studiot

Zigbees https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zigbee This thread has certainly expanded my knowledge of the different types of fire alarm available. Thank you all OP please note you will get a better response if you use the above phrase, from time to time. On this morning radio they were talking about remote controls, and one participant now uses their smartphone to control their television since they have lost the original remote that came with the TV. This can also be the case with a fire (or other) alarm. I am also reminded that a couple of years ago an electrician gave me a mobile phone controllable smoke alarm, Hence my Wiki link

You will have to deal direct with a moderator to tidy up your stuff. Perhaps they might decide to recombinee your threads. Mordred I rather think that your list was not even 'in at the deep end' it looks rather like diving off the clifftop at Acapulco. 😀 So to start with sime simpler ideas : Thousands of years ago the ancient greek mathematicians had the idea of Axioms. These are statements that we accept without question. Euclid is famous for his 5 axioms of geometry. Over the years philosophers widened the idea to other disciplines, especially logic, using the term Premises. By combining these statements in various ways, perhaps with further information, further statements can be deduced. Important small statements that may be subsequently used again and a gain are called Lemmas. The most important and larger statements are called Theorems. Obviously the worth of such schemes depends upon the wisdom of the original choice of axioms (see 6 below). The process of deduction is called Proof. Proof is really a test that a proposed statement is compatible with all the axioms. This works really well for mathematics and logic. In the last few hundred years a massive development in Sciences occurred. They tried to use the axioms and proof approach to science. But as noted in (4) mistakes occurred. The most famous was probably "That a heavy body will fall to Earth faster than a light one". Today Science does not have axioms and proofs. Science has Principles. The Principle of Relativity in Physics. Le Chatelier's Principle in Chemistry., Homeostasis in Biology etc https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_and_General_Biology/Introductory_Biology_(CK-12)/01%3A_Introduction_to_Biology/1.05%3A_Principles_of_Biology#Homeostasis Principles are more like (well constructed) guidelines and subject to change in the light of new (and hopefully better) information. Unlike maths and logic where a new theorem must always be compatible with the all the axioms and other theorems of the subject an Hypothesis may run counter to some principle or introduce a totally new one. This brings us to the subject of what does Science do instead of Proof ? Science is the study of Nature, in its widest sense, so Science makes nature the ultimate arbiter of the worth or veracity of the hypothesis by direct testing. So direct testing showed conclusively that heavy bodies and light bodies fall at the same rate and Science (eventually) had to revise its original statement. A further test is checking that the outcome of a prediction made using the hypothesis conforms to observation. ~So that's a 10 point good start. Next time I will take you on a lightning trip through the principle that controls most events in the universe, from galaxies to gravity to ...... So please ask any questions about my 10 points (twice as many as New York had) and answer this one question. What do you understand by 'energy' ?

Better question than your first version. Note @exchemist excellent reply that the superconductor is on the ground since you require all that extra apparatus to generate and maintain superconducting. +1 The answer to your question comes directly from school mechanics 101. The upward force on the hovering object equals the downward force on the apparatus equals the weight of the hovering object. This must be so by the definition of hovering.

Gee Mordred that's enough homework for twenty years. 😀

I already gave the correct reference to improper rotations. Here is a link to what @joigus were discussing https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16378/why-are-infinitesimal-rotations-commutative-whereas-finite-rotations-are-not I agree with your answer. I'm still learning how to respond properly, I guess you use the quotes. I thought you did it with the next post. Thank you. I assume you understand what stochastic and iterative processes are so here is an example from this book, relating random variables to rotations, which you should appreciate with your electronics/ programming background.

Really ? You asked specific question and I gave you the only specific answer. Yet you haven't proffered the courtesy of any response. Am I wasting my time ?

Well the OP seems to me to be more misguided than wrong. He is certainly a cut above the usual crank we get, wedded to some laughably false notion 'that must be right' Nor is he fighting tooth and nail to preserve an original fallacy. As a matter of interest flux and flowing does not imply movement the (direction) fields of magnetism and electrostatics do not move of themselves., yet we talk of magnetic and electric flux. And resonance is also borrowed , this time from Chemistry. But I agree it needs a lot of hard work.

Isn't this an oxymoron? Well I don't think the proposal is either stupid or an oxymoron. I think it has been borrowed from biology and in particular DNA sequencing, which end up with a very complex structure from a few much simpler basic units. However that does not mean I think it is correct. @Imagine Everything I think it is time to move on from a diet of popsci to some real stuff. But that would entail some hard work on your part.

I don't wish to discuss black holes. They are too remote and incompletely understood to be of much interest to me. But your flux idea has a grain of truth in it as did the other ideas I mentioned. You would do well to spend a period considering some of the things you have been told here and seeing how the impact on your ideas. That is how Science works. Before discussing you flux idea it would be necessary to teach you about energy. Then you could apply the Higgs Field to your flux.

glad to hear you agree with me. What I was referring to was the difference between finite rotations, which are not commutative and infinitesimal rotations such as considered in both traditional and modern differential geometry. If they had a radius other than zero (infinitesimal limit) they would not be commutatiive either.

Duality appears again and again all over maths and science - It is very common. In Science we have positive and negative polarities, north and douth poles, many related to direction like upstream and downstream, forwards and backwards etc.... In Maths we have the Dual Space, left hand and right hand (this has been further developed in molecular theory as Chirality) So yes you could fit something in there.

Welcome back the ghost of Bishop Berkely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley We already have something like this called infinitesimals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitesimal

Last time I did any programming it was called a seed for input to a stochastic or iterative process. My apologies it should have been improper rotation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improper_rotation

Hang in there bro, I really am trying to help. I have a real respect for draftsmen who can do such things so much better than I can. Did you know that a century ago nearly all technical design and calculation work was solved by draftsmen ie by graphical techniques ? There was even an italian mathematician, named Cremona, who published a textbook called the graphical calculus. From you last few posts I can see that your normal English is perfectly good. Since I have not understood what you are trying to express I really don't know if it is something I don't know. So I am trying to open up known areas of Science in case it is something related to your notions. Then we can get on the same page. So you mentioned rotations and relativity. Did you know there is a link in what are known as 'forbidden rotations' I only find it a waste of time drawing attention to something like that if there is no response, either "Yes I already knew that" or "No, I hadn't heard of that, tell me more" Either way that progresses the discussion.

It is really difficult to answer you since you are mixing and muddling many definitions in the scientific dictionary. Counter rotation is not an inverse, just as the operation of subtraction is not an inverse. There is such a thing as an additive inverse in set theory (and group theory) but these terms refer to a single unique set element only, not to set operations. Not necessarily. In Differrential Geometry there is such a thing as torsion. Here the radius is zero. It is even more difficult to answer if you fail to address points made to you. We are taking notice of what you write and are trying to make something of it, but it is up to you to help.

Hello, You have an over determined system that is linear. There are no unique solutions to this situation however The branch of mathematics dealing with this is called Linear Programming ( There is also non linear programming for non linear equations). The method identifies a 'convex hull' in the variable space, bounded in the linear case by lines or flat surfaces / hypersurfaces depending upon the number of variables. The over determined system is turned into a determined system by introducing additional constraints to identify the optimum maximum or minimum solution. Probabilities are dealt with by adding weighting coefficients to the equation matrix. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_programming

[math]{\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {{Z_{11}}} \hfill & {{Z_{12}}} \hfill & {{Z_{13}}} \hfill \\ {{Z_{21}}} \hfill & {{Z_{22}}} \hfill & {{Z_{23}}} \hfill \\ {{Z_{31}}} \hfill & {{Z_{32}}} \hfill & {{Z_{33}}} \hfill \\ \end{array}}[/math] [math]\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {{R_{11}}} \hfill & {{R_{12}}} \hfill & {{R_{13}}} \hfill \\ {{R_{21}}} \hfill & {{R_{22}}} \hfill & {{R_{23}}} \hfill \\ {{R_{31}}} \hfill & {{R_{32}}} \hfill & {{R_{33}}} \hfill \\ \end{array}} \right][/math]

Let us just take one concept at a time huh ? Surely the phrase infinity unit is self contradictory? We have come a long way since the ancients contemplated 'infinity'. One particular property of infinity that was only discovered in modern times was that of self similarity between an infinite set and any subset of it. An infinite set is one where there exists a bijection (one to one correspondance) between the set itself and any subset of it. The transitive property further means that there exists a bijection between any pair of subsets. This is a simple example of self similarity. When applied to lines this mapping means that there exists a bijection between any line segment and the whole line or any other line or line segment. I understand what you are trying to do with your rotation, but you do not need the loop structure. The loop actually adds something extra which place the loop in another area of maths - That of Symmetry and Group theory. It should also be noted that we now distinguish more than one 'infinity' , although that said, even the ancients distinguished two kinds.

I am not familiar with the type of diagram you are drawing - does it have a name ? Structure ? What structure ? Perhaps you could briefly explain what you understand by einstinian relativity or just what aspect or part of it you need. Then we could move on to how it relates to your structure.

In the UK, folks like myself and exchemist will probably have battery operated ones either bought or handed out free by the fire brigade. As they are battery operated, these present no maintenance safety issues. If, however, you live in rented property, there was a change in the law back around 2000 to make mains operation a requirement (for the landlord) .Clearly there need to be an off switch for maintenance purposes.

We visited Becky Falls over the weekend, which is largely made of heavily weathered Dartmoor granite. The white rock at the top of the picture is a good example - Dartmoor Granite looks just like weathered and crumbling concrete with a greyish white colour. The banded black rock is a chunk of hornblende/amphibole with quartz banding which can be found in odd places around the gorge. The individual drinks carton in the middle is there for scale. I wonder if this has any similarity to @exchemist strata?

Remember that Aluminium is amphoteric. So its interaction with what you are cooking must take that into account.

I gave up reading through other folk's code (and correcting it) thirty years ago. Please write something in English (the language of this forum) and please keep it short. Then we might get some idea as to where you are going with this.

Mass induces gravity to infinity that extent to quantum harmonics/quantum pseudo harmonics (speculative). It's a transition from quantum realm to classical realm...we can predict with certainity the position of earth on its orbit, however where is earth if you narrow down to it's center of gravity(it's singularity)? Anyway,lots of temptation to go off topic(TOE). I really can't see the relevance of your reply to my comment. Sorry I missed a word out whilst editing. "you can't when it is at that somewhere." should read "you can't tell when it is at that somewhere." Did you notice that little word "if" in your quotation from Wikipedia ? What if you don't measure it ? And what do you understand 'probability' to mean ?

Yeah choose file is step 1 to upload them to SF Step 2 is to make them visible to others by placing them in your post. Don't waste posts like this. You only have 5 in your first 24 hours as a new member. After that you can post freely.