studiot

The transformations are linear. The formulae involved are not. Edit since composing this I see a non productive exchange of red points.

You are stating british custom. I asked about french custom. My point is that there is no intrinsic correctness or right of this. It is a matter of custom and practice.

Answering the actual question When 1mol of calcium carbonate decomposes into 1mol of calcium oxide and 1mol of carbon dioxide, 177.8kJ of heat is absorbed.

The intent was to bring out that Nature favours spirals at the very large - galactic - and very small - micro crystals in rocks scales. And yes as your link shows that it also applies at normal human scales.

Yup.

Here is a maths free resource for those looking for Maths Tutorials, from the Centre for Innovation in Maths Learning. The two links give the centre's home page, a topic list. https://www.cimt.org.uk/ https://www.cimt.org.uk/projects/mepres/alevel/ These are first class resources available for download in pdf.

Well a telescope is used to make the image of very large objects small enough to fit on the page in normal operation. If you turn it round you get another sort of instrument. The spiral is formed by microscopic grains of quartz in a much larger garnet crystal in schist rock.

The problem, as I see it, is that we don't know anywhere near enough. These guys know heaps more than I do, yet they readily note that they are still guessing. https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question59.html We postulate 'particles', we don't know if DM has particles or if these particles can form DM atoms, or what those DM atoms might look like. So we don't know if there are such reactions as DM nuclear reactions.

Citation please, from someone who has actually measured DM 'particle' velocities.

Whilst it is good that you are expressing/discussing your feelings in a calm and proper way, please tell me how you feel about french lavatory attendants, who are traditionallyfemale in male toilets ?

As seen through the other end of the telescope. Any offers ?

What do you mean when you say time is or is not fundamental ? Why do you think the question is a big deal anyway ? Of the many quantities we can calculate we currently acknowledge a set of 7 fundamental ones (including time) and derive all others from that. But equally we could use a different set, for instance in fluid mechanics we often use force-length-time rather than mass-length-time. But there is no fundamental argument against choosing a set excluding time. The reason we use the setup we do is simply one of maximum convenience. And why did you not address my previous question and comments?

Glad to see this topic is getting going. But aren't you all imagining a simplistic one stage utopia ? Perterkin's comment hits the nail on the head but no in the way he intended. Because you are not voting for what you want but for someone to tell you what to do and what not to do. Say your successful candidate orders everyone not to plant onions. This is fundamentally different from everyone voting to plant or abstain from planting onions. Then if the noes have it as we say you can't plant onions even if you want to. Of course once you have the handed down power it can go to further stages so someone (a minister) is given power under the act to make regulations. She of course can delegate perhaps further, all in the name of democracy.

I think that 'equality' contains its own internal contradiction as does democracy. Equality of what ? Since everyone is not equally able providing equality of opportunity leads to inequality of outcome. Since chance operates in our world, this would also be true if we used 'equally lucky' instead of equally able. Following similar logic, the old saw " do turkeys vote for Christmas ?" applies to democracy as defined by Genady's definition. If the majority voted for you to chop someone's head or hand off what would you think of democracy ? There is more to democracy than just voting. As with equality if you try to apply it to every issue you end up with contradictions.

This is very interesting. If, as you say, DM does not interact with the EM force, does it interact with either the strong force or the weak force ? If not, would that imply that it does not form dark atoms or other particles ? Leading on from that, there are four (known) forces that influence our ordinary matter, so could there be forms of 'matter' that do not interact with one or more of these forces ?

So what do you need, given that I am trying not to influence the discussion one way or another ?

Interesting, Thank you. +1

Well, short of actual drawings here are some guesses and thoughts. I would imagine that the additional load imposed on the structure by your brackets (may I call them brackets ? - it's nice and short) are small compared to the main building frame loads. I would however imagine that locally these brackets could impose quite high additional loads due to wind ( and perhaps other) forces, particularly at their mounting points. As I have already noted the structural dynamics of these connections would therefore become important. A further consideration might be maintenance access - gantryways etc. Cabling, grounding and lightning protection are often an afterthoughts rather than part of the design and not always satisfactory as a result. It is not clear what is meant by " a frame attached to the topside of a stadium to suspend speakers". Are the speakers up there as well ? How are they to be distributed over the stadium, canopy, roof or whatever ? Are these individual mountings or is there a single (central ?) frame or what ?

Yes equity and its adjective equitable are often better. more balanced, words although what is regarded as equitable may change from culture to culture and time to time. I do not see a self contradiction within their meaning like I do with democracy and equality. +1

A name is not the number itself, anymore than are the number we call four. They are all representations.

Yes it hinges upon what you mean by Democracy.

Quite likely. My knowledge of both BS5950 (Structural Steelwork) and BS6399 (Loading for Building) is rather out of date, but a quick gander at the latest versions suggest they still follow the lines I outlined.

Is democracy like equality in that it contains the seeds of its own (self) contradiction ?

This is most definitely a flawed definition of 'wrong' There are cases you should have considered before you made it. I agree with Genady. All these statements are only true in a few specialised number systems. They are certainly not true in any system up to and including the Real number system.

Looks to me like you have now understood it and fixed it.