studiot

You want levitation try this https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OqpPi8wNed8

Random is an adjective. You have applied it to a noun (correctly), but the difficulty is that a noun may have many properties and the applied adjective applies to some or even only one of them. That is the case with random that I was trying to make. Does this help?

I'm glad no one rushed to add negative points here. However I didn't see a question or point for discussion in your original post so what is your point? I also have a question of my own for you. Are you aware of the Frenet Formulae? A line in 3D Euclidian space has only 2 directions of curvature. So how is your Maths as well as your Physics? Do you understand the term geodesic?

I think there is a misinterpretation of the difference between causality and random here. An event can be causal or acausal, and still be random or non random. We know that a radiactive atom will eventually decay, the cause being its inherent instability. The timing of that decay is purely random. We also know that when it does decay that decay will follow a particular course.

Sounds like a salt bridge to me. What aspect of chemistry are you studying? Since you are meant to do the thinking for yourself in homework help, the least you can do is order your thoughts. You mentioned little green men (or was it green colour?), Bubbles in what? A reaction what reacts with what(a clue where is the green colour and what colour is the copper suphate, salt iron, water and filter paper?) C'mon describe the experiment properly. State what you observed. State whatever you think about what you observed and whatever questions that raises. It doesn't matter if your statements are right or wrong, making them is the way to learn.

Note the difference between the terms constant and steady. Edit in the light of your previous thread about bar magnets you might find this extract from an old text interesting. Note I have indicated statement (b) about the field lines.

Are you referring to Kolbe Electrolysis? Edit This should not be confused with the Kolbe Reaction. (as I originally did, sorry) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolbe_electrolysis Have you tried looking in the CRC handbook for 'half cell emfs' It's not included in my Kaye and Laby listing of these.

I have no idea whether you were referring to my comment or what went on whilst I was asleep (which is most of the time these days.) Your original question was in the present tense and I simply maintained that in my answer. I considered discussing history but decided that, as I had seen so many changes and wrong hypotheses come and go about conditions on other planets over the years, we simply do not yet have enough information to have any substantial degree of certainty about the history. We are gaining more measurements and are often able to discount or substantiate older speculations as a result but we still have a long way to go.

Would that depend on the velocity it materialised with, relative the the surface point over which it materialised. And what materialisation velocity would you prescribe?

As I understand it Mars is too cold and Venus is too hot https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/multimedia/display.cfm?IM_ID=169

I tried an experiment swansont is correct, it will not move, so long as the masses are equal. +1

My guess would be that the OP is referring to a band matrix where there are terms one or both sides of the main diagonal so the 'diagonal' is more than one term wide. Such matrices are obtained in the solution of certain engineering problems by numerical methods. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band_matrix https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-GB&source=hp&q=bnaded+matrix&gbv=2&oq=bnaded+matrix&gs_l=heirloom-hp.3..0i13l7j0i13i30l3.1407.3922.0.4079.13.13.0.0.0.0.218.1673.1j11j1.13.0.msedr...0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..0.13.1673.If1_caZx51c

You need to describe what you want to do in more detail.

That mkes no more sense (ie is incomplete) than the OP.

Sorry, studiot, missed your question earlier. That's the change from modern day average ocean temperatures. Gosh if I understand this correctly (and the graph is correct), that graph is utterly amazing. It appears to me to state that, during the last half a million years, there has been a periodic upward jump of around 10oC in the world ocean temperature, with a subsequent relaxation of -10oC over the next 100,000 years. The sawtooth waveform is unmistakable and there are 5 peaks shown over the timescale. This graph really warrants much dicussion.

Is this homework ? And at what level? I guess it is about measuring the solubility of a sparingly soluble salt. At elementary level you could try to dissolve it and see what happens. At a higher level you need to deduce the solubility from EMF or conductivity measurements on the solution.

Is this homework? How can it be? Although this is a dynamic question so not an equilibrium one, you can resolve the forces acting on the balls.

The cynic would say that pure laziness has more to do with it than Occam. Why calculate three things when you only need to work out two? Anyway let us use the xyz coordinates as an example. Let us think of a particle free to roam the galaxy. It can have any x or y or z coordinate quite independently of the other two. We say it has three degrees of freedom. Now let us restrict the particle to the surface of the planet Zog. Zog is perfectly spherical with radius R and the centre of Zog is the centre of the galaxy. So all points on the surface of Zog obey the equation x2 + y2 + z2 = R2 Now all of a sudden if we know x and y we automatically know z. We have reduced the degrees of freedom from 3 to 2 by introducing one equation or condition. Now you asked about energy Remember I said that we distinguish several types of energy. There is no better place to make such a distinction than in Thermodynamics. Here our variables are quantities like, pressure, volume, temperature and yes energy. In fact we have several types of internal energy, Helmholtz free energy, Gibbs free energy, work energy, heat energy, and so on. I mentioned Gibbs and he put forward a formulation of thermodynamics, we call the Gibbs formulation and which Plank later called the canonical equations. Maxwell was so impressed that he made a plaster cast of the graph of the Gibbs formulation and presented it to Gibbs. These days we have CGI to draw such things for us on the screen. However this is a webforum, not a textbook, so I will stop there.

Chicken and egg? Force causes change of motion, including motion in the first place from still or rest. As a result of motion a material body possesses energy. Since we can distinguish several sorts of motion we distinguish several sorts of energy. When a force causes motion it does work on the body, which means energy is transferred to that body from either another body or another store of energy. Another store of energy? There are non material places to store energy eg electric and magnetic fields. It is true that we can plot other quantities than position along an axis on a graph, and that energy is a possibility. Equally clearly when we draw such graphs the axis can be called a dimension and that quantity has a coordinate value relative to its axis. We call these generalised coordinates. In theory we could plot one for every conceivable quantity, but because we can also deduce equations connecting at least some of the quantities we only need to plot some and can obtain the others form the equations. The business of Physics is about finding the minimum number of such axes. We tend to group together suitable and like quantities for example the familiar xyz axes, but there is no justification for calling any one the first or fundamental.

The difference between philosophy (and metaphysics) on the one hand and mathematics (and physics) on the other is that philosophy can question the foundations of the subject. In maths and physics we start with some statements we accept without question (but not without lots of very careful thought) and construct everything from there. If the statements are inadequate out construct will be inadequate (hence the care). Philosophy is the discipline wherein we examine the foundations themselves.

Have you watched Prof Lewin's lecture on Faraday and this stuff? I have linked to google becase there are several presentations of this famous lecture. https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-GB&source=hp&q=Lewin+on+Faraday&gbv=2&oq=Lewin+on+Faraday&gs_l=heirloom-hp.3...1687.7297.0.7906.16.8.0.8.8.0.219.1422.0j5j3.8.0.msedr...0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..7.9.1468.WSnY9qLg1T4

I have no idea what exactly you mean or whether there is a spelling mistake here, But if you are exploring the idea that 'nothing' caould have physical reality and embodyment, the answer is yes. However this is a semi philosophical question on the borders between physics and philosphy. But I don't see how any answer to this question progresses your thread.

Electrical phasors are vectors in the mathematical sense but not in the sense of vector calculus or the grad, div and curl operators. 2D Euclidian vectors do not, for instance, have a cross product, any more than 4D vectors have. The vector double and triple products are special to 3D.

The book by H M Schey is loved by some and hated by others. It is called Div Grad Curl and all that I am noting it here because it is an introduction to vector calculus by an unusual route. It is only a little book, 163 pages all in and easy reading. Although a mathematical book, it takes the electromagnetic field as its working material and develops the subject in terms of EM theory as far as Maxwell's equations. It provides a pretty chatty approach to the subject matter of the relationship between the EM fields, the divergence and the curl and so on, starting from first principles. It might suit you.

Be warned I find this information highly unreliable. Software glitches ensure inconsistencies between the various times presented. You can often see a post attributed to a member who was also recorded as having logged out 3 minutes earlier. If you two (or more) members are shown as viewing a thread at the bottom, this does not change for a long time after one logs out. I have often scrambled to post a reply whilst I thought the other guy was still online, only to find he had logged out a quarter or half an hour before I finally posted.