studiot

I was under the impression that vector products of vectors was peculiar to 3D and for 4D you had to go to quaternions or the equivalent tensors

Now that's what I call a proper answer from someone who knows (a lot) more than I do about the subject and its details. Thanks Mordred +1

Isn't the underlined part a contradiction in terms? I don't see a contradiction. I'm speaking of the equilibrium of the internal structure of the object. Yes, of course, in the moving frame the observed equilibrium will be different (and in fact the same as that of the object when it was at rest in the original frame). I mean the forces which hold the atoms together in an object. I think you misunderstand both my comments and mechanics. Forces are forces whether they are internal or4 externally applied. A rigid body maintains its shape, not because the forces are internal, but because every particle of that body is subject to the same accelerating force. But it may be that no particle of that body is in equilibrium. Fast forward to Einstein. I asked if when you refer to forces you are referring to Newtonian or four- forces. Why does in make any difference if they are internal? To obtain a vector equation to balance (make equal to zero) all the vectors must be of the same type. So they must be all Newtonian vectors or Minkowskian vectors.

Perhaps the train guard will hammer it home for you.

Electrons are not electrically neutral because they have a negative charge. Protons have a positive charge equal but opposite sign to that on the electron. So the charges balance out in an atom to make the atom electrically neutral, since all atoms have the same number of electrons and protons. Take one electron away or add one and there is a net charge (positive or negative respectively). This object is not electrically neutral and is now called an ion not an atom. You posted this in chemistry so I started a chemists answer. An electricians answer would be simpler. I don't know where you are coming from on this so help me out to help you. In particular you didn't say if you know what osmosis is. Have a look at this short thread and tell me if you understand my explanation and if the explanation is too easy or what? Sorry I can't do diagrams at the moment, that would make it much easier.

And you carefully avoided my comments. It's not a question of belief or agnosticism. Nor is it a question of proof, but I did offer evidence. This is the Philosophy section, which cleaves to a wider remit, in particular rational analysis of a subject. This is what I am doing since I do not consider the original issue a binary one but, like most things, appears on a sliding scale with grey areas. So back to my comment "why can you not define a term by that which it is not?" A great many things (probably more than half) are defined this way in mathematics for instance.

Isn't the underlined part a contradiction in terms? In fact isn't equilibrium another one of those characteristics that depend on the observer in einstinian relativity? And when you refer to 'forces', do you mean Newtonian forces or four-forces?

Thank you for the support. So you think the boundary points should be excluded. Fair enough, but what about my last point which covered this case? Just because we don't know what it is / can't define it doesn't prevent it being there. We don't know what is at the core of Jupiter, but we can say that it is within the planet's outer boundary. So I am defining nothing as 'that which is within the boundary between nothing and something' Even then it performs a function. Since 'many a true word is spoken in jest' I am reminded of an old joke. An apprentice was being quizzed on a building site by an old Clerk of Works. "What is the purpose of the mortar between the bricks?" The apprentice immediately answered "That's easy. There mortar is there to stick the bricks together" "Not exactly" came the reply, "The mortar is there to hold the bricks apart" So I tell you. "Nothing is there to hold the somethings apart"

How can you have brought up questions? There wasn't a single question or question mark in your previous post. The moderator was not complaining about this statement "dude isn't science bringing up questions and trying to answer them? I'm simply trying to have to have a discussion" That is exactly what is wanted here. The moderator was complaining about your method of discussion, (but really very gently) because it is against the rules of this forum. If you wanted to ask your questions related to something previously started here, the forum correct way is to start your own thread perhaps referring to this one like so: XXXXX said in thread YYYY........................ However is this an alternative view/explanation/........................ You will find plenty of examples of such spin off threads here. go well

To further help you, When a surface acts like a mirror the reflection is said to be specular The opposite is called a diffuse reflection. https://www.google.co.uk/search?biw=1024&bih=506&q=specular+and+diffuse+reflection&oq=specular+and+diffuse&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0l4.14531.22139.0.24698.24.23.0.0.0.0.558.4581.0j8j6j1j1j2.18.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..8.16.3409...0i13k1j0i7i30k1j0i8i10i30k1j0i67k1.5EBd8fQU5xg

What about the problem of the boundary? There must be a boundary between that which is nothing and that which is something. Boundary points have a foot in both camps since one side faces nothing and the other faces something. So are you including boundary points in 'something' or in 'nothing'? Even if you include them in something, then they define or enclose nothing as that which is within the boundary. Yes DrP +1

I like the guard banging his head hammer on the end of the train example, Janus. +1 I was actually thinking of supersonic aircraft and sonic booms and shock waves.

I am sorry I didn't realise that was a reply to anything I said, all of which is tailored to the OP. I did ask you how arbitrarily large energy could appear in contravention of COE, but you simple reasserted the OP question as fact. I have already outlined the correct way to go about this, with one exception. Your particular misconception is based on the same fallacy that asserts that lead has infinite densite. That is if we take the mass of a lump of lead and take the limit of the mass to volume ratio as the volume goes to zero, we get the (finite) density at a point. Similarly with force and stress or pressure at a point. The equations of inductions are differential equations with the same sort of limiting ratio.

OK so since you have posted this in Chemistry I am going to assume you understand (at least in principle) osmosis. Let me start by offering a correction. The dopant materials are atoms not ions. The point is that the elements selected contain one more or one less outer electron than silicon ie 3 or 5. If such an atom is substituted into a silicon lattice it creates a shortage or excess of one outer electron. So the shortage or excess is controlled by the doping % It is important to realise that such atoms also contain one less or one more proton so the electrical neutrality of the lattice is maintained. Now conduction in lattices occurs by the individual atoms giving up some of their bonding electrons to participate in what amounts to giant molecular orbitals known as metallic bonds. This form of bonding delocalises the bonds allowing the electrons free roaming from one end of the crystal lattice to the other. This is how current flows in metals and semiconductors. If the doped lattice has atoms that add one fewer electron than silicon to this then the material is P type If the doped lattice has atoms that add one more electron than silicon to this then the material is N type But remember that the lattice is electrically neutral. If we then join a piece of P type to a piece of N type we have a chunk of material with mismatched molecular orbitals, with excess electrons in the N material and deficit in the P type. This sets up the electrical equivalent of osmotic pressure, that is the potential barrier across the PN junction. Does this help?

Why should I ? You didn't reply to my post.

Pretty good. Another way to look at it is to think of the difference between glass and water. Glass can have a smooth surface or a textured one (eg for a bathroom). You can get some sort of reflected image from either, but it is static (doesn't move). The water is normally smooth when static, but becomes rough on movement. My first post was also looking ahead for you in this subject.

Whenever a travelling wave encounters a boundary between the region it is travelling in and another region, One, two or all of three things may happen. Absorption of the wave Transmission of the wave from one region to the next Reflection of the wave back into the first region Often one of these predominates - you should look up 'total internal reflection' Add this to swansont's question

I wondered that too, but didn't have full access last night.

Excellent approach. +1 The wave equation is independent of the speed of the source, relative to the medium. That is there is nothing in the wave equation about the speed of the source. This means that once the wave is launched, the source looses all control (ability to influence) the wave. The speed is entirely controlled by the characteristics of the medium. This fact is often overlooked in relativity explanations where it is wrongly stated that the einstinian postulate says that the speed of light wave is independent of both the source and observer. The first was already established fact. The new part of the postulate is that it is also independent of the observer. Remember also that this does not weaken this postulate; it is very strong in that it leads directly to the deduction of the Lorenz transformations etc.

We already have a current thread on this but no one seemed interested. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/108153-oxygen-levels-in-the-triassic/

I see you are new here so welcome. I am responding to both your thread questions since they seem related. A paper on cellular automata? I find that subject very interesting. Your proposal about the universe being a form of CA has been put forward before I see you are interested in AI but the member details page here is now so much wasted space. Are you a programmer ? I ask because technology in general and computing in particular has its own corner of Mathematics these days, which has displaced much of the traditional stuff for its proponents. In particular Discrete Mathematics has come to the fore. You can't, after all, master everything these days. Anyway I wondered how CA would work in a discrete, but non Euclidian, non linear universe? I ask because Einstinian Relativity is non linear ie it views our universe as being non Euclidian and non linear. Back to the question here. Do the Laws pop in and out of where? Do you mean something like the fibre bundles of vectors in modern differential geometry?

No I am legion

But I am not a real man, I am just a plastic facsimile

You made no typo since you made the same error in the thread that was closed and twice in the opening post of this thread. I did however overlook the grammatical error "a atom" An atom has one nucleus.

So did I until I checked with Googiebaby https://www.google.co.uk/search?site=&source=hp&q=einstein's+height+weight&oq=einstein's+height+weight&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i30k1.10332.30473.0.32051.24.24.0.0.0.0.251.4162.2j15j7.24.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.21.3859...0j0i131k1.6g-0Wgdg6qA