exchemist

You can never make such an assumption, so this scenario can never arise. This is because It is never possible to prove a scientific theory true. So we can never state with certainty that there is no more to discover.

Well, you've had your answer from the people here. Your idea about making soil fertile by passing CO2 into it is misguided and won't work. Plants do not take in CO2 via their roots but via their leaves. As for "....the breakdown of raw elements into the dirt, with water and carbon (along with other chemicals) being pupmed under pressure into the churning mix", that does not describe anything coherent enough to comment on.

Passing CO2 over poor soil won’t improve its fertility, but increasing the CO2 content of air in a greenhouse does accelerate growth. This has been widely done for years in the Netherlands, where a gas engine is used to generate electricity to light them in winter months, exhaust is used to promote growth and waste heat to warm them. This is done commercially to produce tomatoes, capsicums etc all year round for supermarkets.

I still have those massive iron fireplace surrounds in the upstairs bedrooms in my late Victorian (1897) house. I was surprised to find, when planning some redecoration, that the mantelpieces are all magnetic.

Why should we do that when it obviously won't work?

Ah. Magnets. And harvesting energy. Does Tesla come into it at any point? Just asking.

Are you seriously arguing that because the average air temperatures are different, there can't be any effect of air temperature on soil formation? Why consider the average? Why not the annual range, for instance? Or the difference between day and night? Aren't these more likely to affect soil formation and structure, via expansion and contraction, effects on moisture content, freeze/thaw cycles and so forth?

Evolution and continental drift, I imagine.

Ask a rabbit breeder.

Yes, it's all a bit Dr Strangelove: "I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than 10-20 million killed, tops." (Buck Turgidson.)

As you can't be bothered to explain what the hell you are trying to do, or even to converse in complete sentences, I've now had enough of you.

No it isn't.

Depends what you are trying to do. If you just want to show what is bonded to what then it doesn’t matter, but if you want show spatial relationships then bond angles can become important.

Look, we are very willing to help, but you have to show you are making some effort for yourself, first. We want to help you learn, not to do the work for you so that you learn nothing. What you have written isn't even a sentence.

OK but can you provide some insight into what is it that makes the correction significant for atoms with a high nuclear charge? Because that seems to be the point the undergrad explanation tries to address.

No doubt that would be the more rigorous way to treat it, the concept of speed being a bit dodgy in such a context. But it was used to explain at undergrad level why these corrections are only required for atoms with vey high nuclear charge. How does this arise in the more rigorous treatments you have in mind?

The undergraduate explanation for the colour of gold is based on electrons in atoms with very high nuclear charge moving at such speeds and thus, in terms of non-relativistic QM, having a greater effective mass than they would otherwise: https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/gold_color.html

You mean "divine". "Devine" is a person's name. Your post reads like a rather incompetent attempt at a marketing scam: incompetent because there is no link to whatever business is hoping to profit from selling the stuff, and a scam because it claims bogus special virtue in water from particular places. (The claim about the Jordan is entirely false). At least as far as the references to Catholic locations are concerned, holy water in the Catholic church is simply water that has been ritually blessed by any priest, for use in various rituals in which water plays a symbolic role. It can be ordinary tap water, salt usually being added to suppress algal and bacterial growth. It is used in baptisms, in holy water stoups at the entrance to churches, in the "Asperges" at the start of traditional High Mass and so on. There is no need or expectation that it come from anywhere special.

Ah yes, silly me, of course. I'd never come across this abbreviation, curiously.

"pbuh"?

In simple terms, the key to the momentum:position thing is wave/particle duality. The momentum of a QM entity is inversely proportional to its wavelength (de Broglie's relation), i.e. proportional to frequency, while the probability of detecting the entity at a position is determined by (the square of the) amplitude of the wave. If you have a QM entity represented by a pure sine wave, it has only one frequency component, so its momentum is determined precisely. But a sine wave extends throughout space. So you have no idea where it is. Conversely, if you have a superimposed series of waves of different frequencies, with phases aligned to interfere constructively at one location, then, because of the frequency differences, as you move away from that spot they will start to interfere destructively. So then you have a situation where all the amplitude is in one location - the position is well-defined - .............but you have no idea anymore what the momentum is, because it is composed of lots of different frequencies and hence momenta. This idea of adding waves of different frequencies to obtain various non-sinusoidal waveforms is familiar to radio and hi-fi engineers. It's not a QM idea. For instance the reason why you need good high frequency response, way above what you can hear, in an amplifier is to reproduce transients faithfully, because those require a complex mix of frequencies including very high frequency components. The special ingredient in QM is de Broglie's insight, associating momentum (p) with wavelength(λ) : λ=h/p . (h is Planck's constant).

No, that won't help you, because while you are told the acceleration you are not told the velocity. What do you know about this scenario? You know distance and acceleration and you want to calculate time. So the formula you need is the one that relates distance, acceleration and time. If you know two of them, and you do, you can find the third.

This question clearly prompts you to do the calculation. You need the appropriate formula involving acceleration. What is it?

You're wrong about that: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230076355_The_Effect_of_Light_on_Textiles

I seem to recall the use of a capacitor in conjunction with a resistance, to suppress arcing in the switching of electric motors. But that I think is to lessen the inductive spike when the current is interrupted. In a circuit with a simple resistive load I'm not sure what would make a difference.