exchemist

Your explanation, of the way skin grows from the bottom, accounts for objects embedded in the skin being expelled. But what about objects that are further inside the body? Can they also work their way out and if so how does occur?

The first problem with this is that energy is just a property of a system, not a free-standing entity in its own right. So starting with energy immediately begs the question “energy of what?”. In other words, it solves nothing, since you must first postulate some system, before you can speak of energy.

In fact this discussion reminds me that Schrodinger’s “wave” equation in its time-dependent form is actually a diffusion equation. The time-independent form however is a standing wave equation, I understand, hence the way it is often named. But I expect this is straying a long way from the OP question.

That’s very interesting. I was not aware of these. I actually think the Briggs-Rauscher reaction may be an even better example as that one does seem to exhibit regular, rather than chaotic, periodicity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briggs–Rauscher_reaction However these processes are not in fact examples of diffusion, but of chemical reactions, in which diffusion inevitably plays a part. I struggle to believe there are any examples of purely diffusive processes that exhibit periodicity.

What real life scenario would such periodic behaviour correspond to? Or is this just an abstract artifact of the maths that has no real life application?

Diffusion will continue so long as a concentration gradient remains. So it doesn’t generally stop after a definite time interval. It will gradually slow down, asymptotically, as equilibrium concentration throughout is approached. The concept of the diffusion coefficient is that there is indeed a constant, for given substances and a given concentration gradient, at a given temperature.

You can’t express a distance , which has dimensions of L , in units of 1/T. A light second still has dimensions of distance. The speed of light has dimensions L/T. So a light second, c x t, has dimensions L/T x T = L, i.e. distance. There is no cycle of time in a diffusion process. It is not a periodic phenomenon.

Thanks.

This question does not make sense. Ask yourself this question: how can a rate of transfer of a substance, say dissolved salt spreading out through an unstirred liquid, have a frequency?

What is an “electrothermal resistojet”?

That could be it, but then again the thing about the internet is that it makes everything very readily available to everyone. So it could equally be that people can for the first time easily “shop around” for worldviews/lifestyles/belief systems they find personally appealing, at least to try them out for a bit, to a degree that previous generations would have found much more difficult.

On this occasion it looks as if @iNow is on the money, cf. This thread, started today on another forum: https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/why-is-paganism-rising.270436/

There are already 2 pages of discussion on this concept, which you can read for yourself if you intend to contribute anything of value.

Your first post seems quite crazy. Travel at anything close to the speed of light is not practicable, whatever the fuel used. Your second one however is more grounded in reality and can be commented upon. The gas produced is hydrogen, reduced from water by the readily donated electron in lithium metal. The red colour is characteristic of Li in flame tests. You are evidently heating it enough by igniting the hydrogen to excite some Li atoms so that they radiate at their characteristic wavelength. Your experiment sounds potentially quite dangerous, by the way. A plastic jar is certainly a better idea than glass, at least. I hope you wear a safety visor when doing this to protect your eyes. It will go faster with boiling water, perhaps dangerously so.

I did - spot of sunstroke from the fine weather here in Brittany where I am on holiday…..

What bothers me is why the unit of charge on the electron is 1/3 or 2/3 that of the electron. Suggests something odd or missing in our theories. But off-topic for this thread, I suppose. What has this to do with the fine structure constant?

Lousy time to pull this stunt when we’ve all just seen what happens when regulatory corners are cut in a safety-critical industry.

Yes I started on this but changed my mind, thinking it made things too much in one go. But indeed, let's see what he has to say. My guess is he'll divert away onto something that dodges actual experimentation. But I'll be happy to be proved wrong.

You can't just airily dismiss particle physics as "voodoo". The determination of all these constants relies on it. You see, in physics, all these things fit together. Maxwell's equations are a c.19th theory that has been explained in the c.20th by virtue of the twin discoveries of relativity and quantum theory. To give you a simple example of this interlinking, Einstein's famous mass-energy equivalence relation E=mc² is a special case of his more general relation E² = (mc²)² + (pc)², in which p is momentum. If p=0, i.e. a system at rest relative to the observer, this reduces to E=mc², which we can observe for instance in the mass and energy balance of nuclear reactions. But for light, consisting of photons with zero rest mass, that term is zero and we are left instead with E=pc. If you apply de Broglie's relation, p=h/λ (from quantum mechanics) to that (λ being the wavelength), and note the relation between speed, wavelength and frequency,ν, for any wave, c=νλ, you get E= hc/(c/ν), i.e. E=hν, which is Planck's relation for the way the energy of a photon depends on its frequency. So that is more evidence that SR, which is where Einstein's formula comes from, is correct and that the invariance of c, which is what SR is all founded upon, is also sound. So it is all interlinked, each piece supports the rest and all the elements have been tested by observation. Your final comment about particle accelerators shows you still don't get it. Sure, the equipment is stationary in the lab (relative to the observers) but the particles whizzing along inside are moving, relative to that frame, at close to the speed of light. So what they experience, from their frame of reference, is a lab - with its coils carrying a current of moving charges and thus a magnetic field, whizzing past them at close to light speed. This in fact is one way to observe the time dilation predicted by SR. Particles that are unstable and have a known decay lifetime, as measured at rest, are found to have longer lifetimes when whizzing along very fast in this way. And the degree to which this happens is as SR predicts. SR wins again!

In your scenario of one wire moving relative to the other, the extra motion will alter the current flow as seen from the other reference frame and this will affect the magnetic field experienced in each frame. But this can be allowed for without altering the value of μ₀ in the calculation. In fact, the joke is that the whole phenomenon of magnetism arises precisely due to relativity, i.e. how an electric field in one frame appears from the viewpoint of another that is moving relative to it. Further reading here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_electromagnetism

Universal? I'm not sure what that means and it's not what I said. I said μ₀ is a constant. @swansont has explained to you what that means. I also said that nothing in physics says μ₀ is frame-dependent. Look, if μ₀ were frame-dependent, then relativistically moving particles in magnetic fields, e.g. in particle accelerators, would behave respond to the field differently from prediction as their velocities through it changed. So far as I am aware (I'm open to correction from the real physicists here ) that is not a feature of particle physics. And indeed, as @MigL has observed, if it were to be frame-dependent, than ε₀ would also need to alter in the opposite sense such that the observed invariance of c is maintained. Because that is where we start from. I know you keep arguing that the invariance of c can't really be observed, but that's because you have steadfastly refused to consider the observational evidence for that, in spite of my attempts to get you to do so.

Others have pointed out your misunderstanding of the concept of force and of what F=ma means. As for “circular logic”, I reiterate my basic point that c is observed to be invariant, so that is an input number to all these formulae, not an output. You have not shown the magnetic constant is not a constant. And you have no basis for describing the charge on the electron or Planck’s constant as “dubious”, when your ignorance of the simplest physics is painfully apparent in this thread. You don’t even know how units work. I’m sure everyone here is enthusiastic about helping you learn, but for goodness sake don’t claim modern physics is “wrong”, given your current level of understanding. That is just farcical, frankly.

I’m familiar with de Broglie’s relation. What’s a de Broglie bound?

Ah I see. So sonar can be used to transmit text. Interesting.

That’s odd. They looked like tyre tracks to me. Is there so little going on in that yard? I’m inclined to think it’s not so much a hoax as a bunch of credulous true believers putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5.75.