studiot

Hello Ed, You are clearly near the beginning of your studies here, but it would be useful if you were to indicate your interest in physical geography / physical geology / geomorphology is. Especially if you are going to post more questions for clarification. It really is a fascinating subject. The three diagrams you posted were from an older era and the subject has moved on since. In those days the view was rather narrow and static. Today we try to look at such questions in a wider sense, both in how the particular landforms developed and fit in both with their surrounding areas on the ground and our best theoretical work on the subject. I note that the three diagrams (which could easily have been drawn by Arthur Holmes a very famous pioneer) have been carefully edited to avoid showing any explanation, for the purpose of making them into a question. I take it you are aware that all the rocks on Earth can be classified into sedimentary or igneous (volcanic). All three diagrams could be formed from either types of rock by 'denudation processes'. Denudation is the overall term for the general process by which earth and rock is detached from the main body of material and transported away from the site to somewhere else. Swansont has suggested that the waterfall might be formed like the ones on the Colorado river in the Grand Canyon. These layers here are mostly volcanic and look like the ones in the Rio Grande picture. Here, as with the Grand Canyon there is a large scale upper plateaux or mesa, heavily dissected by a major river in an arid area. More can be seen here https://www.nps.gov/grca/learn/nature/grca-geology.htm The whole area has been uplifted and is a bit like the simplified diagram below. Note the timeline goes from right to left. The final stages of this process, which have not yet happened, look like this butte in Utah. Note here the pile of debris at the bottom, which has not yet been transported away. This could also be as the first diagram of your question. The waterfall diagram shows nor canyon sidewalls , more like Niagara, which is forming on sedimentary rock. In your middle diagram the resisant layers could be part of an anticline, with the top worn away, as with this section of the Welsh Borders.

Hello and welcome. We have another member with similar interests so look at their thread.

I think you are clear what is being eroded or weathered, but did you think about my question ? In each of the three pictures what agent is dong the eroding. Note it is probably different in each case.

well done for spotting the first day post limit. Most new members don't. As regards your question, The Sun and stars are balls of firey gas. In fact they are in what we now recognise as the fourth state of matter ie plasma, which is similar to a gas but hotter. Anyway it is a fluid. I wondered if you were thinking that balls of fluid should change shape when they are translating (moving along) like they do on Earth ? They certainly change shape because of the resistance to movement provided by whatever they are moving in. for instance raindrops become pear shaped as they fall through the air resistance. However in space there is no resisting medium to cause this.

When thinking about swansont's comment ask yourself "resistant against what ?" Hint the last of your pictures rather gives the game away.

Of course I answered. In point of fact I have been trying very hard to hold a discussion with you. But sadly you don't appear to want to discuss. If you read properly the basis of UK law you would have noted that you have the right to do anything that is not specifically forbiddden by law. Buying a house. Specifically if you are a minor, in prison, a bankrupt, not living in the council house you wish to buy, mentally incapacitated, and probably a few more reasons I can't think of because I am not a lawyer, you are forbidden from buying that house. As I said a significant proportion of the population. On the other hand if you live in a council house Mrs Thatcher introduced a law specifically granting the right to buy that council house. I will let the americans tell you about constitution and its legal significance.

What right? Maybe a legal permission? No, I'm not agree. I do not know where in the world you are, but I can see that English is not your first language, nor is understanding of English culture your background. Consequently I think you are missing many of the comments made here, since the language of this site is English. The study of rights and restrictions and how they can arise is indeed an interesting philosophical exercise. Since you want simplicity, let us start by considering Robinson Crusoe, who was marooned on a deserted island. What rights does he have or need ? Let us also think about a densely populated country and the manyfold interactions of its population. Two views of rights and restrictions that form converses of eacfh other are. 1) A citizen has the right to do anything they want uless it is specifically forbiden by the law or constitution. No actual rights are detailed. 2) A citizen has the right to do anyhting specifically set out in the constitution as a right. 1) Is the basis of the UK constitution 2) is the basis of the US constitution But like pretty well every other country, reality is a mix of both extremes. As regards buying a house in the UK, a significant proportion of the population has no right to buy the house they live in for a variety of possible reasons. Equally the UK is actually a Union of 4 separaate countries. In three of them there is a specific 'right to roam' set out in their respective constitutions. In England ,however no such right is set out or exists. If that is not complicated, I don't know what would be.

Actually I do, at least in my country. However would you agree with me that the subject of rights, freedom, limitations conditions is very complex, complicated and multifaceted ?

What on earth does that mean ? I have the right to buy a £1million house. Pity I don't have the money freedom to buy one though.

And now you have introduced two examples of a different word - freedom. What does that have to do with rights ?

So you mean legal rights, as I already asked. There is no country on Earth where that right is completely unrestricted, although such rights as do exist vary extensively from country to country.

This is not such a wacky idea as some responses suggest, as we already do use electrostatics for a similar purpose to gravity. However I have to tell you that this is not appropriate or suitable for your use. Think about muddy water. What happens if you stand it in a jar ? The mude settles under gravity. You get a layer of sediment in the bottom with clear(er) water above. This was and still is used for gold panning for instance. In modern times we have electrostatic dust precipitators (or collectors).

thanks. I have an icon on the bottom task bar for firefox. Try this, accessible by right clicking on the fox icon.

this is part of the problem with this thread. It is too open ended. You need to clarify what yoy mean by 'rights'. Starting from the observation that in the natural world there are no rights you need to set the scene (context) for your question. Do you mean legal rights ? or Do you mean Human rights ? or what ? Include, please in your scene setting, since you mentioned 'civilised' the society you are setting this in. Slaves in ancient civilised societies had no rights.

Frankly I don't approve of that 'principle' since it is of the 'all or nothing' variety and the situation is nothing like that ie non binary. Since we all live together in the same world a far better principle IMHO is 'With every right come the duty to exercise it properly' This way you don't end up with the contradictions you have identified.

I have discovered that the 'In private browsing mode' of Firefox seems to cut out all the unwanted overlay crap. Now SF moves snappily from page to page. 😀

I agree, we are supposed to be discussing scientific aspects of religion. Archaeology is a science as is geological history. Leonard Woolley set out to find such evidence in Mesopotamia and found both archaeological and geological evidence of a great flood about 6000 years ago. Geologists have found plenty of evidence of a great flood in North Americal 13000 to 15000 years ago when Lake Missoula burst the ice dam.

It also include birds; don't know if you include them in animals ? Don't think it was seasonal. The excavations of Sir Leonard Woolley established that there was a significant one off flood extending the northwestern end of the Persian Gulf by some 400 miles in length and 100 miles in width. This was derived from the discovery of a layer of clay deposit, separating two civilisations, wiping out the older underneath.

I don't believe that there is only a single misconception here. Apart from mixing up the frames of reference, there is there plainly incorrect statement @M S La Moreaux claiming this is equivalent to saying that if a stream of spaceships ply between Earth and Alpha Centauri, the distance from Earth to AC (as viewed from Earth) magically changes because of the spaceships. It doesn't change for the Earth observer, but does for the shipborne observer. However the shipborne observer also 'sees' himself as stationary and AC rushing towards him. Then there is the simple issue should SR be applied at all. As I have noted the actual electron velocities in copper are such a tiny fraction of the speed of light. Further there is the failure to appreciate the difference between the velocities as a result of an electric field, the random velocities of the electrons in the absence of an electric field, the random velocities of the electrons and the velocities of an electric signal or disturbance in the copper or other medium. The electric signal is actually quite fast, faster than any electron can travel, But is not steady state. I have already worked out the velocity due to an electric field, so Here are some interesting facts and figures about the random walk velocities of an electron gas and other gases. Note the electron gas is a truly free gas, the electrons in copper or other medium are often called 'free electrons' but that is not really the case. They are better named unbound electrons, they are not free as they are confined to a giant molecular orbital called a band. We all make mistakes so a correction to this is in order. Apologies The voltage should be should be 108 not 1011 V

OK let's try vectors Vectors are little arrows. Before I add the little arrows please confirm that you understand the digrams of a bow and arrow, firstly with the arrow notched but the string slack ie not drawn back. Then secondly with the bow bent and the string pulled back. This is an ideal introduction to the sort of vectors we will be interested in. There are other sorts but don't worry about them.

Fantastic. +1 I tried drag and drop, which usually works with non animated pics. @cpu68 you also need to read the article - it is quite easy going, never mind the formula they give.

Perhaps you would be better served by asking questions, rather than trying to guess in subjects you do not know enough about. To fully understand your proposal you need to understand what the subjects are. Despite what Disney would have you believe, Fields are not emanations from a magician's wand or spread about by one. In this context, Fields constitute a propagation medium. Waves are a form of propagation in a suitable medium and simple wave (the sort we first meet and study) obey the principle of superposition, which is the mathematical name for the mechanism that causes interference. But some more complicated waves and other structures in the medium do not obey this principle. Some of these structures have been investigated as candidates for 'particles' or at least models of particles, formed out of the medium. vortices and solitary waves (also called solitons) are two such structures. Have a look at this animation of two solitons interacting without interference. http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/Demos/Solitons/collide-1.gif https://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/demos/solitons/solitons.html Then if you have questions, ask away. I have a question. Can anyone tell me how to make the animated gif work on an SF page please ?

Please remember you are not the first to ask 'why ?' or 'How do we know that ?' It is a very reasonable question. Here is an introductory page from a newish book by a well respected maths author. You may be suprised to learn that Thales, a well respected Greek philosopher wondered exactly that several hundred BC. I have underlined the important sentence. Now that we have established that experimenters originally started by naming things in front of them and working from there perhaps we can revisit the posts I made about why Dalton thought of atoms and molecules and The law of constant proportions or definite proportions. You didn't say if you followed the reasoning in those posts. Once we have that out of the way we can move on to what is inside those atoms and molecules.

So why do we find fields inside matter ? If particles are created by interference, why does the photoelectric effect occur with a single light source and direct illumination ?

The speed of electrons in copper noted in my previous post imply you would have to apply 1011 volts to boost their flow speed to 0.1c