studiot

Really ? The Bureau International des Poids et Measures is not French, though its official language is? And what's this ? really ? So what is all the fuss about the difference between 273.15 and 273.16 and why did they need to redefine the value of Boltzmann's constant ?

Nice answers. +1 I would just like to add that much equipment has succumbed to the mania for chrome plating (often poorly made plating). Acids readily attach chrome plating on taps etc. An alternative you might try is steam cleaning.

I had to laugh when I saw this so +1 to John. As far as I can tell you are both a bit right and a bit wrong. The relevant body here is the French Authority responsible for Systeme Internationale, whose unit the kelvin is. They redefined the kelvin in 2017/2018 so the first trap is "which elvin are you using ?" As far as the French are concerned, the unit is spelled with a lower case k, but the symbol is an upper case K, because the lower case k is already allocated to the Boltzmann Constant, to which the kelvin is related. Perversely the English speaking world as represented by the UK and US National Physical Laboratories use upper case for both Kelvin and K. @Genady A perfect example of a camel (which in an English saying is aa horse designed by a committee.

I wasn't going to recommend any books without further discussion at this stage, but I will second Arfgen as a good choice. +1

The switch on routine in a current computer is meant to place the machine in a 'standard' state. This could be further strengthened by hard wiring to include the AI routine as part of that standard state.

Yes a Batchelors in Mathematics will certainly give you better grounding than one in Astronomy, so long as you are careful with your choice of syllabus. This should include a modern foundations of maths course, followed by lots of applied maths. But even then you would have a long way to add to that to get up to advanced theoretical Physics level. Good luck and I hope others will add useful comments.

I know the official line is that so called AI programs are nothing more than glorified TMs But is that really true ? One of the characteristics of a TM is reproducibility. That is a given input always results in an identical (and predictable in theory) output. Yet we have noted that repeating a question to, say CHATGPT, sometimes results in several quite different answers. A true TM should not exhibit this behaviour. I wonder if what is happening is that when the AI program does its data search and subsequent statistical 'pattern matching' this happens because the dataset for comparison varies each time the search is conducted or that the same dataset is invoked each time but there are additional limiting or cutoff instructions in the program to mean that each time a different dataset is actually compared.

Hello newcomer and welcome. It would be better to have started your own thread concentrating on what you want get out of the discussion, rather than reviving a short question from many years ago. Yes there is a big difference between practical engineering and thermodynamics, just as there is a big difference between practical applications and theoretical considerations and simplifications in almost any subject you care to imagine.

Good morning and welcome. Thank you for your polite enquiry +1 for encouragement. Going from your handle and use of a teaspoon for measurement you are not a scientist so I will try to put my answers in non scientific context for you. I have therefore numbered your question as above. There are about 600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 water molecules in 18 grammes of water so the each one has a very small weight. No one molecule is very small - about 0.000000000002 metres across. This is way to small to see with the naked eye. It is even about 100000 times too small to see with the most powerful optical microscope. You may have guessed that one molecule is too small to measure out by teaspoon. In fact there are about 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 water molecules in a one eighth teaspoon so you wouldn't notice just one on the spoon. Water can exist i9s solid (ice), liquid or gas (water vapour or dry steam). In the solid or liquid states you would not find isolated molecules, but in the gaseous state there are generally isolated from each other in a body of water vapour. They would not be isolated in any water droplets contained in that vapour (or wet steam). It is good to see someone enquiring about things around them so keep the questions coming.

This is a case of the inappropriate conclusions being drawn from inaccurate (insufficient) data. Antarctica is neither circular in shape nor is it centered on the pole. Compare the maps from 1962 and 2022. The left hand peninsula - Graham Land - is in approximately the same orientation as the long island in the 2022 on the 1962 map Map 1 Stanford's Whitehall Atlas 1962 Map 2 from Higgins Wild Maps 2022

Well this is really rather distressing. Dallaswin is a bunch of physics teachers trying to develop some physics tutorials and works just fine on my old Windows XP using fox. But windows10 doesn't seem to like it, although I can find the page, it tell me it is not secure, which is not surprising since is is just http not https. Here is a screenshot of part of their explanation on W10.

It is not necessary for the action - reaction pair to touch. Note carefully the use of the word 'pair' - that is two forces between two objects or bodies. You should never introduce a third body directly into this as this complicates matters. If the forces are due to touching, they are called contact forces but here is an example of a non contact action - reaction pair. Coulomb's Law (dallaswinwin.com)

Whilst I agree that the terms data, information, meaning, message, context, source , random, true, false, neither true nor false, form, and many more, all have applicability and are interrelated. I stand firmly by my claim that statements such as these constitute data with a definite truth value. From such data and other data I have drawn a conclusion which itself constitutes new data. Please read my conclusion more carefully. By themselves the statements 8% and 10 % do not constitute data.

It is important to specify the condition that the bugs always move directly towards their target, not just at the starting gun. This leads to the spiral path you mentioned. It also leads to an easy solution without adevanced maths.

First thing to remember is that correlation does not imply causation. Taking that on board look for some factor or factors common to both say the years 1970 to 2020, a convenient half century. You could also try geographic classification by state or region. You could look at age. I expect others will offer more choices.