studiot

But that wasn't the question, which was neither about determination of the particles nor about photons. Yes simultaneity comes into it, but not in the way you suggest.

Modern and theoretical physics is just fine. Let us take your example of two entangled electrons. Call them A and B and the spins + and - for identification. Now we do not need to know how they became entangled, just that they are entangled. When you say they 'change spin' you need to be clear that they (the electrons) do not change spin by themselves. Some agent causes a spin change of say electron A which is spin +. Why do do think whatever event cause the spin change preserves entanglement ? Can you offer an example of such a change ? Here is an example of a change that does not. Two electrons in the same orbital are entangled. One electron is promoted to a free orbital with a spin change, leaving the other behind. This change is the basis of what is known in spectroscopy as a triplet state, where the entanglement is broken and the left behind electron does not change spin.

And you did not address the self contradiction in the text of your first link, although I explained it in detail.

So here's the report on a man who refused vaccination and died of covid. Stephen Harmon How big a catastrophe was that ?

Yes you are indeed missing something. The 320 series refers to 320 watts (power) at a fixed voltage and the -24 refers to the voltage so you want a unit that can deliver a fixed 24 volts DC from a vaiety of AC or DC sources at 320/24 = 13.3 amps max. This is a voltage power supply which means the amperage is the maximum that can be supplied. But this amperage is set by the demand from the load and not by the power supply itself. Please confirm these specs are what you need and not your application as ahs already been requested. Note also that physical dimensions may be an issue as electrical connection layour and cooling and fan outlet arrangements need to be considered in relation to the siting in place. I understand some suppliers are listing various of these as discontinued. Here is a pdf (strip off the final .txt to get a pdf) 2915226.pdf.txt Please confirm that these

I have atteched some information about ferric thiocyanate that may be useful. Here also is another paper on the kinetics you are asking about. https://web.williams.edu/wp-etc/chemistry/epeacock/EPL_CHEM_361/CHEM361_LAB_DIR/JACS80.2961.58.pdf I cannot be more specific without more information. Also you have not answered my questions. For your information here is the advice given to Pharmacy students at Robert Gordon University. Labs. Make sure you understand what your experiment is about and what you are trying to achieve, before you arrive at the laboratory. Make sure you show your results to the experiment supervisor and discuss them before you leave the lab. In the first year we provide a workbook to record your results and describe the experiments. Experience shows that, particularly in the first year, many students leave with nil or incomplete or otherwise unsatisfactory results. The workbook is designed to help overcome this.

Hopefully your wet chemistry is better than your maths. (No offence meant) Those two ions can't be the only reactants. Can you say why not ? The equilibrium constant is defined in terms of all reactants and products. But some reactions are multistep, which means that there will be intermediate reations where the products of one reaction form the reactions of the next. You should always start with the stoichiometric reaction and work from there ? This publication may help you https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ja01545a015

Thank you for the link. +1 I will listen when I have more time. A running time of the presentation would be handy for others though. You may like to look out this book by Professor Benton of Bristol University, who was a key player in some of this work. It is very readable by the lay person, but offers much useful information as well. It also treats all 5 of the recognised major mass extinctions, not only the dinosaurs. Do not confuse the title with when the earth nealy died or the day the eath died, which are different (lesser) books.

One more thought I meant to put in my last post. We are now well into the second half of 2021. We know more than we did about Covid, but there have been many suprises Many papers and date stem from 2019/2020 when Covid was almost unknown. So beware of old data.

Surely no respectable Scientist or Doctor would put out the sort of alarmist and inflammatory claptrap I read in that article. Just one example of over exaggeration. Now I don't know what OC43 is, but I do know that there were no hospitals equipped with oxygen tents and respirators in 1890 anywhere in the world. So how could any patient be dying in the same way as Covid ? You still haven't answered swansont's question What is ADE ? I note that typing ADE into Google get lots of reputable hits including government websites. ADE doesn't only apply to Covid, though sadly we do not (yet) appear to fully understand it. Perhaps when some members here who are proper experts in this field log on they will have some useful explanation for you. Are you worried about liver damage or what ?

Yes the terms are being used correctly. I sympathise with your difficulty however. Even English native speakers can have difficulties with this one. The simple fact is that. although they stem from the same root, the adjectives differential and different do not have the same meaning. That is they are different. Two or more objects A , B, C etc are different if they are not the same. Different is applied to specific objects and simply states a fact. It is true that some of the balls on a billiard/pool/snooker table are different from others. But that statement alone does not state how to tell that difference, or even what that difference is. The process of telling the difference is called differentiation, the verb is to differentiate and the adjective is differential. This adjective is applied to processes, appropriate to making the distinction (telling the difference) and is particuarly used in the Life Sciences. Doctors for instance make differential diagnoses, where the try to tell the difference between possible medical conditions that cause the aptient's symptoms. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/differential-diagnosis Biologists use differential centrifugation. Note the use of the word different in the definition. The speeds are not the organelles which are differentiated. Note that most of your examples of differential refer to processes. Some authors appear to have some additional uses which are less clear and could perhaps be better phrased. So Area54's idea of a scale is fine but to differentiate can also mean to separate as well as just to tell the difference. Does this help ?

I am not sure what you mean by dividing ownership into these thre categories ? Yes that is a point I was amkeing. Hard and fast rules like this are liable to lead to difficulties and many mean minded people use them to bash 'the other side'. How much or how little ? I have never heard of this, so I will ask my friends in Germany if they know anything of this. It is certainly nothing like British practice. British Standard asphalt is structurally driveable as soon as it is laid, but too hot for rubber tyres. The first vehicles on it are water cooled rollers. Perhaps you have misunderstood matters ? As far as I know most german major highways have a concrete pavement (UK curing standard would be about 14 days but I have fixed damaged runways at Heathrow overnight with specially designed concrete) However I do agree that service life is all to often far less than the design life of many things and that unscrupulous businesses exploit this. But then, didn't America invent the throw-away culture ? I agree 100% with this. But rigid boundaries cause dissent and ill will. Far better to educate all fols to act for the general good of all as well as their own comfort. I think that one needs to work on both sides of the divide to properly appreciate the differences. I found it a great shock to move from the provider sector to the public sector, with its different emphases

You seem to make capitalism into a dirty word. I do not see it that way. Indeed the original growth of the water industry in the Uk is a shining example of how it should be done. I see nothing intrinsically wrong in capitalism, profit, enterprise, entrepreneurialism and so forth. They have many success stories to offer society in general. Greed, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter, which should be guarded against especially when it lead either state or private organisations to disadvantage individuals. Sometimes this disadvantaging has been quite gross. It is not only greed though, that poses a danger. I think you put your finger on it in your opening post. Although I would say that there has always been some faction with this idea. And it was this that led to the downfall of Rome, more than anything else. When Rome was in its full vigour of youth and early adulthood, the barbarians would never have stood a chance of defeating Rome. In fact they never did, Rome defeated them at every turn. But then how do you motivate a worker in a out of date factory screwing the wheel nuts onto a car he knows is rubbish and almost unsellable, due to penny pinching by the management ? I have never like the party system. I much prefer the pre party system they had in the original preparliamentary assembly, called the witan or wotan, depending upon how you want to spell it. In conclusion in my opinion it is not capitalism that is the problem, it is moneterism and monetisation, which are visibly failed doctrines.

The table I quoted came from the high school textbook I used in the 1960s Comparative Inorganic Chemistry. B J Moody I regard is as still the best book of its type and the history I gave was precis of chapters 2 and 3, which take the reader through from Dalton to Quantum Chemistry.

Yes all the original privatisations were at bargain basement prices, some even below the usual stock value depression that is caused by suddenly dumping all that stock on the market. So at that time the government of that day was effectively giving away public money. Nevertheless those who bought the stock still had to stump up the price of the shares - you say £7.6 bn for the water companies, some of which were public 'boards', some of which were private companies - and I see no reason to dispute that. That is what happened with all the privitisations. I also agree that later government subsidies in one form or another have been provided to most of the other privatisations, with perhaps only in a small way to the gas industry. Rail, telecom, electricity, the post office, receive large subsidies which totally mitigate any gains from selling the family silver. But to understand what is happening in the water industry you need to go a lot further back in history. And , no, the industry has not received a penny in direct or indirect subsidies since privitisation. This is because of the excessive profits have come from the captive 'regulator' allowing above inflation average price rises in almost every year since privatisation. There is no such thing as a free market in our water industry. The truly staggering increase in my annual water charges of £120 in 1987 to £1002 in 2021 gives witness to this. I understand what you say and those circumstances and subsidies certainly apply to the other utilities I mentioned. However in relation to water and sewage services, they do not. Simply because everybody who historically needs to be connected is already connected. And part of the responsibility and business of the water suppliers is to maintain the existing network. So only new developments require new connections and perhaps additional sources of supply and/or disposal. All such additions to the network is paid for by the eventual consumer (purchaser) of the new property, by way of the developer. Neither public money nor water company money is expended. I refer you to my statement to Peterkin that we need to look back over the history and note that whilst overall it has achieved a clean and pretty reliable water supply, there have been many rogues cutting corners and ducking their responsibilities, to line their own pockets, along the way. The other point I have made is that in the case of the other utilities, they were largely government owned. In the particular case of the water industry they were not. Which is why I said that the government sold off assets which were not theirs to sell. What I don't see, as an answer to the question of this thread, is any probability that the coronavirus pandemic would return us to the circumstances that generated such an effective (water) industry. This is a great shame as IMHO that social/financial/whatever model had so much to recommend it.

I don't follow the question. Yes, I offered two examples suggesing that little, if anything, will change. The fictional example is interesting because, although obviously contrived, it doe (IMHO) accurately mirror the behaviour of real people. Essentially it involved the discovery/gift to humanity of a self powered matter replicator and the subsequent temporary upheavals as manufacturing collapsed. But the punchline came about when one enterprising individual set up a business offering the service of operating a replicator for others. After all if you are rich enough you don't drive your own car do you ?

Here is a very clear demonstration of how working with infinite sets / sequences is non intuitive. The top line is just a list zero plus the positive integers. The matching line underneath is a list of the squares of the line above. You can clearly see that because every integer has a square, there is one to one correspondence between the upper and lower set / sequence. That is every number in the upper sequence corresponds to one and only one number in the lower sequence uniquely. So both sets have the same count of members. Yet the upper sequence contains every number in the lower sequence plus as many more as you choose. [math]\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} 0 \hfill & 1 \hfill & 2 \hfill & 3 \hfill & 4 \hfill \\ 0 \hfill & 1 \hfill & 4 \hfill & 9 \hfill & {16} \hfill \\ \end{array}[/math] So the upper set has numbers, not in the bottom set, yet it has the same count of numbers.

I claim precedence on answers to wild unsupported claims, as I am still waiting for even an attempt at justification of the claim that wires can be scalars.

I can't seem to see a response/discussion to my answer to your thread question. I'll take your shilling. The most unfortunate water privitisation is about the only one the Uk government does not subsidise. Perhaps it is because they stole the resources in the first place, these were not the government's to sell off.

Advice in here might help. https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/1198665.Tired_or_Toxic_A_Blueprint_for_Health 🙂

Has my answer offended you ?

The representative elements are those identified in Mendelev's original tables 169 to 1871 as fitting into the 'a' groups, in each column. The orginal tables did not look anything like our modern version so here is a modernised version of Mendelev showing the classification scheme. This was to use Roman numerals to show originally six columns, later increase to eight and then nine. Each column was further divided into two sub columns, labelled a and b. I have ringed the a in my attachment. Elements in the a column were called 'representative elements' (my translation has 'the typical elements'). Mendelev classified by chemical compounds and reactions. It was not until 1913 that the modern atomic number listing was established by Mosely's square root law. As exchemist says, the classification is obsolete today.

You got it exactly. +1 There is a 'process' involving time which is the difficulty Einstein realised in talking about the relativity of simultaneity. That is why he talks about a physical rod or line of them and introduces the idea of all being in the same frame. He then goes on to derive the fact that any measurement of length will depend upon the frame of measurement.

Another entertaining sciencefiction short story I remember was one about a race of space conquering monkeys who arrived on Earth. The monkeys eventually had to admit that humans were smarter than they were and their best scientists/academics wrote papers entitled "Why the lop-tails do not have space travel."

It would be helpful if you were to provide a precise reference to the particular case you are referring to. In his book Relativity, which I believe you have, Einstien 'talks about' measuring rods in several different circumstances. Are you perhaps referring to chapter XII ?