studiot

Oh Wow. Please Mr Swansont Sir, permission to use the argument of incredulity !

In my opinion you have packed far too much into this thread. So I will pretend you haven't tried to link reincarnation to Physics, or introduced discussion of And for one moment at least take your offering seriously. That means starting at number 1 only and deriving the equation you claim at the start as it seems to be your only attempt at Mathematics in the entire thread. What exactly do you mean by And where does it come from ? Worked examples and supporting mathematics required please.

All I see so far is a catalogue of completely off the wall and right out of the park claims, every one of them unsubstantiated. Do you actually have anything to discuss ?

Can't seek how you make that out when exchemist is trying very very hard to help you with some great explanations. +1 How is this a response to being told

So it tells you the standard surface pressure in millibars and the rate of fall with altitude (in feet). Clearly if you were able to ascertain that actual pressure at any particular time either at the surface or at a known altitude you could use that to recalibrate the surface pressure and continue to calculate the pressure at other altitudes using the same standard pressure lapse rate. Does this help ?

Winning jokes from the Edinburgh Fringe Festival. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-62626292

I'm guessing, from your questions, that you are a student just starting to learn this stuff. Sensible questions, like the ones you have been asking, are very good so keep asking. But you will get so much more out of the discussion the you put more into it. Short answers like that to folks who have put in quite a bit of effort to help you will lead to them rapidly loosing interest.

Yes this is true. Stronger than what ? The signal near microwave and mobile phone masts, radar installations and in some factories is much higher. Negligible to most people, yes, but not to everyone. Some people are unusually sensitive. Such people will also suffer in an area of higher raduation from other sources. I do know of medically proven cases where moving the router out of someone's bedroom has resulted in beneficial effects. But some are also hypochondriacs and I am not prepared to discuss individual cases. Any electrical device that is not functioning properly either though poor manufacture, maintenance or misuse can emit unwanted, potentially harmful radiation.

Read the article again properly. It also gives you a direct standard conversion factor in the absence of calibration.

You might find this about a 'desert still' interesting. https://www.desertusa.com/desert-people/water-solar-still.html

Our version goes like this As I was walking home from work last evening I met a council worker (you can tell because of the HiVis gear). He was stomping a snail. "What are you doing that for ?" I asked, " what has that poor defenceless snail done to you ?" "Blooming thing's been following me around all day." He said.

You need this information

Glad you are puzzling this out for yourself now. Much better that way. Apologies about the use of 'Natural Units' - I should have warned you. Here are some useful pdfs https://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/NaturalUnits.pdf http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~korytov/phz5354/note_01_NaturalUnits_SMsummary.pdf

The heat of dissociation of diatomic molecular nitrogen is given as 226 kcal/mole along with the statement in Latimer and Hildebrand

Are you still interested in progressing this ?

The double slit, for some reason, is one of the most controvertial experiments in physics. +1 to swansont for a better, though brief answer. The most compact description of what happens and our best explanation I know of is to be found in Dicke and Wittke's Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, an altogwether excellent, if a bit dated, tome. I know my extract is in terms of photons, but if you read the book it does deal with electrons and other massive particles, however basic questions should be addressed in basic terms first. Light can be dealt with directly, as was done since Young's day, but quite a bit of later (eg De Broglie) theory is needed to move on to electrons.

I don't know if your interest is course based or you are an amateur, but I note your other threads are about cosmology etc. Here is a book (also available as a pdf I understand) that may be of interest as it develops the maths, and science to go with this stuff, written by someone who didn't like current textbooks so went out, taught himself, and then wrote one (at reasonable cost I might add.) https://www.amazon.co.uk/Most-Incomprehensible-Thing-Introduction-Mathematics/dp/0957389469 Here are two pages from Peter Collier's book The first describes the Lorens factor and transformatiosn, the second contains a nice numeric worked example.

+1 It's a while since I had a rennet pudding.

Thank you for your reply. There are many different ways of presenting relativity, this way is very simple and appears to be the same as the path you are following. With the exception that Semat uses K instead of gamma for the Lorenz factor. What (I think) you call the Lorenz first equation appears as equation a on the left hand page. I have ticked this. I have also indicated where he explains these equations as The Lorenz-Einstein equations of transformation of space and time coordinates I have underlined the word 'coordinates' which in this case is the x coordinate in one coordinate system and the x' coordinate in another. But x and x' are not distances. Distances are treated on the right hand page and called lengths. Distances are coordinate differences. Finally note that the left hand page contains two sets of equations, the forward transformation giving coordinates of the second coordinate system in terms of the axis variables of the first. The second or reverse set gives the coordinates of the coordinates of the first coordinate system in terms of the axis variables of the second, dashed sytem. If this looks familiar, we can proceed and examine why we need all of x, y,z and t in one system and x', y', z' and t' in the second. I repeat these are the coordinate transformations. The next step is to understand the how to apply these useful quantities like distance, time, velocity and so on. Then we will get to some examples we can put numbers in.

I think you still haven't got the idea, perhaps this is because the discussion so far has been too general. Perhaps looking at a specific example might help. So I agree with this and understand where you are coming from. I have been trying to generate some suitable numerical examples as this is obviously important to you. However the first part of your first post contains a misconception which I have highlighted. v is not [math]\frac{x}{t}[/math] but [math]\frac{{dx}}{{dt}}[/math] This is a convenient point to ask you if you have any calculus and if you have met the derivative before ?

Thanks all I'm glad folks have foun cud to chew about in this thread. Just a note to our newcomers. A couple of years ago I went to the Frome Internatinal Cheese Festival, and we had a longish discussion about cheese and some interesting photographs and cartoons. I also posted another thread about a zero fat cheese - basically solid protein. Does anyone remember either ?

Have a look at Hess's law and Entropy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hess's_law This is used as the basis for calculating many bond energies.

I didn't say I wanted to argue semantics or that you do not make some very valid points. What you are proving is that the situation is, as I said, more complicated than the OP thought so a simple answer will give the wrong impression.

That would generally be true, all other things being equal. But why do some molecules break up under the influence of catalysts, but not without the catalyst ? We should be discussing which bonds, which energies and which states. So exactly which new bonds are you thinking of, especially with reference to my hydrogen flouride example ? The hydrogen flouride molecule breaks up but what new bonds do the hydrogen and flouride ions form ?

This article in the BMJ (British Medical Journal) is a good example of a report on peer reviewed study. The results may be of interest to those worrying about thinning bones. https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/small-daily-portion-of-jarlsberg-cheese-may-help-to-stave-off-bone-thinning/