studiot

OK so there we have it. Let us address only the first question in this thread and yuuki, please copy and paste the other three into new threads (you can have all four open at once). Then post a note here to say you have done this, if HI can't delete those parts. On to question (1) 'Chemicals' is not really a scientific term. Substance is a better general one. Please can you say if you can name any of the three substances in the list? Can you also say if you understand the following terms Pure substance Compound Mixture Element Atom Molecule Amorphous Phase State These are essential basic technical terms, each with its own special meaning.

Already moving the goalposts this early in a discussion? You original assertion (repeated) was that gravity and electrostatic attraction are one and the same ie identical. So let's stick with that rather than changing the subject. You made the assertion, so it is up to you to provide the evidence. You already have evidence that I am quite ready to say when I agree with you.

Yes that is what I suggested and explained why. You would not be the first newcomer to try to pack too many questions into one thread so take heart and deal with one at a time. The support is here, but try to work with those helping you.

I await you evidence with interest. At least this time you have already moved your position since you are now willing to admit there are dissimilarities. Since you acknowledge this how can you rationally claim they are the same?

You need to distinguish between emissivity and reflectivity to start with. First the energy naturally emitted. First calcualte the energy emitted by a perfect emitter ( a black body) then multiply it by experimentally determined emissivity (engineering tables are available) to obtain the emission from your wall. As to reflectivity, this coefficient is also available from engineering tables, and will tell you how mauch irradiated energy is reflected. So for instance a polished metal has low emissivity bu high reflectivity. Does this help?

I don't agree with you but that is not the topic of this thread, which is more specific and limited. BTW now you have your own personal thread as well as special attention from the powers that be, why are you bitching? It was within the first two lines of my post of less than ten lines. (specifically lines two and three) If you can't find it in that space I have no hope of a rational discussion.

Good Morning, hypervalent_iodine. Is there also any chace of splitting this thread into 4 as I suggested?

I already did but you made no answer. It's there in my post in this thread.

Why are you attempting these questions, if they are beyond your present knowledge?

We may not do complete questions for you, but we do provide hints. So there are two types of solvent. Polar and non polar. One of these dissolves ionic substances as ions in solution One dissolves non ionic (covalent) substances as non polar molecules in solution. This is very general, but what your question is about. Think which one is which ( Which conducts electricity and which does not) Edit, I see there are more questions. 2) Makes no sense. 3) & 4) I agree with Area 54 we need to see your beginning of these questions as we don't know what your knowledge is. By the Way you should separate these questions into four separate threads, otherwise any answers will get hopelessly mixed up. You should ask a moderator to help with this - they are very friendly.

I couldn't see where that shows 2 is prime?

Shouldn't this be in speculations and shouldn't you be providing more background and justification, even references, for your assertions?

What a good idea, +1, shame it doesn't work on my PC. However you have prompted me to look further. Hold the windows key down and hit the letter R.Type charmap.exe into the runbox. Choose your symbol(s) Choose copy Paste them in here. ∆ √ Note you can also then select and increase font size, as I have done to 36 in the examples.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-41135081 Is this the way forward to future freedom?

Like both the sober detail from Mordred and the tongue-in-cheek soundbyte from MigL. +1 apiece. Long may the double act continue.

An interesting formula to brighten your weekend for all those who periodically post strange threads about pi and all things circular. What is the following limit? [math]\mathop {\lim }\limits_{k \to \infty } \pi k\left( {\exp \left( {\frac{r}{k}} \right) - \exp \left( {\frac{{ - r}}{k}} \right)} \right)[/math]

77 replies and 725 views of this subject........... about 10 views per reply. No I don't believe that either swansont or HypervalentIodine have downvoted you, that that is obviously possible. and by the way, yes you are new, and if you had taken the time to look around you might have noticed that HypervalentIodine is in fact a Lady who tutors Phd chemistry students. Lots of members have passed through, look and say to themselves "Do I want to deal with this poster" You should reflect upon the answer to that. I have already told you why I have continued to bother with this thread. You have not picked up on that or asked anything about this. It is a fact that many apparently unconnected physical phenomenon appear in abstract mathematical group theory. I have retired and am not interested in further glory, as I have a dozen or more scientific papers to my name. If I have prompted you in that direction and it bears fruit, you are welcome. It will have advanced science. But note that this thread has made its way to the trash can for other reasons.

First time I have seen this, can you offer more detail? Yes the new 'improved!' format leaves much to be desired.

You are just reacting you are not thinking and you are certainly not reading what is written. I have no idea and no way of finding out who is downvoting you. It has been at least two years since I last gave a negative vote, I try to only use positive ones for encouragement. And I have a personal policy of stating the reason in my next post any time I vote up or down for anybody. I have never been ashamed of my opinion (which is what that is). But I have already told you that I have not voted in this thread. No I was not referring to swansont.

You are distracting from the science... this is on the homepage? I've answered your questions... clearly. Yes you have answered some of my questions clearly, but wrongly. Would you like a list? Within 5 minutes of my post you reproduced as fact that which another member with an impeccable academic pedigree has told you was 'incorrect'. Why?

Yes you are being rude, very rude. This thread is littered with fallacious statements by you. Each time one is pointed out by someone ( not all by me ) you carry on as though they had not posted. Perhaps that is why others (again not me) have been downvoting you. I am only pursuing this now because the partial match between the two sequences is interesting and I wonder how far it can be taken or if there is anything in modern abstract maths that would apply here (perhaps group theory). You asked for help yet seem unable to accept any or conduct a rational discussion progressing to a better conclusion that the initial hypothesis.

So you are saying you really don't know what a prime is then if you don't know if 1 or 2 are prime numbers. Here is a page full of explanations as to why 1 is defined to be not a prime number, but 2 is. https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&q=why+is+1+not+a+prime+number&oq=why+is+1+not+a+prime+number&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l4.1146.7187.0.7734.27.27.0.0.0.0.186.2609.18j9.27.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.27.2595...0i131k1.8w-IHVK9a4Q But what matters is that the first number in the prime gap sequence is 0 But the first number in the electron sequence must be a 1 You are continuing to avoid the question. When you have paired electrons you can guarantee one of each spin so you can choose a set of all one spin. But if you have a single extra electron it could have either spin and you cannot know which. Last time you avoided the question by telling me that it does not matter because the spins are the same.

Yes I agree with this because relativity is another way to postulate that spacetime is homogeneous and isotropic. Many have sought to support this view but no one has yet offered any way to overcome several practical serious and fundamental observations that demonstrate differences between electrical attractions and gravity.

It's omitted because there is no gap between 1 2 3 gaps = 0 0 so you could write 0 0 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 5 1 5 1 is not a prime number. So there is only one zero in the prime gap sequence. That does not explain why you feel entitled to omit it. Zero is a valid number. So your sequence does not match at the very beginning (there are no atoms with zero electrons). You still have not answered my question about arbitrary spin allocation to atoms with odd numbers of electrons

Yes I agree with this because relativity is another way to postulate that spacetime is homogeneous and isotropic. Many have sought to support this view but no one has yet offered any way to overcome several practical serious and fundamental observations that demonstrate differences between electrical attractions and gravity. The fact that they cannot logically be linked should tell you something if you were really smart! The definition of force as that which requires force to counteract it is circular and therefore not useful. The point of Newtonian mechanics is that it provides a clear definition of force, as well as the apparatus to analyse it. Einstinian relativity does not. It does not even deal with force. Note that even in Newtonian mechanics there are more complicated agents than force such as stress and strain. Furthermore you can have stress without strain and strain without stress, again obviating your force countering definition. I will treat the invective in the rest of your text with the contempt it deserves.