Bender

But the average speed of the atoms decreases because some of them bounce off the turbine, slowing down.

On top of the excellent points above, I think the general attitude is most important: - put on a documentary when they ask for tv. They might like it much more than the umpteenth repetition of Dora. - confront them with the value of evidence based science and the scientific method. - nurture their natural curiosity. If you don't know the answer, discuss it and look it up together. Most likely, someone will have made an excellent YouTube video about it. - never assume they are too young to understand - evolution, at some point also with the reasoning some people use to deny it and why those people are dead wrong. - basic concepts of quantum mechanics and relativity. I'm convinced that the maleable mind of children is at least as capable of understanding them as an adult. To convey the wonder, it is not necessary to delve into the complex math. - when encountering a bug, pick it up and study it - when walking outdoors, marvel at the wonderful plants that can be encountered even between the cracks in the pavement. -...

Money is not a conserved quantity. National banks create money all the time, without creating energy. I could also drop a stash of money in the ocean without energy expense anywhere. Bitcoins could even be created by anyone with a computer. You could also relate money to toilet paper. There is a link between the amount of money you spend and the amount of toilet paper consumed while making the product or service you bought. At least neither money, nor toilet paper are conserved quantities.

Why don't you start by simply answer the question "what is different in the meaning of = in both expressions?" Both expressions allow me to add a y on either side.

Both, but the social aspect also seems to be quite important. Given the minuscule size of lice eggs it is probably also more snacks than food.

That's quite easy: just assign one. Its value could eg be 5. Or 42. What about general relativity? Its basic premise is that they are equal.

Chimps eating each others parasites is a bonding moment.

If I'm not mistaken, E=mc2 can be used to calculate the relativistic mass of photons, which in turn determines the amount that the photon deforms spacetime. A variable that can have any value in both your equations. You still haven't illustrated that the meaning of = is different when it is used in different kinds of mathematical expressions. What meaning does = have in this expression : x+y=5+y It is true for all y, but only for one x

Mathematically, you can work with dimensions as if they are variables that don't have a value (or can have any value, if you want). Works great. Both expressions are true for all values of y.

Perhaps. You may have noticed I left e.g. sadness or grief from my list. I do not find all undesirable emotions superfluous. There is also nothing utopic about not feeling eg anger, greed or hate on a personal level. After all, this thread is about inner peace, not world peace.

Evolutionary leftovers from ancestors with lesser ability of rational thought.

Since when is the mathematician allowed to casually discard the variable m? The context is different, but the meaning is the same.

If that statement is true, I cannot be alive nor sane. What keeps me from getting too close to the edge is the knowledge of the risks involved. I don't need fear for that. Fear forces irrational, suboptimal choices. Nonsense. Everyone accepts thousands of things every day. I don't like going to the toilet, but I would be quite miserable if I didn't accept the necessity. That doesn't mean you have to accept everything, but choose your wars carefully, and don't loose any sleep over them.

I disagree. Anger, hate, fear, jealousy, revenge, guilt... You're better off without those, and definitely closer to inner peace. Then you better accept the consequences of your choice. I fought the insurance company for two years before deciding to give up. I accept the significant monetary loss, and at no point lost any sleep over it. I admit that the supposed "expert" is the only person I can remember who ever made me loose my temper.

What happens if I poke at my ripper trousers with a screwdriver? Mathematics is a toolset. Not all actions executed with tools have meaningfull results. Throwing out the imaginary part is one of the mathematical tools we have to find a solution. Sometimes the imaginary part is meaningfull, but we throw it out anyway because we're not interested in it. Could you give an example?

Mathematics may not care whether m equals 1 meter or 5 apples or i £, but it can handle dimensional analysis pretty well and does not allow dimensional inconsistency. Some sciences, such as chemistry might be less strict in using the mathematical formalisms, such as the use of the equality sign.

Ok. Now what does this have to do with the discussion so far?

Ok, I finally managed to get my math typesetting right. Apparently needs refreshing. Anyway, in mathematics m is usually not equal to N (even if it can sometimes be)

Off course mathematics distinguishes. [math]5 m \cdot 3 m= 15 m^2 [/math] While [math]5 N \cdot 3 m= 15 Nm[/math] If [math]N \neq m[/math] , [math]5 Nm \neq 15 m^2[/math] I can't comment on the chemistry part, since it has been too long, and never in English.

That is obviously not the right hand rule I was referring to, since the magnetic field that causes a force on the moving charge is an external field and not caused by the moving charge. I would advice you to study classical EM theory some more before you delve deeper in QED. Sure they do. They have predictable and quantifyable effects. They are perfect to select the right magnet for an application. It is not because magnetic fields have some effect on neutrons, that it is similar to the effect on charged particles, as described by the right hand rule you gave. For the effect on charged particles, classic theory suffices. For the much smaller effect on neutrons, I agree that QM is unavoidable. But we were discussing magnetic fields caused by particles, and classic theory predicts no such fields around a neutron beam, which is at least a good approximation. Even with QM spin I don't think a non polarised neutron beam would cause a net external field, but I could be wrong. Moving Alpha particles cause a magnetic field, but if you claim otherwise, I would like to see your evidence.

If the fossils were put into the ground by a god, he must have done so very carefully and with the obvious intent to trick us into thinking evolution is correct. If a fossil is in the wrong place, it means god messed up ;-).

You might speed up the process by blowing the gas at the bottom of the liquid and letting it bubble through. Otherwise, I'm of no help.

But the magnetic field of a current is not perpendicular to the current. Your explanation makes no sense. At least the right hand rule has the direction of the magnetic field right. Your explanation also suggests that a neutron beam produces a magnetic field similar to an electron beam, while an alpha beam produces none. That doesn't sound right. That's not what you asked. You asked me to explain a permanent magnet without QM, and I did. Moreover, my explanation is much more useful when actually using a magnet.

Kerr metric: I can't say I understand much of the article, but it mentions that spacetime itself can rotate.

That is the point I want to make. To describe the magnetic field caused by an electric current, QM is worthless, because there are too many particles involved. Classical models work perfectly, though. The magnetic material has a magnetisation term added to the magnetic field strength, depending on the suscepibility. Add in a memory effect, and you have a nice hysteresis with a remanent field.