studiot

You posted both statements here, just as I used the quote function to place them together in my question. Where you obtained those words is not relevent, exccept you should attribute them if they are someone else's words and be prepared to back them up. I even rephrased that question to ask That asks where the exterior of the Higgs field is if the H field fills all space Since the universe, by definition, comprises all there is, where is this 'exterior' ? You answer does not satisfy this property of the universe as being universal. You are still ignoring my question of what binds uncharged nucleons to other nucleons if the strong force is electromagnetic ? I also asked you what you thought a Field to be and, in fairness, you did reply. But your definition was far to narrow, involving only energy for isntance. Here is my working definition. I don't claim that it is complete. A connected region of any space, whether a real physical space or an artificial theoretical space such as phase space, is said to contain a field of a quantity of interest if a value for that quantity can be assigned to every point in that region. That defines a Field in the way that Physicists use it. A Field in Mathematics is quite a different thing, so be careful which sort you mean. So to specify a field, you need to specify three things. The region, the quantity, the boundary conditions if any, since some Fields have no boundary. Relationships in the form of equations are also useful in analysing the properties of that Field. The last statement about relationships is vitally important because the field of a single isolated source eg gravitational or electrostatic or magnetic, contains no energy. I am fond of the expression "It takes two to tango", which expresses the fact that you need at least a second object to introduce 'energy'.

No problem. I agree that is likely the case. But you don't need to quote me or anyone else to post your thoughts in a thread here. Just post stuff which makes sense like this and you will do well.

Unfortunately you seem to get into a lot of silly arguments at cross purposes over minor points of order, which is a great pity since you sometimes produce thoughts and comments of real worth and substance such as this post I have given +1 for. Some of your other posts in this thread also contain useful comments. I would like to add some additional comments as follows. The last time I heard an authoritative estimate of the % of company cars on the road it was an AA report on the radio and stood at ' over40%' Company car buyers, especially fleet operators, definitely use a different mindset which is much more aligned to your post. At least in the UK, tax rules considerably distort any free market purchase decisions. One result is that many cars are leased, not purchased by their users. I believe that longevity of cars has increased during the latter half of the 20th century, but reliability is a different matter and serviceability is another matter again. In my experience both these last two have not shown any long term trend, rather showing ups and downs over time. The OP is quite right to ask if the large number of electronic components now incorporated will lead to an up or a down in those trends. So I would remember that we should be focusing on the OP question concerning these chips.

Thank you for this answer. Do you not consider the direction field of a fluid flow to be a field then ? I also asked you if you had not contradicted yourself. Since you did not answer perhaps you did not understand so I will rephrase my question. If, as you claim, the Higgs Field pervades the whole of the universe, where is the exterior of this field to be found ? You have also claimed that light accelerates which I why I asked if you had been here before. Since you say not here is a recent discussion thread about that very subject. I will post the one about the strong force and the neutrons when I have found it again, since you seem to be presenting the same arguments as that poster.

I fail to see how this is a reply to my question. Please explain.

How does this claim not contradict the earlier claim ? As a matter of interest what do you think a 'field' is ? That is how do do define a 'field' ?

So how does it bind neutrons ?

The strong nuclear force is not electrostatic in nature. We had a discussion recently about the four fundamental forces of particle physics and also a discussion about light and acceleration. But you are lsited as having just joined. Is there any connection ?

I'm suprised Wiki thinks they were reliable. They were the butt of jokes galore in the rest of Europe, including the UK. And of course the demise of the UK's own car industry amply demonstrates at least some truth in your statement.

A Trabant was the only car available to ordinary citizens of the former East Germany. If you could afford one you bought a Trabant or nothing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trabant

How mant Trabants were sold ?

It amazes me how you keep coming up with such clear and simple correct statements and presentations, @Janus, +1

No one has said light obeys Newton's laws of mechanics. I did say But you obviously weren't listening.

You have already stated you don't understand the maths offered and shown no interest in developing that maths either. Maths is a lot more than just formulae. And Physics is something else again. Nature does what it wants regardless of us puny humans and leaves it up to us to figure out how Nature works and report correctly without trying to impose guesswork. A lot of knowledgable folks have already given their time here to try to point you in the right direction.

Light is is not a material object. Only material objects are subject to the effects of forces.

This is your only post where you actually asked for help instead of making stuff up about what you do not understand. When offered some (high school level) help you reverted to trying to impose your guesswork again, even whilst saying I can't see any point continuing this conversation. sorry

Then perhaps you need a limit. Do you know any calculus? Straightforward density at a point for instance is [math]\mathop {\lim }\limits_{\delta v \to 0} \frac{{dm}}{{dv}}[/math] Where m is mass and v is volume.

Let's try to approach this a different way . What is there about light speed that needs explaining ? The quantum wave function has nothing to do with light speed.

Did you mean this piece ? (From the 1964 edition) In future it would be very helpful to refer to the page(s) from the book. This is a discussion of Newtonian-Galilean mechanics, not Einstinian relativity. Actually he says the effective speed is 4 miles an hour for crossing the river. I think I understand you worry though. Bondi could have perhaps worded his text a little more clearly but technically he is correct. Here is my explanation, I hope it helps. In all such problems it is essential to qualify or specify the word 'speed' as there are several different speeds involved. I am not sure that using 'effective' is a good choice but since we are presented with it I will use it. The boat is stated to travel through still water at 5 mph. I have seen the terms 'actual speed' or 'real speed applied', but the best (clearest) term is 'the speed through the water is 5mph'. But remember that the water is not still. I would also like to make it very clear that you are mistaken in saying that the boat travels further than the width of the river. The boat travels exactly the width of the river, no more and no less. It does not travel in some curved path, whcih would be longer. This is because our frame of reference is the ground, not the water. So perhaps Bondi might have said that the speed, relative to the ground when directly crossing the river is 4mph, rather than calling it the effective speed. So we have a situation that the boat has a speed relative to the ground and the water has a speed relative to the ground. The first of these we don't know, but must calculate. The second we are told as being 3mph. These two speeds can be composed to eliminate the ground to obtain the speed of the boat relative to the water, and we are told this. This composition is done using an ordinary vector triangle or parallelogram which can be done. I will stop there and post since you have just come on line.

Why should it not tend to zero ? Zero is a valid state of charge. Further your integral is taken from zero to Q.

Thank you all for your replies. Peterkin's point is sadly demonstrably falsified by the recent events, at least in the UK. I think that we need a radical socio-political economic change to address the problem. This is the second once public collective service that has cost people dear in their failure to plan and provision for predictable emergencies that are known to have happened in the past. Last time was serious flooding and there were not enough pumps (and pump expertise) in the whole country to deal with the situation. This time it was failed electricity distribution systems and there were (and still are) not enough standby generating capacity.

You should not have any trouble with this brief description. https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/v/Virial+Theorem The virial theorem was originally introduced in the mid 1800s in thermodynamics and describes the distribution of the total energy of a system of interacting particles between their energy of motion (KE) and their energy of configuration (PE) but is applicable to any such system with these characteristics. Hence itcould be applicable to galaxies, universes etc.

+1 for a genuine and very reasonable attempt to address the topic.

I don't think you were here when I described the teaching method of the best teacher I have ever had. (A level Maths) It may also be worth mentioning the Oxbridge (where I never went) Tutor system and how they differ from teachers and also the fact that 'tutors' in other UK universities are a pale imitation of this.

A week ago we had a moderately severe storm in the UK which lefts tens of thousans of properties without electricity. A week on and there are still thousands stranded. Watching the TV pictures of the emergency vehicles, I wondered what would happen if they were all electric ? More precisely how would they be recharged if there was no mains power available ? There are obviously not enough generators available to replace supplies to even the most needy as nursing and care homes went without electricity for nearly a week. What might happen or be needed if we had another really severe storm of the magnitude of the late 1980s and early 1990s ?