studiot

This is mathematical rubbish.

Obviously I must let DH speak for himself. However as a practical person here are my thoughts on the question 'Have aliens visited Earth?' Firstly I propose a 'working hypothesis'. This can be either they have or they have not. A sensible practical person selects his hypothesis on the basis of consistency with the preponderance of known facts. As such, most of the evidence I see around me is negative so I select 'they have not'. Next I break down the hypothesis into a series of steps, because perhaps aliens exist, but they have not yet visited Earth or they haven't visited very often and there are few if any traces left. In order to have visited a)Life must have developed somewhere else in the universe b)That life must have evolved into aliens capable of travelling to Earth and perhaps leaving again. c)Even if they could travel to Earth they must have the motivation, given the possiibly very large number of other places they might have chosen to go. If there is one advanced alien civilisation, why not more? Wouldn't one of these be a more attractive destination?

There are consequences to this view that you may not have appreciated. Take a 12 inch ruler. Choose a coordinate system so that the ruler extends from a to a+12 inches along one (spatial) axis. We say that the extent of the ruler is 12 inches. If we look at the endpoints with sufficient magnification we see that they are less well defined. Now let us consider the time axis. The ruler comes into existance at time t and is consumed by fire 1 year later so the ruler has a duration in time of t+1 years. The temporal end points will again be more blurred under closer examination. Would you agree with this?

Good point, I assume you mean displacement volume. Page 7 here http://www.medslearning.leeds.ac.uk/pages/documents/meds_management/MdsMgtModule_Calculations_Final.pdf

Long and hard we fought for peace. And conquered her at last.

pmb, I was not referring to electromagnetic anything. I was referring to copper wires and light bulbs, although voltmeters would do they are not so spectacular. I don't need QFT to explain a real physical effect any more than I need it to explain why my table is holding up my computer as I type.

Well I suppose you could use Boussinesq's method. This link uses only real analysis. It can also be realised using conformal mapping. http://osp.mans.edu.eg/geotechnical/Ch2.htm

I believe it was Lagrange

So once again I say you are unable to explain lecher lines in terms of particles and thereby prove your claim. I asked a civil question which you keep dodging. I freely admit that I cannot do it because I do not believe that such an explanation exists or can be made. However I would still be interested if one can be made.

Here is another possible answer Coulomb stress But we could go on all night. You surely realise that the answer to your question depends upon the shape of the plate edge and the shape of the indenter, their stiffnesses and dimensions?

I asked a simple, polite question. I used the word corpusculer to allow the freedom to introduce any particle or particles you choose since corpuscule is a very well defined term. It is more general than 'particle' since it allows possibility of yet undiscovered particles or particle properties. I also used it since you like to appeal to authority, and I regard Newton as having greater intellect and authority than you or I or all the people at CERN put together. So I repeat. Please explain the operation of lecher lines in terms of corpuscles (substitute any particle or particles you choose).

I do believe a Higgs field is something totally different, but I will leave that to the particle physics specialists. Did you catch the implications of Juan's definition of dimension, your last post would suggest not.

In which case the said researcher who uses such fancy terms as "compressive stress propagate in a horizontal isotropic plate " should supply without being asked, enough information for an answer to be supplied. Here is an answer, St Vennant. Does it help?

So you can't?

Yes except that the algebra doesn't have to be linear.

I don't need proof, I am testing your logic which declares that A is true (the universe became viable) therefore B is true (there was a reason). There is no logical connection between the two since at least one alternative, C, is available.

Juan, I would be interested to hear your corpusculer explanation of lecher lines.

That is a proposition or hypothesis. What proof do you offer?

'Closed under addition' is used all the time. It is (part of) the justification for saying that any two plane vectors add to a third plane vector in the same plane. In 3D it is the justification for saying that any two the vectors on a surface such as a sphere add to form another surface vector on that spherical surface. As a result the dimension of that surface is two not three, as Juan pointed out, even though it is embedded in 3D space. This is significant.

The last time I tried this on one of our dinner plates my wife gave me earache because the plate buckled due to lack of information.

As a proclaimed Yorkist, this could start WWIII

I collect 10$ from everyone who fallaciously says that to me.

Nice one michel Two weeks I saw an alien performing in Amsterdam as a street artist.

To the Architekt But you seem to have swallowed a science dictionary That is the source of my problem. You keep introducing new scientific terms ands concepts that seem to have nothing to do with each other and are big enough to require whole books of their own. This is not a personal criticism, it is meant to help communication. To try to answer you question all science at all levels starts out with some ideas which are taken as given. That is taken for granted or not proven. In maths these are called axioms and definitions. They are the result of thought. Usually in other siciences they are the result of observation. Sometimes very careful observation. So for instance as a result of observation, scientists in the 1600s and 1700s observed that there was an attraction between material bodies and called it the force of gravity. After this they discovered, again by observation, that there was an additional force between some, but not all bodies over and above the attraction they attributed to gravity. They called this electricity. To do this they also had to define and understand what they meant by the word 'force' and material bodies. Do you follow this ? To Bignose. The original response by the Architekt to my offer of 'control volume' thermodynamic and therefore not spatially oriented so has nothing whatsoever to do with what we are discussing. You rightly deduced that was not what I meant but I would recommend an inquiry as to what I did mean rather than a blanket rebuttal. However I think it would be rude to the Architekt and off topic to argue it further here. I am perfectly happy to explain what I do mean in another thread.

Love the youtube. +1, Ben