exchemist

What is tet? Tetracycline?

OK, so what then did you mean by saying in Planck's constant the "2 s" can be cancelled making it independent of time? To quote you, you said: " for example, when looking at planks constant, it is almost always shown as the factored version (cancelling the 2 time aspects) i did not, the reason, when i was trying to find the meaning of the units, one of the time units was a higher value than the other but the units themselves cancel out leaving just a number." How can you reconcile that with what we have just gone through? If you want anyone to read it, you will at least need to give them a reason to think it may not be crap. If you persist with trying to apply dimensions to π you have no chance of that. I strongly advise you to get rid of that notion. By the way it is spelt "without" not "with-ought". Is English your first language?

OK so that now agrees with my units, right?

What? That doesn't make sense. The dimensions of energy are ML²/T², so kg m²/s² in SI units. Planck's constant has dimensions of energy x time, so ML²/T, i.e. kg m²/s. though it is more usual to express it as an energy unit x time, i.e. in joule-seconds (J.s) or electron volt - seconds (eV.s).

But I'm afraid in the real world there is such a thing as ballocks. And if you talk ballocks people will point that out. As a former contributor on another science forum, who was a school teacher, used to say, "In science, you can't just make shit up." Ideas have to conform to logic, including mathematics, and they need to be testable, at least in principle, by observation of nature. Inventing a now-you-see-it-now-you-don't rule for applying dimensions, when you feel like it, to a mathematical transcendental number like π, has to fail as a scientific idea. I'm sorry to be harsh but there it is. You are free to think what you like. But if you persist with this idea you will be thought a fool, that's all. Up to you entirely.

What is A? Usually it denotes Amperes, i.e. electric current. Planck's constant has the dimensions of "action", viz. energy x time. That is always true. You can't just cancel the time element, that's nonsense. And there is only one time element. I don't know what you mean by there being two of them. You must have misunderstood whatever you were reading. (Or you were fed a load of garbage by AI: we see increasing amounts of that on this forum.)

There are other dimensionless constants in physics, one well-known example being the fine structure constant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant But in any case, π is not a physical constant but a mathematical one, as earlier posts on this thread have pointed out. It is not solely related to circles in Euclidian geometry either, but has a more fundamental significance, as shown for instance by Euler's relation, which is not intrinsically geometrical (though you can represent complex numbers geometrically). You are not at liberty to arbitrarily give π dimensions only when it appears in certain physical contexts: either is it is dimensionless or it is not.

Well against my better judgement I see am being trapped into taking part in this thread after all. 🙂 If there is no defined condition, you have no business deciding to try to treat it - even if a treatment were available, which there isn't.

I know what you mean. I gather "What if the sky were made of concrete?" comes from the US military, as an example of a pointless hypothetical scenario with with no useful answer. In fact you just feel tired even trying to start thinking about how you would answer it. Very funny, as so many of these military things are. (There's another great US Army one, in a performance review of a soldier, which simply says: "Got a full six-pack, but kinda lacks the plastic thingy to hold it all together." We've all worked with people like that.)

Must say I rather dislike this "What if the sky were made of concrete? type of question. There is no clinical diagnosis of psychopathy and there are no magic ways to fix it. So discussing it seems an empty exercise to me.

Haha true, dat. As we know from the Post Office scandal, what really gets the attention of politicians is a media storm alleging injustice of some kind. Hard to see where that would come from in this case. Pretty hard to argue people are dying due to lack of funding for faecal transplants. I mean they may be, possibly, if they have some specific conditions, but jolly hard to prove, other than in well documented applications like c. difficile.

OK, the discussion has been about why we should agree to do such a thing. One side of that is whether and why faecal transplants might be effectlve in the case of this person. The other, which you are focusing on, is whether writing to elected representatives is likely to produce a result. As I say, I think this is going to require publicly funded research rather than relying on drug companies. So maybe writing to elected representatives could be one way to promote that research.

Well actually I think "medical suppliers", by which you seem to mean drug companies since you speak of profitability, are a bit beside the point here. There is no way I can see for a drug company to get involved in faecal transplanting. You need live microflora from the intestines of a donor. This will be a hospital procedure, it seems to me, with a donor chosen for each specific patient. For instance the wife of a friend of mine needed one of these to get out of a chronic gut infection. They took it from her husband, because obviously they shared the same diet and so it was thought that would reset her to where she was before, and her system would be comfortable with that. It worked. The issue one of establishing scientifically - I would assume through publicly funded medical research, as it is not one for the drug companies - what further conditions, beside refractory gut infections, can be successfully treated with faecal transplants. @Michael Harrop seems convinced there is potential for CFS/ME, though he has yet to explain why. I'm hoping he can enlighten us, though I'm starting to wonder if it is not just a hope he has, without any specific evidence. I confess also to being a bit bothered by the references to "high quality" donors. This could be the sort of handy get-out spiel a charlatan could use when, having taken somebody's money for a transplant procedure, the treatment is found to make no lasting difference. But let's see what he has to say.

What's the betting the response starts: "Thank you for your excellent challenge" or something similar? 🙄

Yet nowhere in this lengthy response do you state why you think FMT might cure or alleviate CFS/ME. Is there a theory for this, e.g. a proposed mechanism of action? Or are there results of trials showing significant improvement in CFS/ME sufferers following FMT? Can we please get down to a concrete discussion of the science: the observational evidence and/or hypotheses for mode of action, specific to the treatment of CFS/ME by faecal transplants? If you believe so strongly in its efficacy you must be able to at least give us a paragraph explaining your rationale. You evidently have some detailed thoughts on the subject, since for example you speak of the importance of “high quality” donors. What does that mean? What defines high quality in this context? And so on.

Thanks. I've had this joker on Ignore for a while so did not see the post in question.😃.

And then there’s Euler’s identity.

Ooh, that sounds fun, I don't think I've come across one of those.

What are A2 and S3?

That would mean the units of measure for the circumference of a circle ( πd) are not length, but kg.m²/ A2. S3. Does that make sense to you?

I repeat, it is a mathematical ratio. It is abstract and does not depend on physics. Just as 2 + 2 =4, whatever the shape or construction of the universe. You might just as well say the universe could not exist without the number 4. You have asked AI to dress up a nonsensical idea in sciency terms, and thereby bamboozled yourself into thinking you have a scientific theory. AI is good at putting lipstick on a pig. But it's still a pig. But let's see where this notion gets us. What are you saying the dimensions of π are? And then let's work out what the dimensions of the circumference of a circle must be, on that basis. Over to you.

π is a ratio of 2 lengths to one another: circumference divided by diameter. As such it has to be dimensionless. That is just maths, not physics. Also I see your document is written by AI. That makes it fairly worthless, as it is no surprise to find an LLM arguing anything, whether reasonable or absurd. They are programmed to tell the person instructing them that their ideas are great.

A good principle to bear in mind in exams and tests is to use them to show your understanding of the subject. If you stop and think for a minute, any fool could answer “combustion”, but only someone who understands chemistry could answer “oxidation”.

No, your teacher is right. What the question was getting at is the kind of chemical process involved, which is oxidation. Combustion is merely, as you say, a description of one particularly violent kind of oxidation reaction that involves oxygen gas and produces both heat and light. If you answer “combustion”, which after all is just a fancy way of saying “burning”, you are just stating the obvious, without demonstrating that you understand the chemistry involved, viz. that it is in fact an oxidation reaction.

38% is correct: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Mars