studiot

... and so on... Was there another one that I missed? Was there another one that I missed? You response to my last post is a prime example. It contains just one question. In English we identify questiony by the question mark symbol ??????????????? I would be very happy to discuss metrics if you were prepared to answer any of my questions concerning metrics. I also said questions - which in English is a plural. Each reply of your seems to respond to one easy statement/question only, leaving the hard ones untouched.

I don't see how I can contribute further if you will not answer my key questions. Like it or not Your post above has a metric. Please also tell me how you can arive at (anything)2, without a metric ? It is quite possible to do some geometry, and even more topology, without a metric. Such geometry uses similarity transformations, which do not need one.

Good morning jianming. Welcome. Although I am not a particle physicist this looks interesting but please note two things. 1 You are allowed 5 posts in your first 24 hours. After that posting is normal 2 It is a requirement of this site to post material for discussion on the site. Since I find this interesting, but lost amongs the spam, I will make a start for you by posting your abstract for other members to assess.

FYI https://scienceforums.net/topic/29763-bannedsuspended-users/page/40/

Interestingly the compare on our local radio just described here student days working night shift in a tomato packing factory assiciated with Drax. Apparantly they used hot water from the power station, I think in assisting the tomato ripening. There should be more of this type of integration/coordination.

This is exactly what I mean when I say you have not started in the beginning. Please define mathematically what you mean by both energy and metric. Note you definition/derivations should be clean of depracatory comparisons with something else. Otherwise you are not starting with an agreed basis.

Good evening, Ken. It would be better if you chose a more accurate numeric model for this. Here is some actual marine data. Note how the size of the circulation dies away with depth and the relationship between wavelength and rotational diameter.

Will it rain tomorrow ? What ever happened to "My best guess" ? This whole idea is a nonsensical wast of time in my opinion.

I suppose that depends whether you are a street sweeper or a rose gardener ?

In your diagram The lift arrow represents a force The direction arrow represents well a direction or a velocity. You can't add a force to a direction or velocity, tempting though the diagram makes it seem. Further the thrust force, which aligns with horizontal only in level flight, is developed by another agent, not shown on your diagram. In the case of an aircraft, the wing is rigidly connected to the rest of the aircraft meaning that both positive and negative changes to the lift force are transmitted to each. In your case the rope can only transmit tension and goes slack if the wing if lifted up. Hydrofoils are rigidly connected to a boat for this reason. And of course for shaped hulls the force acts directly on the boat. It is however true that in flight gravity must also be taken into account and this force can often be greater than the actual thrust.

I find this thread completely baffling because it is ill posed. What are you talking about ? Are you talking about quantum explanation for electrons circulating in the field of the nucleus or are you talking about the classical requirement for accelerating charge to loose energy by radiation ?

Thanks for that info. I don't know if the Dutch elections will change the second point. +1

https://www.zoylandheritage.co.uk/ The Battle of Sedgemoor was the last pitched battle to be fought on English soil. Three days after his defeat, Monmouth was captured and later executed. Hundreds of his supporters suffered at the hands of Judge Jeffreys' Bloody Assizes.

Nah it was 1984 😁

Since the Britain is the mother of the USA and we have had several civil wars theya re surely due at least one more, I can post another of the site of the last pitched battle fought on English soil only 15 miles the other way if you prefer. I'm glad to say that this seems to be a popular thread however. 😄

Many thanks to those who replied as they made me realise something I never thought of. Not all canadians will want to to do the same thing. Perhaps I should have said Canada or included Canadians. Incidentally there is a small piece of Canada near me just over the county boundary in Devon. The Maple leaf flies over Wolford Chapel, which was given to Canada on the return of the first Governor. They still hold services there and there is a visitors book. Wolford Chapel

Yes indeed it was designed to show that you have to be careful. It is not actually nonsense, since all the terms are pure numbers with magnitudes. I can repalce the one in the identity with -eπi since they are both the same type of object - a magnitude. But I can't replace it by c since 1 is a magnitude and c is a velocity. But it is very strange. Similarly c and hbar are different since one is a velocity and the other an action. So I can't just replace one with the other and say (ℏ−c)=1−1=0 Those consequences were designed to show that it is nonsensical No I was not trying to introduce QM or Unification. I have always been happy with the separation. I think it is a very good idea to work from the known to the unknown or to try out ideas on simple, well defined examples before plunging into the complicated. This is why I mentioned number and SI. For various calculations in chemistry it is necessary to work simultaneous equations balancing the number of atoms, the number of charges, and perhaps the number of phases or the energy input. For other calculations in the Gas Laws you need the number of molecules. This discussion of number and dimensions (and circles) is worth reviewing https://scienceforums.net/topic/80023-the-dimensions-of-numbers/ Please note I do not mean different types of numbers that you will find if you ask the question of Google - Natural, integer, rational, fractional, decimal, real, imaginary and so on. What I was referring to is a different viewpoint. I will use the conventional # symbol to denote numbers in this context. Consider a horse race. Horse #52 wins with #19 second and #5 third. Here we have two other uses of numbers. As labels horse # 52 etc As an ordering first, second and third. - The ordinal numbers Neither of these are magnitudes and do not obey the ordinary rules of arithmetic - adding first and third makes no sense any more than adding #52 + #5 Nor does the set of them need to be complete. As symbols for example on car number plates. Again ordinary arithmetic is not followed but some information may be conveyed, nevertheless As magnitudes - the cardinal numbers Which do obey both ordering and the normal rules of arithmetic. These numbers are often used as coefficients to be combined with some quality or property, which may well imply a scale, units and magnitudes. Or they may be specific coefficients of variables in expressions where the variables are also pure numbers (but obviously a range of pure numbers). Finally you can generate the natural numbers from nothing using copies of the empty set.

Which side will Canada be on in the forthcoming second US Civil War ? That's it. the question.

Just as HS2 , the Millenium Dome and other glory projects have diverted money from truly worthwhile projects, some of these in deprived areas so failure to replace Drax (I did say replace) is having the same effect. Those North Sea wind farms, though far better than Drax2, are not as sustainable as say a Severn or Irish sea tidal project. But they could be used to provide the energy to convert Keilder to a pumped storage scheme. Furthermore such schemes would have the added benefit of bringing the country back together rather than driving it further and further apart. We should be thinking at least 100 years ahead.

It's clear you are intent on ignoring anything said to you that is against your gospel so I will leave you happy with the gaderines. Good night.

Actually I am not doing it at all. I agree that not only is Can we say that sin2(x)+cos2(x) is NOT equal to "1 Full Feynman"?" , I have been saying that all along ! If you go back you will find I have been conditionals like ' if 'could' and so on to try to demonstrate the folly of doing so. I claim, as do others such as in my reference and you apparantly now agree with that the 1 in natural units is different from the 1 in say 1+ 1 = 2. The nature of that difference is all importance. As a matter of interest we now teach up to 4 different meaning for the symbols 1, 2, 3 ... etc in primary school. Have you come across these ? It is actually a very difficult subject at the foundations of mathematics. As a matter of interest as a new member, my respect for your mathematical knowledge and ability has grown immensely during this thread. Very few new members come as well equipped. But I had to tease out a lot of it with seemingly trivial questions. This is why is has been so disappointing to only ever have have my comments addressed at a time. So in the case of natural units c is 1 natural velocity unit. And in Physics, equations must agree in both units and numbers. I don't know if you are aware that 'number' as in pure number or count has recently been added to the primary list of SI quantities ? Some equations in physics or chemistry do not make sense without it. You haven't respomded to my construction of the natural unit system where you can indeed choose energy as your one free variable by constraining the other two of the 3 required for mechanics. This does then lead your equation E2 = p2 + m2 but in suitable units. And it comes with a very high price in lack of convenience in the everyday world. Nor have you explained what you mean by emergent, I think of it as a very special term, not applicable to common or garden situations as already explained in an earlier post. But progress has been made. Finally do you need any further help with Latex or MathMl ? I often post various alternative for scientific notation for members.

You are still wrong. By the way scientists don't believe in things - they deduce them - Belief is for religous folk. Did you not re-read what I wrote. Postulate 1 defines a start. In the case of the natural numbers that is 1, yet the natural numbers do indeed go on to infinity. Existence is of course a much less well defined concept. What do you mean by existence / You seem to be entertaining only material objects, but there is much that is immaterial in our universe. For instance the configuration of the solar system is immaterial but since the material solar system exists its configuration must also exist.

Nor was I Read the reply yourself.

There was a BBC programme about mines in Northumberland and Durham being extended under the North Sea and carbon being sunk in them. This has been successfully ongoing for several years now. But I think it is another crying shame waste of billions of public money because our great and good leaders will not pay out for alternatives that will carry on into the indefinite future without the need for carbon sinking. Carbon sinking in any location obviously has a limited life. It has already cost billions to convert Drax and there was indeed a scandal when a huge contract to supply the pellets from cutting down areas of the Brazilian rain forest.

I don't think so. The cardinality of the reals is the greatest known there is. It is also a property of infinite sets that any subset, any interval of the real line in this case, may be matched one-to one with the entire set. Am I gullible ? Here is an endless chain of causality Postulate 1 There is a first natural number Postulate 2 Every number has a successor Result there is an infinite chain of natural numbers each number causing the next number in the chain. Note to MigL The reals have a greater cardinality than the naturals.