studiot

From the sidelines I agree, +1 for being brave enough to point this out. Again from the sidelines much of this seems to be arguments over definitions and semantics. It may be that this link will help with some of these definitions. https://www.healthcareers.nhs.uk/explore-roles/psychological-therapies/differences-between-psychology-psychiatry-and-psychotherapy @JohnSSM Science is not about proof, it is about weighing the preponderance of the (technical) evidence and, if possible, coming to a conclusion.

Perhaps because this thread is entitled carrots in the freezer, not vegetables in the freezer. Or perhaps because your contention is not suported scientifically for carrots. Or perhaps because folks just don't like assorted slugs, dirt and other material from unwashed carrots in the dinner ?

Hear, Hear; waves Physics order papers and claps. +1

Ok I have enlisted the aid of a small person with a mobile phone and obtained a short video of what happens on my bathroom scale. It is 6.2MB and a couple of seconds long, in MP4 format. So I am seeking some help posting it her for all to see as I have never posted a video here before.

Nice point, +1, but have a care. The next stage of evolution of circuits is to only open and close at the magic word 'alexa' , to the exclusion of other online retailers.

You might find this book worth reading Variational Principles in Dynamics and Quantum Theory Yourgrau and Mandelstrom The authors take a Lagrange - Hamilton - Jacobi approach to the development of both classical dynamics, relativistic dynamics and (relativistic) quantum dynamics.

You might find today's new from CERN interesting. This BBC report is probably more sensationalist than necessary so caution is needed. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56491033 Physicists have uncovered a potential flaw in a theory that explains how the building blocks of the Universe behave. The Standard Model (SM) is the best theory we have to explain the fine-scale workings of the world around us. But we've known for some time that the SM is a stepping stone to a more complete understanding of the cosmos. Hints of unexpected behaviour by a sub-atomic particle called the beauty quark could expose cracks in the foundations of this decades-old theory. The findings emerged from data collected by researchers working at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). It's a giant machine built in a 27km-long circular tunnel underneath the French-Swiss border. It smashes together beams of proton particles to probe the limits of physics as we know it. The mystery behaviour by the beauty quark may be the result of an as-yet undiscovered sub-atomic particle that is exerting a force. But the physicists stress that more analysis and data is needed to confirm the results.

The really sad thing about this is that I only posted my questions in order try to help here. When I first read this thread my impression was the Mitko made a number of true or valid observations which were sadly and incorrectly rejected because the English was not clear. He also drew some unfortunate conclusions from those correct observations making some even more unfortunate remarks in the process. Thanks to John Cuthber whose posts informed me that Mitko has posted elsewhere and I found his site this morning. Mitko clearly wants to try things out for himself and I applaud that. This has resulted in some keen observations posted there, not least his description of an electrical earth. Again unfortunately he has also drawn some inappropriate (electrical) conclusions. I would like to end by saying that the theory of electricity and magnetism developed took many brilliant workers about a century from the mid 1700s to the mid 1800 to arrive at. There were many theories tried and rejected in favour of better ones during that time. A further century of more effort and brilliant men was taken to the mid 1900s to reach a similar state of understanding in electromagnetism. I don't know why anyone would think they could single handedly replicate and replace two centuries of development on their own. Today is is essential to cut this process short by offering a carefully selected path through the detail. Unfortunately sometimes the material is oversimplified to the point of being incorrect. In this thread I would agree with Mitko's observation the the resultant magnetic field is the combination of two magnetic fields, as should any competent person. But it is not laid plain that the left hand rule and other modern formulae does not work this way, hence the confusion or conflict to self directed amateurs. Swansont did hint at this, though was not explicit perhaps because it is second nature to those 'in the know'. Good textbooks however, do clearly show this as in the attachment. So, Miko, are you quite sure you want to pass up the opportunity to improve your work ?

Here is a macroscopic example of entanglement and 'spooky action at a distance'. Take two balls or marbles, one blue, one red and place them into an opaque bag. Let you friend take one out, without showing it to you, and hand you the bag. Your friend then takes his marble to the other side of the room and looks at it. What colour is his marble ? The very instant you take your marble out and look at it you know not only the colour of your marble, but also the colour of your friend's marble. This is true whatever distance your friend travels to, even the other side of the world or if he joins the first human expedition to Mars. Now quantum variables are known to be more complicated than classical macroscopic ones and show additional effects not shown by classical variables. So it is not suprising that quantum entanglement is more complicated and offers additional effects.

First welcome to Science Forums. It is not a dumb question, there are no dumb questions if honestly asked. It is only dumb not to ask if you are unsure. I think the key to your difficulty is introducing changes which is not appropriate in this case. You directly with the variables of pressure and volume and mass. As Sensei said, they can be directly measured or observed and are called observables. As Boyle directly observed that as the pressure increases the volume decreases and vice versa. So it is one of these quantities that is directly proportional and the other that is indirectly proportional. It is true that for some theory you have to look at changes or differences and you may have already been told this. This would be true, for instance of the variable height or height differences, which is an important variable in environmental theory. That is because height is a different sort of variable from volume or mass or pressure. With volume, mass and pressure you can have an actual zero ie no pressure, no mass or no volume perhaps because the is nothing there. This is not true of height because you have to ask height above what ? That is you are always measuring height difference. For instance we often talk of height above sea level (altitude). The result of this is that for something that changes proportionally to such a vaiable introduces a fixed constant and the equation is not y = mx but y = mx + c Please ask if you want further explanation because this distinction will appear again and again in your studies. Final note, you are allowed a total of 5 posts in your first 24 hours here as a spam prevention measure. After that you can post away to your heart's content. Hope this helps.

Are you planning to answer my question please ?

The old approach would have been to call them the Laws of Thermodynamics (there are 4) Most definitely not the other three you ask about. But I have already offered you a more modern approach. Models would be the correct word now. This is because subsequent to the original Laws being drafted (by Maxwell) different approaches were discovered (by Gibbs and Boltzman), So nowadays we have at least three different models using different quantities. This is the same as we have been trying to tell you about Mechanics. There are Newtonian models using forces There are Lagrangian models using generalised coordinates (momentum and position) There are Hamiltonian models using energy and several more.

No expert on cosmology maybe, but a wise and well considered post nonetheless. +1 This nonsense of pure speculation is a far cry for someone who started of asking the question. Thermodynamics is not a 'force'. Period. Congratualtions you have successfully hijacked your own thread. For your information models, views or interpretations of Physics that are based on the force concept are usually called Newtonian and most of the subject falls under the purview of Mechanics. There are however alternative models, viewpoints or interpretations that do not use a force concept at all. These may be derived from Newtonian and/or relativistic mechanics or the energy methods of Lagrange, Hamilton, Mach, and others. Or they may be represented by the Mathematics of 'forms' - forms in particular. Or again they may be represented by the calculus of variations. These latter methods have the advantage that they also mean something in both relativistic mechanics and quantum theory.

No but thank you for your response. I had not given any thought to your initial, Thomas was a biblical reference. No offence meant to anyone. I tried it on both an older mechanical scale and a more modern electronic one. The effect happens on both but is more pronounced on the mechanical one. It must be remembered that a bathroom scale has a large distribution platform supported on a post of very small cross section which is no doubt why the manufacturers instruct the user to stand squarely and quietly on the platform.

Thermodynamics is indifferent to whether there are four or four hundred or four thousand 'forces' acting or available. In short it is not about forces. Thermodynamics is also indifferent to time. Where in Thermodynamics is there any definition of a second or that your three minutes are the same as my three minutes ? Another basic fact about Thermodynamics is that it discusses thermodynamic equilibrium and the direction the evolution of a system can take, but not the time it takes for this to happen.

It's a bad one, then. Entanglement means you can't treat particles as separate, independent entities. Not only is it a defective analogy, the play is not according to the rules of Table Tennis. Kartazion please read my careful explanation again. You have it wrong the situation is not a binary one (either - or) As to the 'analogy' , we have a saying "It takes two to tango". A game or the game of ping pong is only one entity, and you need at least two for entanglement, by definition.

Thomas, this is on a par one experience in my life where a chartered engineer with degrees and theoretical calculations' and such stood next to me observering a test pile being pushed ito the London Clay with a force lower than his theoretical calculations required - and would not believe it. I posted a list of readings from my scale. You did not respond. Have you repeated the experiment for yourself ?

This has nothing to do with my point. We don't know if the Universe is an open or closed or isolated system. This is so basic that it must be addressed to make any statement about gain or loss of entropy or any other thermodynamic property. Until anyone can answer this they are just building castles in the air.

No Entropy is a state function. To apply the laws and structure of Thermodynamics you must first establish the state or states to have a state function. To establish the state (if any) you must establish the nature of the system (Universe) We do not know if the system is closed, open or isolated so cannot apply the Laws.

I owe you both an apology for my poorly drafted wording that I agree is totally confusing. Here is a better version. A simpler example than extrapolating back in time is to consider Charles Law. The volume of an ideal gas is directly proportional to its absolute temperature. V = aT where a is the constant of proportionality that depends upon the units employed for V and T. Therefore putting T = 0 into this equation yields V = 0 Therefore the volume of an ideal gas is zero at absolute zero. Now this is a suprising and disturbing result which shows the danger of extrapolating. Note also that I said an ideal gas. Real world gases do not obey this law at some low enough temperature, although for some gases, such as the ones Charles studied, it is pretty good at normal temperatures. Cosmology and cosmological equations are in the same state Physics was in the 18th century, or even less developed. I hope this helps.

No, I'm sorry I missed out the quote from the bottom of your posts. http://thescienceforum.org

B is much better. With A There is a twist on the screws and if they are of conventional thread this will offer a constant unscrewing force tending to work the screws a bit loose. Also with A the shear transfer is by friction from the clamping force between the plates any relaxation of which will tend to loosen the timber and cause sag at the loaded end. Edit I would also add a small triangular gusset underneath the bottom metal support. @iNow I see you are advertising these people and I had a look but couldn't get past the cookie blog. Are they still active ?

No we didn't notice the boom. We only learned about it from the News. Then I wondered if it was due the the volcanic eruption in Iceland. The last one (2010) could apparently beheard in the UK.

You keep repeating this like a mantra, but have not answered anyone's questions about the detail. The devil is in the detail and also in the fact that you are using conventionally defined terms quite differently from convention. One more thing. To have a beginning or end time (or any axis) must work on Poincare measure (ie the graduations of the scale get smaller and smaller as you approcah those points so you never actually reach them. This is similar to why we can't reach absolute zero of 'temperature', which is when incidentally an ideal gas has zero volume ie occupies zero space so exists as space time without space for as long as the gas is at absolute zero.

What on Earth do you mean in relation to this thread ?