studiot

In my opinion this thread has wandered way off topic in the last couple of years and for several of its 5 pages. I have been looking back over it and you don't seem to have progressed very far and I have some serious and fundamental comments to make about your diagram especially in the light of the one you posted recently on the previous page. After all this thread is called Basics of Gravity. So I would like you to think about several points before I post my comments. First and foremost you need to realise that the are two separate aspects of 'gravity'. The are the objects which cause gravity or the gravitational field or the gravitational potential. There are the effects of gravity on susceptible objects. Each aspect has its own terminology and, which are often confused between on aspect and the other. As to the causes the effects can be divided into two parts. The nature and distribution of the gravitational field outside the surface of a body. The nature and distribution of the gravitational field intside the surface of a body. Related to these categorisations are the terms Centre of Mass and Centre of Gravity which often coincide, but not always.

Yes they are also presented this way in the book, but you didn't ask about them.

Exactly the first approach in my last post. 😀

Thank you for posting this topic it made me stop and think. +1 My offering was taken from a mid 20th century book. Unfortunately my wife 'persuaded' me to let go some more modern elementary maths texts in favour of Music theory and Elementary Pharmaceutical Chemistry etc discarded by the younger generation. However I have one modern book left, but it was really aimed at adults. "Maths made easy for Science , Engineering and Business'. This presents analternative approach. I have yet to dig out my older texts such as Hall and Knight. Here also is another approach but requires an appeal to symmetry

Do they have to be little ? I seem to remember it was presented as a rule rather than withe proof/justification. Here is a typical treatment with limited justification followed by Learn the rule it is easier.

Pronunciation is a potential stumblig block in any foreign language. Some years back we were on holiday in the Canaries. We had a hire car for the holiday. Up in the hills we had a puncture. Finding a garage in a little place where only Spanish was spoken, I dug out my trusty phrase book. The similarity between pinctura (puncture) and pictura (respray) only came to light when they managed to ask What colour did we want?

Not quite. The importance of range is shown here The atom is reckoned to be about 10-9 metres in diameter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction Does this help ?

By trying to change the subject from bias to assumptions. Do you not know the difference ? Before this, I was going to say your questions have been very well answered in detail but now I think dimreepr put it much better than I did.

I have to say that I am suprised and disappointed to see Professor Ferriera lending his name to that (rubbish my opinion) paper you found and swansont linked to. Perhaps he was the supervising Professor, I don't know, but the paper is not worthy of Oriel College Oxford. The only Mathematics it studies is taught 14 year olds. So I can't see how it can be in any way representative of Mathematics in Science.

I appreciate you are worried about the future, but consider this Do you have any concept of what 5 petawatts means ? And remember this is all day, everyday 7days a week 52 weeks year. Ask yourself how much energy and time it took for Man to build all the stuff in the SE United States, destroyed by recent storms in one day ? There is no shortage of energy available on the planet. There is no shortage of either the engineering knowledge or the financial resources to harness it. There is however, a great shortage of the political will to harness it. Think of projects like the TVA or the Hoover Dam, small beer compared to the energies in just that last hurricane. So if you really want to understand this how about answering the question in my last post so we can carry on without getting bogged down in extraneous arguments.

Answering a question with another question suggests challenge rather than cooperation. I chose this particular example because it demonstrates the very basics of work and energy which you must have to be able to discuss this subject effectively. These concepts and the answers your questions plus others would come out naturally in working through the mechanical principles of the example. Di you read the article and do you understand (simply as I described) how the system works? Do you wish to continue ?

Now that's discussion and I don't mean just because you agree with me. +1 So to answer your question fully you need a lot more context than you supplied. Further considerations might be. 'Bias in Scinece ?' So do you mean in The process and activity of Science ? The body of theory of Science ? The relationship between Science and other human activities ? or What?

So if you vlike let us discuss 'energy' and renewable in the light of the Lynton railway. This is a cliffside railway with two matching cars suspended by a long cable over a big wheel at the top. Both cars have an underslung ballast water tank. The one at the top is filled from a natural stream up there. The extra weight sends the car downwards, pulling up the one from the bottom which has an empty tank. When the first car reaches the bottom and the second car reaches the top, the water is emptied from the full tnak and new water is added to the empty one and the cycle repeats. Here are some pictures https://www.cliffrailwaylynton.co.uk/about-the-railway/how-it-works/

I asked you before whether you thought bias was good, bad or indifferent. To which I received some evasive waffle platitude. In answer to one of your many posts alleging bias in science, not necessarily in this thread I tried to explain that bias can be deliberate. My example at that time was the transistor bias thae enables both you and I to make these postings. Another example of bias occurs when a dressmaker 'cuts on the bias' to achieve a particular effect with the fabric. They also use 'bias-binding' , bias facing, bias edging etc for other effects. So I say to you bias can be wanted and beneficial, or detrimental and unwanted or have no effect on the outcome.

It is worth noting that coin cell batteries perform two different functions and I cannot tell which one the play station uses. In some applications they battery is only there as a voltage source. The current drain is negligible. There will be little or no leakage at the end of this application. It is used to refresh the setting memory in computer apps (Bios) for instance. Other equipment use coin cells as a power source. The current flow generates the chemical reactions that produce the leakage products. For instance in kitchen scales, micrometers and so on.

I am going to say +1 as you have set out your opening post in intelligable fashion. I know its only one to counter the many negatives you have picked up but the post's quality suggests to me that you have learned a good deal since you previous ones. A straightforward answer to you question is that it rather depends upon what aspect of renewable energy you wish to concentrate on. As with so many matters it is a blend of several areas of the physical sciences and applied sciences. As a starting point I suggest you find out exactly what the word 'energy' means and describes. This starting point is in basic Physics, which describes this and explores the various forms of energy that we recognise and the processes of interconversion between them. Was this helpful?

You can get these coin cells in Alkaline, Lithium and Silver Oxide chemistry in increasing order of cost and life expectancy. The sliver oxide ones tend to be leak free and the alkaline ones the worst.

I think I do answer questions, but might not be giving the answer that is expected. Then why don't you answer the questions I wrote about the paper you introduced and i can't access (I tried again this morning) ? These surely are the important questions pertinant towhat we are meant to be discussing. What is even more disconcerting is the plot you posted. Have you given it any consideration at all ? Like for instance what was the source material it was drawn up from ? It gives the impression that no calculus - derivatives, integrals, gradients, differential or integral equtions and so on are used in Physics. The sort of impression one might get from polling junior high school precalculus texts. That is why I want the source article. For convenience I am posting the plot again here No calculus ? How's that pattern or is it bias looking now ?

Two flashes, each leaving a mark both on the train and the platform, each pair of marks presumed to be spatially separated by negligible distance. Einstein is famous for his train analogies. But they didn't appear in his papers. Instead he wrote several books and you will find them in one or other of these. I do not know if I have seen all of them but here is an extract from one I see no reference to the flashes beeing separated by "negligable distance" So do you have a reference for this claim ?

OK so here goes. Consider the statement There are 500 cars travelling at 50 mph towards London. "50 mph towards London" is a vector It has two parts and the value of that vector must be able to indicate or report both of these parts in full. The first part is the magnitude of the vector - 50 mph. (magnitudes usually refer to numbers) The second part refers to a direction which in this case is towards London. The 500 cars might be called a traffic coefficient, which in this case is 500 but might be any (whole) number. If each car requires 3 gallons of gas to get to London we might use this information to calculate the total gallons of gas required. We can call 3 gallons the gas coefficient. Unlike the traffic coefficient it is not variable but constant (the same for every car or fixed) So total gallons = = number of cars times the number of gallons per car = traffic coefficient (variable) x gas coefficient (fixed) = 500 x 3 = 1500 gallons I hope this example helps with Value Magnitude Vector Coefficient Variable constant Every 'field' I will talk about is a Field as Physicists and Engineers use the word. A field in mathematics is an entirely different thing so I don't recommend using the term maths field.

You appear to be the only person who reads your writing as you do. At least one other agree with me that your posts are generally loaded or overlaid with something outside Science. Perhaps that is why you don't answer simple direct questions. Most of us see this as a sustained attack, not on any particular person, but on Science and Scientists in general. So do you think patterns can be any of Good , Bad or Indifferent or only some of these or what ? What is even more disconcerting is the plot you posted. Have you given it any consideration at all ? Like for instance what was the source material it was drawn up from ? It gives the impression that no calculus - derivatives, integrals, gradients, differential or integral equtions and so on are used in Physics. The sort of impression one might get from polling junior high school precalculus texts. That is why I want the source article. For convenience I am posting the plot again here No calculus ? How's that pattern or is it bias looking now ?

I do not like loaded questions. Do I believe there is bias in Science towards easier calculations. Yes Do I believe Science would benefit without that bias No I would expect more mistakes. The whole idea is as arcane as suggesting that Science still ought to be taught in Latin. Do I believe there is bias in Science against women ? Yes Do I think Science would be better off without that bias Yes. So learn how to ask proper questions without attacking other people.

Actually FYI it is perhaps better to say that there is no interaction at or subsequent to the measurement. The interaction already happened when whatever event occurred to entangle the particles.

Again +1 for an excellent point. Once again the question I asked last August

Of course it is a measurement in the ship frame which again it must be to be a proper length. Why is that controversial ? I didn't say anything of the sort. So I am glad you said this Because I am relying on a good quality pilot that can pass by really close (without giving a figure for now) Accepted. Think of Einstein's train examples. Two things. Stand on the platform and watch the approach. At distance the train will appear to be heading straight for you. You will only be able to see that it will pass you close by at it gets very near. The other point is that this example enabled Einstein to mark both the train and the platform (ie both the stationary and moving systems) with one lightening flash. Modern technology has progressed long way from the time when we used to huddle round a surveyor's telescope, trying to keep dry at night and hoping to catch the transit of a star. Today we can take a whole series of (perhaps digital) pictures before before and after the event at very high speed. Then we can have a computer find the best interpolation for the exact measurement we want. But you are right about the fiducial marks you require to take the measurement, This is one of the correct terms you need to research if you want to - stadia are a form of fiducial marks. They are used in microscopes, surveyors telescopes, photographic cameras, tacheometers, photogrammetric methods, medical science amongst others. So your special engineers can arrange something in space that the ship can pass between them and the Earth to both appear on the photographs. As to the photographs, I wouldn't worry about the time of flight it will be incredibly short, many orders of magnitude shorter than the time it takes for the photographic film or digital sensors to react.