studiot

Perhaps that is why no one managed to answer it. It was so well disguised. Thank you for posting this. It appears a perferctly normal circuit that can be analysed by the normal processes of electrical engineering. In fact your video short circuiting the transformer is a standard method of measuring one of the important circuit parameters. However it does not help to use incorrect terminology thus Nonsense. The field intensity is controlled by the magnetic properties of the various parts of the circuit and the current flowing. Resistance is not a magnetic property. If you have a question please ask it more clearly.

That's just word fluff. One scale's local is another scale's global. See these discussions about invariance, scale and relativity. https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/the-difference-between-invariants-and-constants.29563/

Does your use of the word reality bear any relationship to your use of the word real ? Both seem very hand wavy to me. My intent is to use words as they are generally defined by the standard model. However, the further down the rabbit hole this material finds itself the closer it gets to philosophical terminology. So what do you mean by real ?

Does your use of the word reality bear any relationship to your use of the word real ? Both seem very hand wavy to me.

Hello and welcome. I did was the videos and other stuff on the website you linked to, although it is a requirement of this forum that I should not need to. I didn't see anything unexpected on the demos, though the explanations were somewhat hazy. One thing that was not clear to me was your relationship to that website ?? Is it your site or are you a third party asking for our opinion on the material presented there ? There are several things to note about field lines. There is no such thing as 'electromagnetic field lines'. Hence there is no such thing as 'electromagnetic field lines'. There are electric field lines and there are magnetic field lines which are quite different, although there is a connection between them. Field lines from a single source do not cross each other. If any field lines cross, they must be caused by a another source. Electric field lines start on a charge and end on a charge or go to infinity. Magnetic field lines start on a pole and end on a pole, if there is one, or form closed loops. Unlike electric fields for which a polarity can be distinguished, there is no such thing as a north magnetic field or a south magnetic field. Such fields would require the existence of 'magnetic monopoles' , which although they make the maths easy, have been sought but never observed. Big prize money is available for anyone who demonstrates one. I think the website demonstrator would do well to show a better understanding of transformer action. This is widely misunderstood in the difference between the activity in the primary and secondary. Final point, the explanation of the circular magnetic field concerns to Direct Current, but transformers don't work at DC. The supply is actually alternating and so the magnetic field will be reversing at line frequency, which is why the little button magnet was jumping around in one of the videos.

+1 In my opinion History is a subject that shoud be explored when the 'student' is read, not some collection of vaguely related facts and figures rammed down a child's throat for an examination. Having spent my working life addressing the questions 'what do I need to know or figure ?' in order to get this answer or that result I am finding in retirement the pleasure of exploring the questions ' How did we get there and what insights can be gained from this knowledge?' I think that these insights may well be more valuable to pass on that say the details of the aerodynamics of biplanes, which knowledge in near obsolete these days.

I'm not hiding behind anything - I've been away - , but this is the wole point of 'foiliations' which you seem to misunderstand. Yes indeed a foliation is a way of selecting a subspace ( sub manifold) of a given one (manifold), exactly as you have said and slicing is a good word. BUT This is not necessarily the case. A simple example relates to the laws of Mechanics, which are different in spaces of different dimension. And your 'slices' are another way of invoking the reduction of dimensionality map I referred to earlier. Whether presented as tensors or otherwise the differences in Mechanics between dimensionality 1, 2, 3 and 4 have been taught to Engineers, Geologists and other disciplines for a very long time.

I'm away on holiday tonight but you folks might find this interesting reading.

So you asked a question, didn't want the answer. Oh. Marcus in particular and also Mordred like to deal in the abstract. I like to ask the question "What does that posh statement mean, can i construct a simple down-to-earth example ?" I offered you such but thank you for not wanting it.

I thought I answered your actual question, given in your post #2, shortly after you posted it. But I do not seem to have a reply.

Firstly I agree with TheVat that world is the wrong word for your concept. From your example list I wonder if you are thinking of self contained entities rather than scale or size ? Please expand on your idea of 'environment' and 'inhabitants'. I can see most of them in your examples but how does this relationship connect globes and energy ? Finallly I agree with MigL in wondering what the purpose of all this is ?

No, any more than the bijective map R maps to Rn is although it is an index since they have the same count of members. A coordinate system has a richer structure to allow for the connections between the points in the form of functions, derivatives etc.

It is quite common to be confused about water terminology. When studying the literature you will find that some books define water in the purely gaseous state as vapour and others (particularly engineers) as steam. The gaseous state in common terms is also called more technically the gaseous phase. It is also common for water to exist as a mixture of a gas and a mist of fine liquid droplets called an aerosol. Engineers call this wet steam and the water as a gas on its own dry steam. Gaseous water is invisible to the eye, all the white mist you can see is due to the aerosol. When talking about properties you have to consider the components of the mixture separately, as they have different heat capacities etc.

A little digging revveals the following: The most common mw oven uses 2.45 Ghz or 12 .236 cm https://www.translatorscafe.com/unit-converter/en-US/calculator/em-spectrum/ Absorbtion data reveals 1.35 cm radiation corresponds to 22.2 Ghz radiation

Nice side issue. When watching nature programmes, (Attenborough, Countryfile and others ) they often highlight a particular bird, creature, insect or plant which can only feed and /or breed in a certain place or on certain foods. It seems to me that such specialists are more often than not on the endangered species list in our world.

You might find this one simpler and more digestible.

Here is some more information. Yes it's acetyl-thiolCoA Everything to the left of my marker arrow is expanded as previous diagram. Everything to the right is rolled into the CoA. It's from McMurray Organic Chemistry mine is the 4th ed. Sorry about the flatbed scanning but there 1350 pages so it doesn't sit well

Voila We seem to be making some progress. Did you catch what the detective said in my last post ? Because you should be setting out the facts and looking for a theory to fit them. Not setting out Gaia and looking for facts to fit the theory. So what is a summary of the facts ? Well the Earth began almost 5 billion years ago. And throughout that time conditions have been changing, sometimes steadily and slowly, sometimes quickly and dramatically. Some of these changes have resulted in great change in lifeforms at any one time. Some of these changes have been rapid enough to cause great change to the human population. How is this compatible with the conditions laid down in the Gaia Hypothesis of persistency of the conditions in comfortable late 19th century Europe ? Planet Earth does not fit Gaia, but somewhere else might. Note I see you have posted something about my 'Food Diagram' but I don't see any comment or question ?

Please note that axioms and premises are different things. Please note you have not answered anyone's questions or addressed their comments, which contain some very valuable information. This is a discussion site and you need to participate in the discussion not just repeat your question without adding anything further. OK some further helpful background. In Philosophy and more particularly formal logic there is not such thing as the truth. Truth, or more correctly, truth value, is as noted above a property we attribute to or deduce for some statement or other, as @TheVat states. We recognise 'orders of logic' because matters can become complicated. First order logic is as @joigus states contains what is known as the law of the excluded middle or that every statement has one of two truth values, True or False (T or F ) but there is no room for overlap, don't know , other value etc. We can obtain a false statement by the process of negation of a true statement and vice versa. (more of this in a moment) Statements can be simple in that they contain only one single idea or they may be compound or complex by combination of more than one simple statement. There are various connectives for combining simple statements into compound ones., including rules for combining their truth values to obtain an overall truth value. Herein lies the issue because mostly the rules work well, but some combinations lead to paradoxes or other troubles. For instance combining the statements In a village, the barber shaves every man in the village except himself. Every man in the village is clean shaven. So who shaves the barber ? These are two statments either of which or both could be assigned a T value. But their combination leads to an issue, given by the end question. Second order logic was introduced to analyse such statements by doing away with the law of the excluded middle. OK so back to negation. Within the confines of Euclidian Geometry there are 5 postulates or axioms. Over the millenia the last one has received considerable attention. Through every point, not on a given straight line, only one parallel line may be drawn. - Truth value T Now negate this to obtain a false truth value. Through every point, not on a given straight line, it is possible to draw more than one parallel line Now the truth value is F And in this form the statement will work perfectly well as an axiom. A final point. In the world of engineers, machinists, carpenters and other practical folk there is a process called 'truth testing' Does my wheel bearing run true? Is my spirit level true enough to build my brick wall ? Is this rope strong enough to support the weight ? The last one giving the clue as to the meaning in this context of conformity to some standard or criterion.

Certainly not a dead end. The sulphur process (sulphur is in the same periodic table group as oxygen) is still active today. Both NASA and NOAA and many other authorities now have reports on it. You intrduced the word intermediate, which implies to me that it was a necessary calling point to get where we are. The fact remains that there are many organisms that do not rely on photosynthesis alive and well today, some do not even need oxygen. they are competitive species, not stepping stones. Remember also that if the Chixelub metorite had not happened we would not be here, the dinosaurs would still rule the Earth. I first heard the parable of the puddle on ScienceForums and I think it offers an amazing insight. I posted the invitation to give some other member a chance to post it. Since no one has, here is my version. Somewhere in a hot country lies a dusty road full of potholes. Every night it rains and puddles form in the potholes. Every day the puddles evaporate in the heat. One morning a pudle woke up (became self aware) and thought "what a wonderful world and how lucky am I ?" This pothole is exactly right for me. It is me shaped. During the day, the puddle evaporated and the traffic passed, extending the pothole. The next morning the puddle woke up and thought....... I have been watching a TV detective series and in the last episode he says an interesting thing. "We should not look for facts to fit our theory of what happened; we should look for theories to fit the facts."

+1 I didn't see any quantitative evaluation of the rate of oxygen production. Only a general statement that the oxygen in the water was higher than expected. The oxides that make the nodules are semiconductors, not conductors so this will lead to a high internal resistance for any 'battery'. We regard the voltage voltage step across a pn junction as a barrier not an EMF. Voltage / current curves of such devices do not start at zero. Your earlier overvoltage comment applies. So the rate of oxygen production will be low but, of course, geological timescales are available at the bottom of the ocean.

In exactly what way is n(CO2 + H2S + O2 + H2O) = (CH2O)n + n(H2SO4) intermediate between n(H2O + CO2) = n(CH2O) + n( O2) and Catabolism

I have two good oceanography books. Oceanography Summerhayes and Thorpe Oceanography Thurman and Trujillo Both both have nice pictures, and discuss the nodules at length. I didn't realise that 'manganese nodules' were first reported by the Challenger expedition (1872 to 1876) It is interesting that when introduced they go by the name manganese or ferromanganese and the introductions all seem to refer to them as metals. It is only when you delve deeply into the text that they admit they are a mixture of iron oxide, manganese oxide and other oxides and salts.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0021d0b/countryfile-chew-valley

Thanks +1