studiot

Just a note on random walks. Yes indeed a good answer to the quote, but this is not a standard random walk. Random walks don't terminate. That is all sequences in a random walk are infinite, as you note and as does the Wiki article wtf refers to. This question has a termination clause in its contract.

1) We had a long thread about a video of the companion 'train in the tunnel' version. I will try to find it unless someone else can. 2) I believe you are referring to 'Thomas precession' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_precession

The first question is Is there a sequence of flips that will lead one back to zero? If so that sequence must have a probability. Second question is there a sequence with probability = 1 that will lead you back to zero? If so then there are no other sequences available. Third question are there other sequences available? If yes then there is no sequence that will lead you back to zero, with probability 1. In terms of the coin flips there is one that is all heads and so it will carry you further and further away from zero. This sequence must have a probability (however low) by hypothesis. Here is where we must distinguish between finite and infinite flips. For finite flips we are done. We have found at least one sequence that terminates without reaching zero. For infinite flips we need to confirm that there are more than one infinite sequences and at least one of them never reaches zero. Well all heads, if carried on without termination will never reach zero. As will two heads followed by one tail (or 10 tails) followed by all heads again. So we are done as well for infinite sequences. Incidentally this shows an example of the fact that it does not matter how many finite terms you add at the beginning of an infinite sequence, it does not affect the eventual convergence (or not) of that sequence.

But your directions of motion are different in different frames and you are switching frames. When you switch frames, the change of direction constitutes a rotation and a rotation is necessarily an acceleration. As Mike observes, this is a double Lorenz transformation and follows different rules. As it happens, Mordred has just posted these rules in another thread. See post#40 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/105118-lorentz-transformations-split-from-why-nothing-c/page-2

Please please post this, I can't wait. +1

Well bumping up the chrome security as per post#2 didn't work it just popped up again as I was logging in here. I'll obviously have to raid Trump's larder arsenal. I usually like combofix, before other cleaners as it strips the nastys' protection bare. I'll keep you all posted.

It is still the same paradox and the issue is the same. You have to reduce the time coordinates to place the corners of either figure at the same time in the same frame. In other words establish the relativity of simultaneity as I said. If the motion is as slow as you now say it is, then both the length and time change effects will be tiny. Both effects are changed by the same factors so if one is small or large, then so is the other.

No disrespect intended, but yours posts seem to me to be a combination of half remembered facts and fancy. So I find it difficult to determine your actual intent. You mention 'current bunching' and in particular electron bunching in a conductor. Do you have a reference? And you seem to want to build an ion generator. What is the connection between the two? I know of space charge limited and retarded current in free space and gases. That is well known and commonly analysed by what is known as the Child's equation. It was very important in electronics the days of valves. You seem to have some understanding of pulse technology but it is all mixed up. You mention rise time, but also frequency. Pulses do not have a frequency. They have a duration and a repetition rate, in addition to rise and fall times. From your posts it is unclear whether you want a single pulse or a pulse train? You believe that by brute force you can pass enough current to create sufficient electric field to cause ionisation. That is certainly the steamroller and nut method. Other methods to achieve this generally focus on lowering the ionisation threshold. For example by heating the gas By seeding the gas with conductive particles eg potassium as in magnetohydrodynamic generators. As to the conductors I stand by what I said about wires. They are inductive. Bifilar winding does not reduce the inductance, it (merely) reduces the external field. This was used in the days of high quality valve (them again) amplifiers to reduce the external field of coupling transformers. So please put up a modest summary of not more than 10 lines in logical order of what you are trying to achieve.

I really don't follow what the aim of your experiment is. That is what are you intending to do with the ionised gas once you have it? Why do you need two wires? And why wires? These have significant inductance at high rise times. Flat strips are better. Rise times are adversely affected by the use of traditional diode-capacitor voltage multipliers, especially for repetitive waveforms. I note you mentioned HV mosfets. If you can get high enough ratings you might like to investigate this article. An amateur might try valves as an alternative. The MOSMAX voltage multiplier Wireless World August 1988 page 748 ff. Everyday Electronics did a constructional article about air ionizers EE Feb 1984 page 82ff I wonder if another approach might be to strip and remodel the EHT supply from an old cathode ray scope. These are more likely to be modular and suitable than a TV EHT. Remember the usual HT/ EHT precautions and keep your other hand in your pocket.

I would add to this a further comment to hopefully prevent a confusion often made. There is a difference between invariant and constant. Invariant means that the quantity concerned is the same in all coordinate or reference systems. So the invariant quantity,s, known as the interval and given by the pythagorean expression s2 = x2 + y2 +z2 - c2t2 works out the same in all frames of reference. But in any given coordinate system there are many possible values of s, depending upon the points it connects. Another example is the line integral around a closed loop works out the same whether you use cartesian or spherical or cylindrical or any other coordinate system. In short an invariant is a system variable that can vary within one system but is the same when transformed to another system. Constant means it does not vary with time or position. So c is the same constant wherever and whenever you are at a point in the universe. In short a constant is the same throughout one system, but may appear different in a different system. So yes, c is both invariant and constant

Hypervalentiodine has offered a very practical reason but there is also a thermal one that is important in other situations as well. The evaporate enters at the bottom and you want maximum cooling at this point. Cooling depends upon temperature difference and this is maximised as the difference between the evaporate at its hottest and the cooling water at its coldest. The principle is used in a different way in hot water cylinders. Hot water rises over cold water and does not mix rapidly with it. So if you put the replacement cold in at the bottom, the water in the top of the cylinder remains hot and you can continue to draw off hot water. Doing it the other way round the cold would fall through the hot and mix somewhat, and you would be drawing of much colder water much sooner.

This is a version of the pole in the barn and the barn doors or the train in the tunnel paradox. The solution to all these types of apparent paradoxes is the same. You need to take relativity of simultaneity into account when measuring distance between extremities.

Don't be greedy. There were two questions, one each. How about trying yours? The answer has a bearing on your question "is there more than one probability?"

wtf, your several posts together make a clearly understandable simplification of a difficult subject viz probability. +1 Now here is a question. You have demonstrated that a random event can have a probability of 0, but can a random event have a probability of 1 I have a box of 10 chocolates, all different. I take one out, a random, and eat it. I take another out at random and eat that one. and so on until I have eaten 9 chocolates. Making a 10th selection is now a deterministic certainty so can it be random? Lord Antares, can you spot the difference between the chocolates situation and flipping a coin?

Perhaps one of the Chemists will help, meanwhile read this thread http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86381-basics-of-batteries/?hl=anode

This video shows brilliantly that effects take time to travel through a body from on end to the other. With thanks to the member who originally brought this video to my attention. My apologies I have forgotten who you are.

Thanks for that straight and simple answer, Mordred. +1

But that is not the mechanism of an earthquake. And even if it was, are you asserting that only fluids can 'wibble and wobble' ? I suggest you study Thom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophe_theory The S and P waves are excitations of a solid earth, consequent upon the quake itself. Careful, if you keep this up you might actually learn something.

I'm sorry I can't see any reference to a lack of change in your post#10.

And you were told that an earthquake does not exhibit fluid like behaviour.

If you wish to argue with the Lorenz formula I suggest you start your own thread, where I and others will be happy to help you. It is surely off topic of why nothing can go faster than light to argue against the mathematics upon which this assertion is based. I thought I made it quite clear that the formula for composition of velocities I showed was based on Lorenz. So if Lorenz is incorrect, then, yes, the formula would be incorrect. But consider this Thank you for the link to the Wiki article - I had not seen it before, there are so many. But look how many quite different and independent routes all lead to the same Lorenz formula. It is especially telling that some routes are purely experimentally derived whilst others are founded in the same foundations as pure maths and entirely consistent with them. Note in particular the section about the Lorenz group. Composition of a Lorenz transformation leads to another Lorenz transformation, which is why the operation can form mathematical group. I did comment on your hyperbolic question, but it will take some reading through to unravel which k you are talking about.

This is a short thread, did you not read all the replies to your question? I ask because my post#8 has received no reply.

You originally asserted that your ether is a fluid and when I tried to find what sort of fluid you thought it to be a gas. Do you know any fluids that are not matter?

You are the one that asserted your ether to be a form of matter. I quote from your post#49 When you make technical assertions, you must be prepared for other technical people to test the consistency of these statements.

Light is not a form of matter. Next question?