Leaderboard

A marine algae and a nitrogen fixing bacteria have officially teamed up and the bacteria has become a new organelle inside a marine algae. The teaming up of nitrogen fixing bacteria and plants Is not a new (Azolla carolinensis) is one but the bacteria is just in a communal relationship with the plant but this bacteria has actually become an organelle inside the algae cells much like mitochondria or chloroplasts in other cells, this new organelle has been dubbed Nitroplast. https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2024/04/17/scientists-discover-first-nitrogen-fixing-organelle/ I am remembering reading of another animal that has evolved something similar that allowed it live in anoxic water in the black sea. If I remember correctly it was a ctenophore, anyone remember this?

I came upon a passage the other day which reminded me of an issue now mostly forgotten, but one which was very important to Allied military planners back in 1945 as WW2 entered its endgame - and that was the fate of allied POWs and incarcerated civilians who were in the hands of the Japanese throughout the Far East. http://www.mansell.com/pow_resources/liberation_photos.html Over 190,000 British and Commonwealth troops were taken prisoner by the Japanese during WW2 - many of them when Malaya, Singapore, and Burma were overrun, and some 32,000 Allied POWs were subsequently repatriated directly from Japan itself after the end of the war. The majority of these prisoners were kept in appalling conditions on starvation diets and and many were worked to death in slave labour camps, like those working on the Thai-Burma Railway at Kanu Camp Thailand, where 60,000 British, Commonwealth and Dutch prisoners worked on the railway, and 16,000 of them perished doing so. https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/what-life-was-like-for-pows-in-the-far-east-during-the-second-world-war There is some vivid testimony from two such prisoners who later became very well-known novelists. One was the Australian born James Clavell who wrote the screenplay for The Great Escape (1963) and later wrote the first of his ‘Asian trilogy’ novels Shogun (1975) partially around his war-time experiences at Changi prison in Singapore. The other was the British writer J.G. Ballard whose family was interned in the Lunghua internment camp near Shanghai in China, and based his autobiographical novel Empire of The Sun (1984) on childhood memories of life there. J.G. Ballard incidentally claims that he and other occupants of the Lunghua camp actually saw the flash of the second atomic bomb when it detonated over Nagasaki 500 miles away across the East China Sea on the morning of August 9 1945. Both of these writers make the point that the atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945 probably saved their own lives and those of countless other POWs and internees, because many of them simply could not have survived the effects of chronic malnutrition they were experiencing at the hands of the Japanese for much longer. They might well have been dead if the war had ended 6 months later. James Clavell who was living on 110 grams of rice per day, one egg per week and occasional vegetables in Changi prison camp was unable to talk about his wartime experience for 15 years, but later disclosed that for quite some time after, he kept a can of sardines in his pocket at all times, and had to fight the urge to forage for food in rubbish bins.

I don't know relativity oh my that's a laugh. I would never have have gotten my degrees without knowing let alone past the undergraduate stage. It's literally part of my job dealing with SR on a regular basis lmao. You might want to try again mate For me it's not a hobby or a curiosity but a career requirement

@externo A solid piece of advise. You really need to stop trying to tell us how SR and GR works or describes. We have gone numerous pages with posters correcting your misunderstandings. Which you continue to repeat. I highly suggest that instead of trying to tell us what SR states that instead you start asking questions concerning SR. Use the math and the knowledge of the posters here and try to properly understand SR. This is article was written by a Ph.D that regularly uses forums. He developed this article to provide corrections to all the numerous misconceptions posters regularly have with regards to SR. http://www.lightandmatter.com/sr/ This article describes the basics of SR in a very easy to understand format and explains the reasons behind its mathematics. Relativity: The Special and General Theory" by Albert Einstein http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30155/30155-pdf.pdf It is an archive reprint.

Except one (or two?) episodes of 'Tales from the Loop' playing with time, it is not the essence of the series, as it is in 'Dark'. The episodes of 'Tales' are relatively independent, but there are a few running threads through the episodes. But maybe this is not the place to discuss that. Maybe the admins could open a new forum for discussing movies and series? Ups, I did not say that!

I think you are mistaking pop-science journalism with science. I can’t reconcile either of these statements Science is performed by the scientific community. Any shifting is from them. Not all surprising results pan out, so it’s not prudent to chase after them until they are confirmed, and one result might not be nearly enough to formulate a new model. If a model is not wrong - it accurately predicts/matches results - then what constitutes a better model? There has to be some discrepancy between model and experiment for there to be improvement in the model. i.e. there has to be something that it gets wrong.

From what I have just quickly read, these seem to have independently evolved, from mitochondria, several times in different species. So an example of convergent evolution, enabling their possessors to adapt to anoxic environments. What remains unclear to me is what the energy source is for their respiration. The flow charts I have seen seem to show pyruvate as the input, presumably from glycolysis. So that suggests glycolysis as usual, followed by some alternative to the Krebs cycle that does not require oxygen. Maybe someone can explain how this works. They don’t seem to be sulphate-reducing or anything like that.

When Adolph Eichmann defended his actions this way, the jury was oddly unpersuaded. Generally "just doing his job" is not seen as adequate justification for mass murder of civilians. Anyway, you are making an equivalence between combatants and civilians. Many people, as well as the Geneva convention, view this differently. I don't doubt your morality, just saying this thread invites people to reflect on where those moral principles lead, if applied by everyone. Really? That was an element of Truman's argument. Kill 150,000 Japanese with an A-bomb, save hundreds of thousands more Japanese and Allied soldiers lives. We were discussing that earlier, and some were dubious that was what would happen. And the reasoning holds water if we are looking at a contemplated thermonuclear exchange where parties either a) choose not to use nukes and lose hundreds of thousands of soldiers, or b) choose to use nukes and billions of innocent people die, due to knock-on effects from destroyed agriculture, nuclear winter, radioactive contamination, etc. Call me crazy, but the loss of life scenario where soldiers die but we don't wipe out a large percent of the human race seems the better one.

According to "The Daily Show", "Trump partnering with god to sell bibles can only mean one thing; soon god will be bankrupt and sentenced to 3 years in jail." 😀

! Moderator Note No optics, and chock full of unsubstantiated musings. The opposite of what I said. Don’t bring this up again.

I'm further taking deal of. The Fermi constant plays a crucial role in describing weak interactions. (W and Z boson actions.) Where electroweak force and the Higgs mechanism are intimately connected within the framework of the Standard Model. As shown in the formula of the VeV's effecive_action, presented here earlier. Therefore the Fermi-constant incorporates into this formula.

Extremely interesting, thanks for posting this. It seems this may shed some light on very early evolutionary processes by which other organelles may have arisen, by being first endosymbionts and then getting integrated into the cell. I know next to nothing about this but I presume a key feature of the change would be the progressive migration of at least parts of the genetic coding needed for replication, from the endosymbiont to the nucleus of the host cell. I think I have read this is thought to have happened with mitochondria, which still retain some of their own DNA, separate from the cell nucleus. I see this work says that the template for some of the proteins the former endosymbiont needs is now in the cell nucleus, but a label is attached to them which gets them picked up by the "nitroplast". Perhaps investigation of this will help us understand how eukaryotes acquired other organelles in the long distant past.

Understand this and you clear the confusion. F = ma Weight = Mass x gravitational acceleration lb force = lb mass x g/32.2 ie if we equate weight numerically with mass, we're implicitly adopting some unit of acceleration that has the numerical value of 1 at the earth's surface. As @exchemist has pointed out, this creates a great deal of needless complications in US technical literature. Many equations end up littered with this dimensional constant of 32.2 simply to maintain this unity factor between weight and mass. Either that or adopt that most wonderfully named of all units, the slug foot. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gc_(engineering) Only approximately. The higher levels of the earth's atmosphere are subject to a lower gravitational acceleration due to their increased distance from the centre of mass so they weigh less per unit mass. This illustrates quite nicely how careless application of the unity assumption can simply lead to incorrect results.

Yes I think you have got it. I admit I don’t know how this is presented to students in the US today. My experience with Imperial units dates from schooldays in the UK in the early 1970s, when we transitioned from Imperial to metric. I remember how awful it was, compared to the simplicity of metric, and specifically, the version of metric that later came to be known as Systeme International (SI) units.

Your pressure unit is in reality lb force / in2 so the result is not lb but lb force. ie. the force exerted in opposition to the gravitational acceleration of a mass of 1 lb at the Earth's surface. It's a sloppily presented question: lb / in2 is not a correct unit of pressure. g is implicit in both sides of the equation, but cancels.

Well, really, contempt for human life and murdering medical staff does have some parallels with Israel's current tactics which are ignoring clauses of the Geneva Convention (1949, btw) quite thoroughly. I know you are a careful observer of news, so you can't have missed this. But I wasn't trying to make a perfect analogy, just point out that saving lives doesn't require some binary choice where the only choices are mass starvation or an entire city is annihilated. Others here have pointed out that there were other options to bring a Japanese surrender. But those didn't provide a way to show Russia how big a stick we now had. I wasn't saying they were completely noncombatants. No city in Japan could possibly have been so, given the massive national mobilization in that war. Again, I was making a different and broader point - that when you annihilate a city, you will kill mostly civilians, and violate that Geneva clause mentioned above. How can we Americans claim moral superiority over the Japanese if, after condemning them for indiscriminate mass murder, we then engage in same? As an American, I've given this some thought, and I feel strongly that this was a barbarous and shameful chapter in our history in which we cannot claim a moral high road. I will simply not validate Hiroshima and give the monstrous atrocity of a nuclear attack some veneer of moral value. That's a Strangelovian step I cannot make, so we may have to disagree on that.

And people can stop moving the goalposts on this too; deterrence ought to mean more than just their use, if it doesn't deter their creation, then eventually they will be used. Nothing is being deterred just delayed. The detterence comes after you use them a bunch, then people forget how bad it was until people are practically foaming at the mouth at the thought of keeping them around and it makes me a little bit sick to be honest. Take issue all you like; if the bombs had went off where your nation was you'd likely feel differently. But because it happened to the civilians of another country/race to you it just doesn't matter? It was ww2 and most of the world was starving, everyone suffered, but it was winding down, they were about to surrender and then the USA released the most cowardly double sucker punch of all time with the highest kill count and for what? A few points scored on a naval base wow and only tons of innocent civilians and two cities as collateral damage? Wow, amazing. This debate is starting to get really boring. Crimes carried out by millitaries need to punish the people giving the orders and carrying them out. Whichever side. Can we all just agree that civilian casualties suck and are unfair without having arguments that amount to "What colour or culture were they? Tell me that so i can decide how much I care." Also where did OP go? Here we are busting our butts having it out and they've gone AWOL!

I'd add: learning latex would be a good start. In the photo of math, it's not all oriented the same way as the forum, and being a photo is impossible to properly quote, or dissect for discussion. Nobody is being paid to review your posts, if you want feedback you need to make the interest high and the effort low. I will say your handwriting is very good.

I admit, we discriminate against people who don’t follow the rules.

It is unfortunate that most observation stations have been set up like this one at Hooper, Colorado.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO_Watchtower So instead of attracting scientists who can set up proper recording arrays, it attracts the true believers (or tourists looking for something offbeat). Or nuts, e.g. Me too. I figured "providence" was provenance.

You might want to check the Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows

You never know! All kinds of people come up with all kinds of wonderfully unique descriptive words - either because the context is or at some time was significant in their culture, or because one of their poets or jesters coined one that everybody considered worth repeating. There is a Hungarian two-word phrase for spilling food down the front of one's clothes. There is no way anyone could ever have thought that was important to note, but somebody said it and it's funny, so people keep using it. I've heard there is a word in Japanese for the urge old people get to pinch a baby's cheek. It's not that significant, but somebody noticed it and named it. People talk about feelings in many ways, but we share the feelings pretty much all around the world.

Trump thought he had Pecker in his hand... (he's a one ball man, he's off to the rodeo)

There have been numerous surveys among natural scientists back in the 90s and 2000s, when teaching evolution was heavily attacked by the conservative establishment in the US. The overall trend was overall lower religiosity when compared to the average population, but also interesting trends depending on discipline. IIRC the questions were more general, like "do you consider yourself religious" rather than asking things specific to a system (e.g. god or gods). I believe biologists had the lowest number of religious folks whereas, mathematicians and medical folks had higher. I am sure they must still be available somewhere.

What is extraordinary about it? The talking head claims it was flying fast, but there’s no analysis given, and AFAICT no way to validly conclude this. We don’t know how big it is, and so we don’t know how far away it is. The plane is moving (as TheVat points out) so for all we know this was basically stationary with respect to the ground, and the plane flew past at several hundred kph. Perhaps this was a Boeing and something fell off the front. Can we discount this possibility? Same problem as with basically all videos that get posted - there’s no way to get any useful information from them, thus they remain unidentified. So not like this, if it were in the foreground and blurred a little, and at lower resolution? What maneuvers? Joe Rogan even points out that the plane is moving. As for the shape, wind will do that, and phone cameras use a rolling shutter which distorts objects moving with respect to the camera. https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/what-is-rolling-stutter/

! Moderator Note You posted this in classical physics, about optics. Optics is what needs to be discussed. Not karma or creepiness or arachnophobia (which you had a thread on, and it was closed) or any unsubstantiated musing on any topic.

But you could easily do studies in liberal democracies where no such persecution or social expectation applies. This would be true of anywhere in N America, W Europe or Japan. There is this Pew study, conducted in the USA for example: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/ What this does not seem to correct for is any correlation between religious belief and level of educational attainment. It may be also that more educated people tend to be less religious, regardless of subject studied.

Seems to me there are three factors here that need defining. Do all atheists/agnostics believe similarly? Do scientists all study the same things? And are there cultural aspects based on the religion(s) in an area that might define "general population" differently? I'm not sure you can get a meaningful answer to this question. Throughout history, scientists have had to bow to the will of the governing authorities. Many attend church just to fit in and not anger the establishment. They were told in no uncertain terms that they would not be successful unless they accepted the church's teachings. Personally, I wouldn't count someone as religious who was just going to church so they wouldn't be persecuted. It might not just be the church. Sigmund Freud was apparently persecuted for early papers on marginalized people where he detailed that many women and children labeled with mental disorders were simply traumatized by the men in their lives. He suggested that's where the fault lies, and apparently was told in no uncertain terms not to pursue that line of research if he wanted to prosper in science. His later works show him steering clear of suggesting that men were the leading cause of trauma.

I am not able to tell if it's a cylinder or just something angled to present a narrow side of itself that is somewhat rounded. A photo analysis expert on those five frames would sure help. Yeah, do post more videos/pics if you want. If mods think not here, then maybe a thread devoted to photographic material and its interpretation? I have a photo expert in the family who can weigh in now and then.

Pecker stands in court today to discuss porn star Stormy Daniels. https://apnews.com/article/trump-trial-hush-money-national-enquirer-d44d4a7ce66cc08edb5981b3afb882ba

Looks like a drone that strayed into forbidden air space near LaGuardia. It's apparent speed looks to me like an artifact of it and the plane's relative speeds. I would expect UAP sightings to jump as more people are playing with drones, some not responsibly.

Others made it relevant whether he wished it or not. Your criticism seems nonsensical.

ok First off you have vacuum energy and vacuum energy density confused. The first case though not a useful form for energy density. The VeV is the vacuum expectation value VeV this isn't the density. This is a term describing the effective action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_action for Higgs the effective action is defined by the equation \[v-\frac{1}{\sqrt{\sqrt{2}G^0_W}}=\frac{2M_W}{g}\] here \(M_W\) is the mass of the W boson and \( G^0_W\) is the reduced Fermi constant. These are used primarily when dealing with Feymann path integrals in scatterings or other particle to particle interactions involving Higgs in particular dealing with the CKMS mass mixing matrix. So its not your energy density more specifically they describe CKMS mixing angles or Weinberg mixing angles. for the above without going into too much detail the mixing angles are \[M_W=\frac{1}{2}gv\] \[M_Z=\frac{1}{COS\Theta_W}\frac{1}{2}gv=\frac{1}{Cos\theta_W}M_W\] more details can be found here. Page three I'm starting to compile the previous pages now if you want the vacuum energy density the FLRW has a useful equation. \[\rho_{crit} = \frac{3c^2H^2}{8\pi G}\] if you take the value of the Hubble constant today and plug it into that formula you will get approximately \(5.5\times 10^{-10} joules/m^3\) if you convert that over you will find your fairly close to 3.4 GeV/m^3 which matches depending on the dataset used for the Hubble constant. The confusion you had was simply not realizing the VeV isn't the energy density. hope that helps. I won't get into too many details of the quantum harmonic oscillator via zero point energy but if you take the zero point energy formula and integrate over momentum space d^3x you will end up with infinite energy. So you must renormalize by applying constraints on momentum space. However even following the renormalization procedure you still end up 120 orders of magnitude too high. There has been resolutions presented to this problem however nothing conclusive enough. Quantum field theory demystified by David Mcmahon has a decent coverage of the vacuum catastrophe edit forgot to add calculating the energy density for the cosmological constant uses the same procedure as per the critical density formula.

Carnivores eat herbivores, and sometimes other carnivores. This notion of producers and consumers seems overly simplistic. Like someone is applying a very rudimentary economic model to it.

To which the first retorts, "Easy for you to say, when your wife makes such good soup!"

I think he overstates the diagnosis. Delusion connotes mental illness. Belief in the supernatural, or in some Greater Good, or Higher Purpose or Ultimate Truth is quite normal in humans; they can be perfectly functional, even rational, in all aspects of life that do not impinge on their faith. I'm with Freud, that it's a response to distress over one's lack of power over the world: gods and magic give us the illusion of control.

I don't know if concerns about radionuclide residues and their longevity (iodine 131 is brief, 8 day HL, cesium 137 is a 30 year HL) are still the main locus of concern about nuclear weapons. At least not since the TTAPS paper (and Sagan's popularized version which appeared in Parade Magazine) drew wide public attention to sweeping ecological and climatic changes from even a quite limited nuclear exchange. IIRC that paper, detailing the nuclear winter scenario (prolonged dust and smoke, a precipitous drop in Earth's temperatures and widespread failure of crops, leading to massive famine, etc) was what gave momentum to the Nuclear Freeze movement in the eighties. The concerns raised seemed to rise well above the level of phobia (granted, some concerns about peacetime nuclear power do verge on phobic). Again, we have been incredibly lucky. And it might take only one rogue general somewhere to fire up the apocalypse. Happy Earth Day, y'all.

Such is the meaning of life...

Excellent precisely what you should be of it in terms of

Your fairly close to the right idea. Without going into the quantum regime too intensely. In essence the overall electron spin up/ spin down alignments contained in each domain gets altered. Some electrons will switch from spin up to spin down or the overall orientation changes by some angle. So the fields of the magnet is already present even when it's not interacting with another object. So the charge currents are essentially zero (it's never truly zero as there is always some electron exchanges). So one can equate this to the PE term (potential energy) When the nail interacts with the magnet. The interaction of the magnet including the B field provide directivity of the charge current that results from the interaction between the magnet and the nail. We see this directivity in the magnetic field lines. The tighter the field lines the greater the amount of force. So further away the field lines diverge and gets weaker. (1/r^2). So in essence the electrostatic field does the work. The B field interaction in essence provides directivity of the charge current. A charge current is a kinetic energy term.

The 'change' in simultaneity is 'real'? Simultaneity is a frame-dependent concept, rather. The Earth 'suddenly ages' for real? The accelerating twin finds a path in ST for which proper time is less, rather. Time dilation/length contraction are real. As much as anything else that you see. They're very much like foreshortening. Is foreshortening just a matter of 'perspective', and therefore 'not real'? If you think that's the case, try to get a 4m-long pole inside a garage through a 3m-wide door with the pole's length parallel to the door. A clever person --who knows the laws of foreshortening-- manages to get the pole inside the garage by rotating it, and then rotating it back once inside (the close equivalent of the twin's U-turn). Don't get me wrong. You seem to be trying to make sense in an honest way, but you're trapped in an early-20th-century illusion. That's why you express yourself in such an obscure --and incorrect-- way. Some of the things you've said, though, sound like you're groping towards Mach's principle. But with the wrong toolkit taken from the junkyard of discarded ideas. And with the wrong outlook. Your 'ether' or 'absolute space' is (if anything) the distribution of energy in the universe.* That's why most of us look at you in disbelief, like the proverbial Earth-bound twin, wondering, "where have you been all these years? Your ideas haven't changed at all since the early 20th Century!" ----------------------------------- * Unfortunately (or not) Mach's principle is not a very useful constructive starting point in order to reach the right theory of gravitation. Although GR is definitely Machian in spirit: The distribution of stuff tells you how much you must deviate from locally inertiall in order to be aware that you're moving.

OK, I'm trying to follow this in the context of a permanent magnet. I'm not finding the motor analogy very helpful (sorry, my background is chemistry rather than engineering). I'm aware that ferromagnetism arises due to aligned, unpaired electron intrinsic "spin" and orbital angular momentum. So I presume the "current" you refer to in this case would comprise the "spinning" (not really but let's call it that) and orbital motion of the electrons. Is that right? But it seems to me this aligned angular momentum does not lead to an overall E field external to a bar magnet, which can interact with a nail some distance away. Or does it? If, as you say, the energy in the magnet that changes, when the nail is brought close to it, comes from the E field, what change do we get at the atomic level? Are we saying the quantum states of the unpaired electrons drop slightly in electrostatic energy, e.g. their mean distance from the nucleus reduces fractionally, or something like that? As you will see, I am trying to get a physics tutorial on this from @Mordred, who is I gather a professional physicist (respect). It looks to me so far (i.e. pending what I may be about to learn) that I may have been a bit too cavalier in strict physics terms in claiming the work done by, and on, your magnets comes from what I have been calling "the magnetic field". We are now into a discussion of the E field and the B field and where exactly the extra energy due to magnetisation resides in a permanent magnet. I think though that, in terms intelligible to a non-physicist, we can still say it is the extra energy in the fields due to their magnetised condition that rises and falls as work is done. But let's see what brother Mordred comes back with. I just hope I have enough grey cells left, at approaching 70, to take in a change in my mental picture of how this all works. 😀

Nernst law Potontials with positiv voltage minus Potential with more negative voltage gives potential between the two electrodes Here 1 V -(-0.26 V) = 1.26 V Zinc -0,763 V carbon-manganeseoxide +0,975 V 0,975V - (-0,763) = 1,738 V

I like your example +1 in point of detail Amperes law teaches us that all magnetic phenomena is the result of electric charges in motion. Faraday discovered moving magnets generates an electric current. Maxwell and Lorentz in essence put together the final touch that E and B are not separate entities but are inexplicitly intertwined. So even a point charge has E and B fields. Now it takes a charge to produce an electromagnetic field, but just as importantly is that it takes another charge to detect an electromagnetic field. Now when you have an ensemble of charges you use the principle of superposition which tells us the interaction of two charges is unaffected by the presence of others. So you can compute the force resulting from each charge to the test charge and sum up to the total vector sum for total force on the test charge. Now you probably recognize I just described the electrostatic field. However with that field you now have to think in terms of charge density and charge currents. (By the way this applies to QFT as well) including the Feymann path integrals, just an FYI). So in point of detail the force on the test charge results from the sum of force of the individual point charges mediated by the EM field. Now we can further break down this Electrostatic field into surface charge, line charge, continuous distribution and volume charge. Each has has its own integral combined with Coulombs law. for example charge distribution \[E_r=\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_0}\int\frac{1}{r^2}\hat{r}dq\] line distribution \[E_r=\frac{1}{4 \pi\epsilon_0}\int \frac{\lambda(\acute{r})}{r^2}\hat{r}d\acute{l}\] surface charge \[E_r=\frac{1}{4 \pi\epsilon_0}\int\frac{\sigma(\acute{r})}{r^2}\hat{r}d \acute{a}\] and volume charge which we use most often. as being the one most referred to with Coulombs law \[E_r=\frac{1}{4 \pi\epsilon_0}\int\frac{\rho(\acute{r})}{r^2}\hat{r}d\acute{\tau}\] So knowing that according to Amperes law magnetism is the result of electric charges in motion. One has to ask well how does a permanent magnet work. What materials are more likely to make a magnet which materials would make a stronger magnet? To better understand that one has to understand how readily a material accepts domain realignment via a process called hysteresis. However it should be more clear that the charge distributions described by the formulas above directly relates to the sum of coulomb force to the test charge "d" is domain while the identifier after it is the domain type. the "r" with the hat is the distance from the domain to the test charge. So ferromagnets has domains with domain walls the walls are potential difference separations each domain has its own hysteresis. Histeresis describes a phenomena that when you pass a magnet near a ferrous material the alignments of the point charges do not return to the original configuration. (ever have a screw driver that you often use to work on an electric circuit eventually become a permanent magnet ? ) its due to hysteresis. hope that helps better understand the electrostatic field and ferromagnetism So now you should be able to answer the question :" Where does the energy come from" in the permanent magnet case...think domain charge densities and hysteresis due to the magnet interacting with the nail. This will also help when you look at things like Currie temperature and how it effectively it can be used to realign domains The domain alignments has potential energy there is no outside interaction so no current flow but you still have a charge density. When you place the nail near the magnet to interact the interaction exchange results in a charge current flow. This describes a kinetic energy term mediating the force. Now unfortunately a lot textbooks teach flow of electrons in a copper wire etc. It isn't the flow of electrons, its the flow of charge. Electrons could not flow through a medium fast enough for one thing. However the flow of charge can as charge is mediated by photons. It serves as the momentum carrier to alter the spin alignments of the electron ensemble edit forgot to add the primes (I tend to use acute ) are the source coordinates of the given domain for example \(d \acute{a}\). The symbols \(\lambda, \sigma, \rho\) is charge per unit (length, area, volume). The above also helps better understand induction. Your inducing charge current.

That's an interesting philosophical question, do you have scientific evidence you do believe in God? Aww bless, you seem awfully confused, are you saying that a belief in god is necessary to not rape women? Is that why some priest's choose to rape little boys?

This abusive approach does not seem likely to make a person “repent and turn to Christ”. Surely it is more likely to confirm them in their low opinion of religions and religious people generally, isn’t it? From a stylistic point of view, some paragraphs would help, too😉

How is it possible to hate something that you believe doesn't even exist?

The musician finally gave up and began to erase all the lines of notes. His wife walked into the room and asked, "what is that smell?" "I'm decomposing," he replied.

He sought the advice of a mathematician who told him to work it out with a pencil.

Guys! Guys! Guys! One of my short stories has been published on YouTube!!! Illustrated and voiced by ai!!! I am thrilled!