studiot

This also require the following condition. That the space in which the spacetime manifold is embedded (or may be considered to be embedded since you are requiring tangents and invoking the exterior calculus thereof) is either linear or affine. Otherwise calculus doesn't hold. Finally, how do Fractals have tengents ?

It's quite a while now since number or count has been acknowledged as a fundamental physical variable with the same status as mass, length or time etc. I don't know why folks keep ignoring this.

As usual a succinct summary. +1 But we should not forget the implications of the phrase "in their own local frame" which has mathematical and physical implications. The physical ones being that we are basing the origin of this frame on an ideal 'point particle'.

This same 'come on' has been posted on other science sites and leads to some sort of aren't-we-clever electronics gadget club. I didn't stay long enough to see if they charge (money).

Take heart Ptolemy said that. Pope Leo said that Lord Kelvin said that and yet and yet and yet We are still constantly discovering that there is more to discover than we know.

What do you mean by a long stick on a stone (or even a short one for that matter) ? Are you referring to a lever or something else ? Or are you just pulling our legs (stixks) ? FYI there is plenty of scope for 'virtual Physics' for instance the Principle of virtual work, D'Alembert's method and plenty of others.

The first thing to note is that as with any computer system it can only output what it is programmed to output. One of the features of much of human discovery has been the occurrence of the unexpected. Columbus died thinking he had discovered Asia. Fleming died knowing he had discoverd penecillin. Rutherford's famous statement https://spark.iop.org/collections/rutherfords-experiment The quote is from a famous experiment described here and I have referenced it as it describes the sort of process that leads to discovery. That is to be alert for the unexpected. So one possible approach is to program your AI to compare with the expected and output anything that is unexpected. I remember being the only student in the class that got the 'right' wrong answer in a Chemistry experiment when the teachers gave use the wrong solution and everybody else falsified their results to fit expectations.

OK I'll make a start The philosophy of any subject must be able to reach all parts of that subject and thus must include the foundations of that subject. Many subjects go beyond the foundations an usually this involves specialisation into non overlapping sections. But just as you would not build a house that only had foundations under the left but not the right, the foundations of a subject must support the whole edifice. Furthermore the scientific method is only a part of Science. More scientist-hours are spent on the dreary infil between the glory discoveries.

OK I won't look forward to it in the hope it doesn't happen again. 😃

Whyever not ? Is there a difference and if so what is that difference ?

and me Thanks +1 Don't you wish we could all learn something new everyday ?

This appears to be either an answer to a question or an explanation in a text. What do you want to know about it and yes English please. ? SN1 and SN2 are types of chemical substitution reactions See Skyes A Guidebook to Mechanism in Organic Chemistry

It's not firefox. Please tell us more exact detail, What do you mean send a message ? The option on editing says SAVE (for me at any rate) and the option on first creating the post says SUBMIT REPLY Are you moving from page to page between edits to try to collect quotes ?

As a fellow member who has also suffered the difficulties of the input editor you are fully absolved and forgiven. +1

Another snarky comment that is still completely missing my point. Of course that was not my challenge, which was made in my previous post which was That your original response to KJW was both rude and dismissive and incorrect. I regard that as both rude and dismissive. No one needs an NASA level computer to run an Excel spread sheet. I then supported KJW's contention that analysis could be carried out on relatively simple equipment by supplying further examples, which received another rudely dismissive remark from your goodself. Can you speak or parse or whatever Forth ? I don't suggest there are not more but I only know on one other member here who has used it ( and I have forgotten most of what i knew about it) and appreciates its special characteristic in its ability to compact/compress code.

You are the one that introduced 'snarky' incorrect comments about computing power. I neither downvoted it nor reported you as author. Instead I challenged the incorrectness with direct evidence to the contrary. Instead of supporting your false claim you chose to be rudely dismissive.

It was rude to the point of dismissive condescension. And quite outwith the rules here.

Another rude response and completely missing the point I (and KJW) was making.

I am not going to apologise for some sloppy programmer's idea of a suitable input box, especially to one whose last reply was as rude as yours was.

Now you are finally beginning to answer a question, though I am not comfortable with all the bif words, many of which are IMHO just journalistic fluff. The question includes all Science, not just

How far back does you memory of 'computing power' go ? For instance the language Forth was developed for processors no more powerful than the humble 6502 (and if you know what that was you will know its address space and instruction list). Forth was used to control alrge (at the time) astronomical telescopes for precision survey and study of the heavens. I used to use a program called Design View, which was a luxury simulation program with full colour 3D visual capability that was originally designed for DOS - I still have the 3 floppies for loading it. I say luxury because it was luxury for mechanical systems compared to a spreadsheet.

So provide some examples of how the same data might require different treatment or lead to different conclusions interpretation in different parts of Science.

Congratulations I confirm my suspicion that you are adept at avoiding answering questions.

Not only is it multifactorial, but many of the factors are not economic ones at all.