studiot

Not really. You do need to be a lot more specific both about subject and level. Waves? Solid state Physics? Continuum Mechanics? Tensor Mechanics? Quantum Mechanics ? Granular Materials Mechanics? Particle Physics? Inorganic Chemistry? Analytical Chemistry? Physical Chemistry? Surface Chemistry? Electrochemistry?.....................

Well this is my first view, but i would hazard a guess that you need to be more specific. For instance for Chemistry I once found Introduction to Paint Chemistry by Turner useful, but I doubt that is what you meant.

I really don't know if you can teach the subject or not. Maybe you are a natural. However knowing the subject and teaching it are two very different things. Many a knowledgeable expert is totally incapable of passing on that knowledge. This is not an exercise in mud slinging. If you would like to try out a short 'test piece' I expect you will find some helpful (and the opposite) criticism. How about an explanation of resonance? Beginners often struggle over this one.

Surely all the propane and above goes to D and all the isobutane and below goes to B From then on is it not a question of proportion?

With the greatest respect, have you any experience of successfully teaching physics at an introductory level? What do you remember about your own introduction to physics? What stuck in your mind as good or bad?

Hello Bignose, how are your comments germaine to the OP, which I am trying to make sense of? I originally offered two guesses as to what the OP was talking about, but still don't know. Are you in a position to explain in conventional terms? I would be very grateful for one.

It is true that we honestly don't know how many of the large stones in ancient structures around the world were moved and erected. We do know that there is more than one proposable method for moving heavy objects. One theory might involve a human with magical powers of levitation. A sensible question to ask in that case is "How did such clever humans die out since they do not exist today?" So another theory might be to involve a nonhuman with advanced technological capability. Now in this case I ask myself. If they had advanced block handling capability, why were their buildings so technologically inept? I say technologically inept because that is what the pyramids are. Brute force and ignorance. They do not efficiently enclose space as do modern buildings. Rather they are more extreme examples of early skyscrapers, which had such thick walls that there was little space left for rooms at their bases. Why a pyramid? Well perhaps they couldn't build a vertical wall that high. Every child block builder knows how unstable a vertical pile of blocks is compared to a stepped back or raked back one. How about moving these blocks. Well the Harappan civilisation achieved better control of the Indus,several thousand years BC, than we exert today. They did this by continually digging and maintaining small works - dams channel etc. So they would have had the capability to build a raft under a large block, dig a channel to its destination, float the block to the destination, empty the channel to unload the block. Perhaps the Egyptians did this, perhaps they didn't.

Thanks, pmb one can learn something everyday.

Unfortunately this forum doesn't have any suitable smileys to represent rolling about laughing, but consider one posted anyway. I'd hate to think you are only in it for the verbal fencing, although I know some are like that.

The point I was intending to make about control volumes is that they can either be centered on the origin or start with one corner at the origin. I wondered if this corresponded to our friend's 1, and 0.5.

An elision of meaning? Thank for for prompting me to look up a new work I cannot recall meeting before. However my OED makes this use mystifying to me.

Please remember this is your thread not mine. I am examining your propositions critically and trying to draw conclusions about the implications which you have not yet stated. This question about energy is one such. Thus I am not advocating that all forms of mass are the same thing or that they are not. I am saying that a logical result of your statement to the latter effect is if they are not then we have to label the different forms in some way. I am then drawing a parallel with energy, which as far as I am aware, nobody has so labelled because we consider all forms of energy interchangeable aspects of the same attribute. So over to you for further explanation of your proposition.

Would you also advocate going back to the meanings of several hundred years ago for a great many words in the English language, some of which have greatly altered or even reversed at least in the last 25 years? Unlike French, meaning in the English language is not decided by some sterile and remote authority, it is a result of the actions of the majority.

Presumably the particles referred to (and others besides) are different in some way. That is they may possess energy but they also posses other attributes that are not the same. Otherwise there would be no point in differentiating them. I further presume you are not suggesting either named particle is pure energy and nothing else. In fact I do not know of a particle of 'pure energy and nothing else'

PMB, I don't always agree with you but in this case I do. Stick to plain English then you won't have a problem with those who like to feel superior by hiding their true meaning in another (dead) language. As such Ad Hominem means what I (or you or Uncle Tom Cobbly) want it to mean, within the translation. It literally translates as towards the man. Some might adopt a particular meaning convention, but if the greater majority from the great unwashed understand something different who is to say who is right and who is wrong?

Before this thread is closed, I would like to add my thanks to Aethulwulf for starting it. Not because I care about reputation, although it is comforting to have a few green blobs rather than red ones. But because it has raised a wider issue of what the moderators are for and do. I think most newcomers to a forum assume that moderators are particularly knowledgeable folks who will answer a query correctly or point the poster in the right direction. They are assumed to possess a certain establishment authority. Whilst some forums work in this way, some do not and I think many have a shock in another very active science based forum about this. I certainly did. The thing I like about SF is that the moderators seem particularly tolerant and very up-front about their reasons. Reading some explanations to others has helped me understand this system here and elsewhere much better.

Yawn! When I was 14 I worked out for myself the non existance of an omnipotent being via the impossible task paradox. I was quite proud of myself and it was only much later in life that I found out many had done this before me. However that left me with the issue of the possibility of a being more powerful than I but not omnipotent. I declined then and still do, to regard such a being as a god, any more than a human baby regards a human adult as a god. We expect a baby to develop into an adult after all. I see no reason why humans should not aspire to be (one day) as powerful as any such being. So my answer is a no there cannot be god. Since that day I have regarded the question of the existence of god as irrelevant. A more relevant question might be: Would you act any differently if there definitely was or was not a god?

Spyman, thank you, particularly if your tip was aimed at me. pmb, thank you for the follow up.

Tthat would be because it was addressed to pmb and his post#30. Sorry if there was some confusion but I originally posted just the velocity quote and my question to pmb, then when I submitted it I saw you had replied to my earlier post. I meant to make a new post, but somehow it came out as an edit to the first one. If you cannot say that all forms of energy are equivalent how can you compare them and why do they deserve the term energy, not for instance energy typeI, typeII etc? This is not a trick question it is seriously fundamental. Just remember how long it took to establish that heat and mechanical energy are the aspects of same thing.

I don't follow this? Are you perhaps saying because the energy increase is due to oscillator frequency increase or some other cause? There is too much speculation and not enough hard fact IMHO. This was not aimed at you or anyone in particular. Would you like to elaborate?

If you would like to hold a meaningful discussion don't state something to be categorically the source then go on sometime later to qualify it as only part of the total. Make the important points clear from the outset. Further if you are going to mix other folk's work with your own you need to clearly distinguish which is which. You have clearly put in a deal of work writing those long posts, and even acknowledged this yourself somewhere along the line when you metaphorically wiped your brow. Why do you expect me to read all of your writing when you only ever respond to half of my points? I do try to keep my posts short. So we are now looking at mass as not fundamental but created multifactorially. So should we now follow a process, similar to that undertaken a couple of hundred years ago, to prove that all froms of energy were equivalent? That is should we have some validation to prove that all sources of 'mass' create the same thing?

Yes it was the BBC that established the answer to the universe is 42. ref: "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"

For the second time in 5 posts I will quote this passage from your own post, penned by your own hand. Are you calling me a liar?

So I ask you once again. You have stated in so many words exactly and precisely that mass is an electrical phenomenon. I disagree and ask you to prove your claim. Please address the question asked not something else.

"Go back and actually read it again." Why the insulting comment? "You asked me how you calculated the mass with the larmor equation." Particularly as that is not what I asked. Rather than continue a fruitless discussion here I have thought the best of the rest of your comments and provided the opportunity to start again in the mass thread and await your reply there.