall.

I do wonder if Engish is not your first language or the first language of your AI, because your use of words is so unusual I'm not at all sure you are using the same meanings as other members. That is why I asked you , for starters, what you mean by SOLID. I wonder if you mean material or something akin to the french phrase 'fond acier inoxidable' (english = solid stainless steel) rather than what any physicist would think of when someone says solid to her. Or perhaps you mean material. So please tell us what you mean. Then we can have a sensible discussion as to what the scientist means when he says the word model. Once again stracnge scientific English. I wonder if you actually mean what we call 'observables' ?

I haven't read your paper yet, but I feel that if you are simple defining out of existence awkward statements that is bit of a cop out. Surely if we can't address the difficult stuff then there is no point in logic or philosophy ? Where would we be if we still insisted that the square roots of negative numbers should be defined out of existence ?

Yes there are far too many possible answers and we have far too little information to make a realistic speculation

Not sure why this is in Applied Mathematics, nor why you need to post a link, which is against the rules of this discussion site. However the subject appears interesting and does highlight a good point that there is much more to 'logic' than simple first order binary logic. In my experience I don't know of any paradoxes that can be resolved by the simple observation that the paradox is contained in a compound or complex statement that tries to combine two (or more) incompatible simple statements.

Great comment @joigus No you don't define observations in any form of Physics, new or old. +1 (Mis)defining observations was the cardinal (pun intended) sin that led popes in the late 16th and early 17 century to burn people at the stake (eg Bruno), following the original mistake in that direction by Plato and Aristotle. Observations are the most important thing in Physics so it is the other way around. You use observations to define Physics If they don't match the observation is correct and you are wrong.

What is this doing in mdern and theoretical physics ? Did you not read our rules when you joined ? If yes then why did you not abide by them an place this in speculations, where it belongs ? If no then why do you expect us to read your rules ? Since you have titled your wanderings 'Solid Physics' I suggest you start by carefully defining what you mean by solid, since that characteristic has special meaning in mainstream physics and chemistry.

Why should the received 'signal' be the last broadcast ? Just a suggestion folks but isn't is just as likely that a far off Trump has cut funding and sacked all the staff after the first broadcast centre of the source planet? You all have a good night now.

Hello, have you read the rules here ? Newcomers are allowed 5 posts in their first 24 hours as an effective security measure. This would be a prime example of the rule that all sections, including religion, are about the scientific aspects of that section. So I look forward to your scientific rebuttal by the moderator.

It has taken longer than expected to find the hour or so to compose this so I can only repeat what my Doctor said to me last week, "Sorry for the delay". So we have decidced that our model manifold need to be connected to be realistic. But is this enough ? As I see it, there are two issues to overcome for unique time to be fractal. Firstly we have a requirement for time to be continuous. An infinite line is fully continuous as in fig1 A finite line (AB) , in a open interval, is also fully continuous as in fig2 A finite line on a closed interval [AB] is not continuous at A or B as in fig3 Furthermore none of these are fractals. We can make them into 1 dimensional fractals by the process of Cantor's Dust, although the infinite line possesses special difficulties defining the 'middle third' that I do not intend to go into here. As in fig 4 But this is at the cost of of introducing a central discontinuity as well. And these discontinuities increase in number until the entire line is discontinuous as the process is repeated fractally. Continuity however, can be restored by creating a bump between C and D , a typical example being the Koch process. as in fig 5 But we are forced to enter a seconf dimension to do this. Alternatively we can follow your idea of a branch as in fig 6. This has the advantage of providing continuity maintaining from A to B via C along a single line path (dimension) However it introduces a second issue - that of non uniqueness. If you choose to go from A to B (via C) you cannot the go to D. or You have multiple timelines with different points in the different order between different endpoints. This situation multiplies as the complexity of the tree increases.

Two points. 1) Whilst it is true there are no poles as such, the magnetic field lines still point in the appropriate directions as shown by the arrows. 2) You have a ferrite core. The core material is important as it gathers in or concentrates the field into itself. ferrite is about the most efficient at this. Note also that Direct Current will not produce much field in a ferrite as the ferrites are meant for high frequency operation. This means that they are very good at creating a fast magnetic pulse from a step current at switch on/off, which accounts for their use in very old fashioned computer memories.

This account is only indirectly related to your subject. In the mid 20th century there was a series of short scifi stories published about a group called the Core of Unorthodox Engineers. These stories were very imaginative but grounded in Scinece as you might expect engineers to be. The one I am thinking of concerned a completely uninhabited planet that was broadcasting large quantities of radio signals, yet not a sign of past or present life could be found. When they solved the problem/conundrum the UE found that the planet suffered frequent violent (electrical) storms. Large quantities of lightning was discharged to the surface rocks over extended periods of time. The result was a sort of inorganic evolution. Those mineral structures that could not pass the huge currents safely were whittled away or metamorphosed and those that could remained. It would appear that the mountains became giant transistors. And that is how the radio waves were generated.

Thanks for the reply. We are all struggling with the new format for Scienceforums but please use the quote function - bottom left of the passage you wish to quote if you want the whole passage or highlight and hover for a moment ove just the part you wish to quote until a notice "quote" pops up. That separates what someone else said, from what you say and makes the whole thing clearer. But you are obviously a clear thinker and very welcome here. I look forward to your comments on other matters too.

So........may. I'm glad you said may because I agree that your hypothesis (not a theory that means something different) is possible. But possible is only the first stage of what doctors call a differential diagnosis. One thing that troubles me is the use of the word signal. If you study information theory (that is the correct use of the word theory) then you will understand that 'signal' implies both a sender and a receiver and part of the information theory is the relationship between sender and receiver. This is of great use in error correcting and decryption. But so say that some burst of radio activity is a signal could be akin to saying that the stripes on a zebra are a bar code. You have to rule out random or some other agent (zebra stripes are neither random nor a bar code but that is another story). Otherwise you are falling into the oldest trap of all assuming what you wish to prove or deduce. Having mentioned random, I have also got a comment to make about that subject. If observations at the receiver are truly random then you would expect clusters of such observations. So...... It is up to you to support your hypothesis with better than " scientists (others) can't explain"

A further necessary consideration. After all the man is building a roadway, not trailing polywhatsit fibres in the ocean. What are mud control slabs made of ? Well following the trail it appears that they are made from german 'yellow bag' certified end user plastics. https://fkur.com/en/knowledgebase/what-are-recyclates/

Isn't there something in the New Testament about judging others ? I am going to say +1 to the OP for giving the subject serious and proper consideration, although I am probably too late now to tender and useful advice. So instead here is a bit of my own experience. In the early 1970's I mistakenly persuaded my company to spend a substantial sum of money laying a geotextile fibre that was being promoted by way of 'technical' articles in the civil engineering press. The articles declared that the fabric separated the mud from the water, allowing the water to rise and disperse or be dispersed, whilst holding back the soil particles. So we laid this stuff onto thick clay, and you can guess the name I got when we all watched the fabric disappear into the mud. Yes my name was mud with that company. The moral of this is that it depends on what it is laid on. If the soil is a thinnish layer on something hard (eg chalk or gravel) it will work well. But if it tens or hundreds of metres of fine particles such as silt or clay it will fail. Ethically I personally see nothing wrong with appropriate use of 'plastics'. In fact I have long held that it is only commercial greed that promotes gross their over use ( along with other oil industry products) when we should in fact be hoarding this resource, ekeing it out over time for only the most essential uses where it can bring great benefit. Again kudos to the OP who notes the financial and environmental cost of most traditional solutions. Geotextiles have come a long way since the 1970s and their use can greatly reduce environmental impact in appropriate circumstances.