studiot

A Matrix isn't anything by itself. It is basically a container that allows us to handle or present all the entries at once. This is achieved by a formalised structure where position is important. In that it is like a spreadsheet. A simple device (not a matrix) is the place system in our decimal number system. So what is 9763 ? We are all so familiar with the 'container' that we forget it but it is a way of handling thousands, hundreds, tens and units all at once, if we follow the rules of addition and multiplication. Note that these rules work well, but [9 7 6 3] is not a matrix and the rules of matrix addition and multiplication do not hold in the place system. So why have different rules for matrices? Well matrix theory is part of linear algebra and the rules for manipulating matrices conforms to the rules of linear algebra. (Note the elements in a particular position in a matrix may or may not be linear). You have probably encountered other structures that allow us to handle all the entries at once for instance Sequences, summations of series, continued products. Matrices are particularly useful in handling systems of simultaneous equations and in creating data tables for entry into and extraction from computers.

You may have noticed that several types of relativity have been mentioned by different posters here. Simple relativity is taught in high school applied maths courses under the guise of relative motion. This works just fine for vehicles, ships and aircraft on Earth. Schools are careful to remain within the limitations of this theory and not present the inherent philosophical difficulties with this theory. In fact Galileo and Newton had already enunciated relativity to this level and beyond several hundred years ago. In particular they put forward ‘Principle of Relativity’ which later workers, including Einstein, adopted as one of the foundations of our modern theories. I will describe this important idea after completing the history. Einstein originally presented the theory of Special Relativity more or less complete in itself by adding a second axiom to the Principle of Relativity, based on experimental evidence that had become available. This second idea (or insight) was that all observers measure the same speed for all light, regardless of whether they are receiving it or generating it and regardless of their motion relative to the source. Special Relativity, however, only applied to non accelerating systems. This obviously means that it does not deal with forces, since force is related to acceleration. Special Relativity was also the first theory to introduce a connection between methods of measurement and observations Quantum Mechanics also introduced a second connection about twenty years later. Up to this time, relativity theories did not deal with Gravity, since Gravity was reckoned as a Force. Einstein then introduced a prototype General theory of Relativity to include gravity, forces and accelerating systems. There have been several versions of GR over the succeeding years. These have incorporated some terms that were sometimes included and sometimes omitted and there have been some variations in the constants employed. Unlike Special Relativity, General Relativity is regarded as yet unfinished and may even be one day replaced altogether. Of course, a hundred years of refinement has made it agree with most observations. A bang up to date history of this is to be found in the excellent (and quite readable) book by Professor Pedro Ferreira, called ‘The Perfect Theory ‘ There are many populist books on the subject. Unfortunately most contain some passages that are simplifications at best and just plain wrong at worst. The above book avoids is pretty good at avoiding these. I promised a quick passage on ‘The Principle of Relativity’ This is no more that our desire to assert the homogeny and isotropy of space and time, or that the laws of Physics are the same on Earth and Alpha Centauri. We want the distance between the 1cm and 2cm points on our ruler to be the same as the distance between the 99cm and the 100cm, and for this not to change if we rotate our ruler to point it in a different direction. And we want this to extend throughout the universe, not just as far as the end of our ruler. We assert that a metre and a second is the same on Earth and Alpha Centauri so if we take a metre ruler and a clock with us from Earth to AC they will match exactly the local metre and second. However severe difficulties arise if we wish to consider measuring from Earth, an AC metre and second or vice versa. This is probably the major source of misunderstandings in popsci books.

So it is not a standing wave? You said a couple of lines earlier that v = c so what is this v?

So are you claiming that a massive particle of charge is moving at the speed of light?

That old excuse again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It would be helpful (and have probably saved nearly 100 contentious posts) if you had commenced your presentation by properly defining your terms. I do not know what you mean by 'Classical Mechanics', so please explain???????? It is of interest to observe that quantisation is inherent in the (pure) mathematics of periodic phenomena and even the flagship Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle can be derived entirely from pure mathematical considerations. Consequently what also do you mean by Quantum Mechanics? Proper setting out of your meaning for these terms is essential if you wish to consider them in opposition, since for most physicists they are not.

Yes that was my mistake as I was about to rush off. It was not the equation we started discussing.

F = BLv This is the equation that describes the force on a conductor moving through a constant magnetic field of strength B with velocity v. It is also the equation for the force on a stationary conductor which endures a constant magnetic field moving past with velocity v. What is the correct equation for the force on a stationary conductor enduring a varying magnetic field B(t) (where B is a function of time) ?

That did not answer my question. Shall I leave the second question until you have answered the first?

So B is not steady? Your equation does not say this. And what is v the velocity of?

OK so F acts on an electric charge. that is in accordance with Lorenz. Where is this charge coming from and going to that it forms a current?

I asked a simple question and the rules require a simple, but complete answer within the thread. So I will ask it again. You are the one claiming there is a force so I ask again

Classical electrodynamics does not attempt to apply a force to massless particles. Let us work through this so called proof of yours and see if you have carried it out correctly. F is the force on what, given by whose law?

Are you claiming to have derived the equation at the bottom of the quote by yourself?

Do you even know who Heaviside was or what he did?

I think the claims are getting more outlandish and Walter Mitty by the post, But there is still no solid pudding to prove (digest) or even discuss. Heaviside is spinning rapidly in his grave.

These subjects have been discussed many times at SF and at this level, have you tried searching? I would be more inclined to help further if you could have been bothered to reply in your last thread.

Thank you prometheus and strange for your support +1 One who makes false claims about the words of others automatically forfeits the argument. You will find reference to your biological discussion in posts 10 and 46, if you bothered to read them.

This and what follows is fatally flawed by one of the conditions imposed. Here is a mathematical refutation. You have imposed the condition of a single throw of the dice. Evolution is not so constrained. It can take as many trials as it needs to arrive at a solution. Most trials will fail, it only takes one to succeed. Here is a counter example. Some while back a poson for rats was derived using warfarin. These days (some) rats have evolved resistance and the poison is no longer effective against them. There are many rats and many rats make many trials. In the light of your previous silence on my two polite comments on your proposition, I will take failure to properly discuss this point as a deliberate flouting of forum rules and report it as such.

@forex Was I responsible for post#10 and were you polite enough to reply to my offer?

I wish you all success in your course, but you will fail if you think you know better than tutors with many years of experience. Chemistry a Structural View by Stranks Chemistry by Lewis and Evans Chemical Binding and Structure by Spice all meet your stated needs and much more. The much more is very important since you don't know what the basics are or what you are missing by selecting topics. Any of these above books will give you a rounded view and help you do well.

Yes well done +1 Come back if you still need help.

I am not a frequent visitor to the religous threads and an even less frequent poster in them. However this one caught my eye for two reasons. Firstly because despite the rather self satisfied style of the OP, it was not rude, and forex is a new member so in my opinion deserves the opportunity to discuss reasonably. So I am sorry the red pencil came out so early and may have served to drive someone away who might well have been able to think differently given better information. Secondly religion and biological stuff is not my area so much of any argument goes over my head, but I do want to thank forex for introducing me to the term irreducible complexity, which has obvious meaning well outside these fields. So I am going to add a +1 for this in part compensation for the (IMHO) over strong reaction of some others. However, having looked at the idea of IC, I find it a useful concept but cannot see that any proof has been offered that it must have arisen by way of Intelligent Design. In fact quite the contrary I can find many examples of IC in my own fields that have arisen in a variety of ways, some by accident or happenstance, some by an external (non intelligent) forcing agency and I am sure there are other routes I have not considered.

So post both the actual question and your attempt so far. Don't worry if it is not right, that is the way we learn.

Before you can test you have to have a definition to test against. We have discussed this before see post#29 here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/84215-chance-vs-probability/page-2