studiot

Two different explanations; that is why I called it is confusing. This is incorrect, it has nothing to do with the motion of the clock. Yes that's it, well done. +1 It is not helped by the diagram which shows a distinct pulse of light.

This explanation could be very confusing, unless you explain why the light 'signal' travels vertically in the first clock and diagonally in the second.

Well you haven't said much about my posts, perhaps you missed them in the barrage. One of them was about observing this 'fixed' clock. The point being that the observation takes time and can't proceed faster than light. This simple fact needs to be taken into consideration on any accounting of what is seen (observed) by two observers in relative motion.

I do believe we are beginning to stray further and further from the topic, although as I said I found your information theory / modern concrete mathematics theory centered view interesting. I see that you have also replied in my uncertainty thread over the holidays. Both subjects and one other where I promised some views pertain to the difference between Maths and Physics. So I propose to collect them all together in a new thread about just that and leave Kip to his question entitled spin, though I am not sure as to his exact question.

Yes relativity is difficult to get your head around. I read somewhere (Berkson :- Fields of Force Routledge) that the main reason folks have difficulty is that we naturally cleave to the idea of an absolute time (and space) and struggle to leave this behind. So the ghost of the absolute lingers and interferes when we try to understand. Swansont said it all when he said "clocks measure elapsed time", not time. Perhaps you missed this. There are many quantites in Physics that appear in two guises which have the same units but are not quite the same. In each case one of these purports to be an absolute and the other relative. Voltage and voltage difference Gravitational potential and potential difference Distance and length Time and time difference or elapsed time and so on.

A very interesting point of view. Thank you +1

Relativity has a more complicated elephant-in-the-room surprise in store that no one has mentioned. Say you set a clock on a table and receded at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light. Just how would you read and continue to read that clock? Or if you prefer when could you read that clock? You need to invoke the relativity of simultaineity since there would be an increasing time lag.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_decay

This is rather vague. The first thing to consider is Is the electron bound to something, an atom, an ion, a crystal lattice.........? Or is it free as in an electron beam or beta ray? Then you can think about its spin.

No, we have yet to 'design' a properly self repairing machine, or one that can grow successfully. There is a very good little penguin book called Cats Paws and Catapaults by Steven Vogel Which compares how Nature and Man achieve design objectives in many ways.

You have to be careful here (and in Science generally) since this has more than one meaning. For any observer time passes normally for herself. She just witnesses it passing differently for others who are travelling at (any) speed relative to her. If they are travelling at the same speed together, however great, no effect will be witnessed. The relative speed is zero. The any effect observed will depend on the relative speed and is so small at to be unobservable at low relative speeds. That is why we say there is an effect at high relative speed. Does this help?

+1 to both A good topic and a well thought out reply

So what do you think the products are? In particular what ester do you wish to dissociate?

Light Modern Optics Robert Guenther Wiley Vibrations and Waves A P French MIT Introductory Physics Series Nelson Optics Smith and Thomson Manchester Physics Series Wiley Quantum Mechanics Quantum Mechanics Sarah McMurray Addison Wesley Quantum Mechanics Davies and Betts Chapman and Hall Physics and its Applications Series book 8 Quantum Mechanics Mandel Manchester Physics Series Wiley See also the following Manchester Physics Series book for background Properties of matter Flowers and Mendoza

1) I don't say, that gas doesn't give back any force - but we need to include the size of a body, during those interactions. When we push a solid object in one spot, we push it as a whole body, but in a gas or liquid, we push only part of the mass - and only this part is pushing us back. 2) And now imagine, that a solid body is attracted by the gravitation of a gas cloud - what will happen, if they collide? Simply - solid body will pass through and locate itself in the center of mass. However I would say, that it will be rather the gas, which would "wrap itself" around the solid object... (1) Well since I don't agree with (1) I obviously can't agree that (2) follows. Consider the loudpeaker in your room. In the productuion of sound it pushes on one very tiny part of the atmosphere. But the entire atmosphere is connected and pushes back. The mechanism may not be exactly the same as for a solid but the principle is, in that the push is passed on from portion to portion of the 'body' , solid or gas, indefinitely. In fact indefinitely means until friction dissipates it. (2) In Science we need to be more precise than in normal language. So I can't see how a solid body can both pass through the gas and locate itself at the centre of gravity. Surely what actually happens depends upon the relative velocities of the sold and the gas? I have cut concrete with water jetting. Here the fluid passes through the solid. Equally a fast enough solid ball will penetrate and pass right through a cloud. Nature is more complicated an vaired than we can imagine.

Stand in front of a hair drier or better a jet engine, and then say you can't feel the push of a cloud of unconfined gas.

Thank you for rewording/expanding that part of your previous post. I read it to mean something quite different, to whit a 'definition' of a functional. A functional is a map from a vector space to the underlying field of that vector space. The space of all functionals of a given vector space is the dual space of the tangent space of that vector space. In the case you are exhibiting the underlying field is R, the real numbers. I don't think you can define or explain what a tensor is in under 10 words.

I'm sorry?

Try this https://www.heathrobinsonmuseum.org/ Bit out of town, but parking posiible. You wife might also appreciate it.

The current density is a function of the rate of reaction at each electrode and that is a function of the concentration of the reactants. The overall current density is the difference between these two equations.

"Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them" Surely Psychology is part of Philosophy, as the Man said.

Science tells you how to put spin on a tennis ball when you hit it, and what happens to the ball when you do. Philosophy tells you why you bothered to hit it in the first place.

Doesn't the current density refer to the solution electrolyte, not the electrodes, or have I got that wrong?