studiot

As I understand it the original work was in French, but thank your link did include a link to an English Language version in pdf. It will take some time to wade through 126 pages, although first impressions are that it is of professional quality and from reputable institution (University of Limoges). However the introduction was not what I was seeking when I asked for and Abstract, which should tell us more than the above quote does. This is important for any document that has pretentions to mainstream as it serves to whet the appetite of potential readers and allow librarians to classify and reference the content. Further to the second goal a list of keywords is also normal. if there is one, I missed it.

Vous avez besoin d'un resume. C'est vraiment normal, n'est pas?

Strange No. The observed value. Which is, of course, only an approximation to the "true value" (if such an ideal thing exists). +1 Everyone is trying to tell you that we may never know the 'truth'.

You claim you want to discuss the subject of scientific testing, but respond in a completely flippant manner when asked for specifics. We still don't have a working definition of the phrase to discuss. yet you claim to be philosopher of sorts. The phrase (yours not mine) contains two words. 'Testing' which is the gerund and is therefore the defining noun. And 'scientific' which is a qualifying adjective, distinguishing the testing from non-scientific types of testing. I asked several questions in an attempt to clarify this and you have avoided them all, either but just not answering or by saying "I don't know". Yet despite the list of things you "don't know" about scientific test you are prepared to pontificate at length on the subject. So is this a case of 'Don't confuse me with the facts I have already made my mind up' ? You have also diverted the discussion away from the topic into a pointless discussion about what is truth and accuracy. completely missing the very good points that moth ( +1 ) has put to you. One of the questions I asked, and you avoided, was about truth. I asked about the use of statistics in scientifc testing. This is because in many if not most instances of testing in a scientific manner we do not know the truth and indeed can never know it. This was what lead Laplace to rediscover the Bayesian theorems in 1770 and develop them further to improve the 'truth' of our knowledge of the actual motions of the bodies in the solar system. Today we have improved that 'truth' still further using through the continuous application of scientific testing. Since you don't like my difficult questions, Let me ask you an easy question. You have a high fever and obvious infection. Would you prefer the medics to medics to conduct a scientifc test or a non-scientific test on your samples to determine suitable treatment?

Unfortunately the builders pulled out my line along wiht the phone and internet a couple of days ago. I have now got a temporary fix in place and I see that things have moved on a bit. Yes but I need to know where to start. In other words I don't know your level of mathematical knowledge. Do you know the difference between a function and an operator or that whilst the solution to a function equation is a value the solution to an operator equation is a function? If not I will start by explaining this.

Except that 'the hole question' is my original, though not in this thread. Oh , I forgot, You don't reply to my questions since they are too difficult. Oh and did you give him +1 since it is such a good question? I know I did.

For the last few days I have been getting my antivirus blocking some attacks from the above IP when clicking on some posts in the last 24 hour list. This happens about one time in 10 and does not happen anywhere else.

You check it against the party official handbook of doctrine of course. What a silly quesion number 7. Take twenty extra correctness lessons.

What suprises me is that having been told there is a body of mathematics that develops a much more general situation than the over-restricted mathematics presented in the paper, you are not interested. I have not checked that the Schwarz inequality will lead to the paper's results but they look similar.

Thank you for responding. But you did miss out what I consider the most important part of my post 38. That I consider the focus too narrow and the definition of scientific and testing unclear. The rest of the post just contained examples and could have been omitted. So I am still not clear where you are coming from. The great bulk of what I consider scientifc testing is not involved with checking the validity of esoteric theories. It is employed in the everyday business of furthering activity in our modern technical world. More examples What is the moisture content of my wheat? Does that fingerprint match? Is this batch of concrete acceptable? I introduced the statistical element because even in basic reasearch these days statistical methods play a vital role. Does standing in the rain give you a cold? Well sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. So how do you investigate and report without statistical methods? Some testing cannot ever be usefully performed. What is the breaking load of this crane hook? Well yes you could load the hook until it breaks, but of what use is that knowledge? You have a broken hook you can no longer use. So an entirely different sort of testing is required. As to the scientific part. When that hook is tested is it 'scientific' to keep adding old railway sleepers until it breaks? Or do we need something more objective, repeatable, reportable etc?

I can't say if this was addressed to my post 38, immediately following post 37 that you addressed in your previous paragraph. However if you can't or won't discuss then you have no business posting here. I suggest you read the rules.

What connection are you making between the title of this thread and the question you seem to have asked at the end? Are you going to offer any reason why natural and human generated effects should be mutually exclusive?

Then explain how the stated rules allow the conditions I have described. "I think .... must be...." does not cut it. You have not replied to my comment about the uncertainty principle, have you given up on that?

Why does this not contradict this definition Further if there are only a finite number of noktons how can intermediate and in particular irrational values of measure be achieved? Edit spelling.

I don't follow. Yes, Heisenberg's application is not the only application of the uncertainty principle. Its effects are normally insignificant in the macro world (larger than atoms). He was the first to apply it to the micro sub atomic world where it is hugely significant. Do you understand where it comes from? Once you see the connection between the mathematics and the real world it really is very simple and beautiful.

Do I conclude from the diatribe in your post 43 that I am wasting my time offering an opinion, or additional discussion points?

Well it seems to me that the paper contains a self contradiction since in the opening discussion it restricts the scope of the theory to rational numbers, but then goes on to discuss Euclidian norms, which use the square root. Can you throw any light on this? By this I assume you mean the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which is inherent in the pure mathematics of the operators involved and does not really present a problem.

Taking the physics route may be more personally satisfying, given your interest list. But it will cut you out of the Chartered status avaiable to engineers, and the higher career potential that offers.

This is my first reading of this thread and I wonder why it is so narrowly focused. The discussion seems to concentrate on absolutes. What about the use of statistics in scientific testing? And what exactly is meant by 'scientific testing' Would analysis of blood samples be included? What safe working load certification testing? Is there any data on what distribution of testing activity between various motivations?

+1

I am going to guess (I don't know the book) that your question should read How thick this does the plate have to be if granite fails in tension at 20 MPa? Assume density is 2700 kg m^3. Since no further information is provided (about the plate dimensions or tother loadings) I am further going to guess that you are meant to analyse the plate as a series of 1metre wide strips. That will give you a volume and therefore a uniformly distributed load on each strip. You can thus calculate the maximum bending stress in the middle. This stress can be related to the horizontal tension and compression (shearing stress) distribution at that section by the usual 'bending equation' which will give you a value for the half-depth. This is homework help so show us how you get on with this information and see if more help is required. Don't just pick equations at random from the book, have a good reason for choosing. Edit: I thought someone had asked this before and I see that was about this time last year, but the OP never came back. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86844-problem-314-turcotte-and-schubert-geodynamics/ We can certainly help you understand the problem so that you can arrive at the correct answer, what was the difficulty with the answer given in that thread?

There are many differences and also many similarities. Some are big and significant, some or small and insignificant. But there are no clear cut boundaries as you can always find examples of one aspect in the other. I will just highlight one particular difference. It is quite a different matter to measure, observe and deduce what is already there (as scientists usually do) than start with nothing and place (create) some defined thing or system (as engineers usually do). For example measuring the size, disposition and gravitational pull etc of an existing mountain as opposed to placing one to some specification. However with my comment on no clear boundaries in mind, scientists have done just that when completing the catalogue of elements in the periodic table or the catalogue of elementary particles in particle physics.

Yes 'gas' explosions can be quite devastating. Was the one in your picture a faulty appliance explosion or a collected gas explosion? Do you know the % of each type? The somewhat adversarial nature of this discussion is bringing out some valuable points. That's quite a short lead. Do you have sockets (wall*?* outlets) up near the ceiling in America? Here is a (smoke I think) detector plugged into a normal pendant light fitting. The 'bulb' is then plugged into it.

How long would the battery last in such a detector?

Actually jaj russel asked about kg weight (which is a unit of weight). Weight is the force of gravity exerted on a mass so is a force. Force = mass x acceleration So if we rearrange this we have mass = Force / acceleration. So the mass in mass units of 80kg weight is 80/g or approx 80/10 = 8 kg mass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram-force