studiot

OK that's good but what you are doing is thinking about maths. Unless you do some (lots of) maths you will soon loose this and also get bogged down in pages and lists of useless information. In my opinion you should practise many examples, until you get them right more often than not, and then assemble the theoretical framework. You might find the BBC website for schools useful. It is free and has explanations, examples, videos and lots of online practice questions to attempt, with help and repeat to get them right. It is all free. Here is a worksheet on factors, but you might like to look further https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/ztcxwnb/test

Well you don't seem to have been very interested in your question since January 2020. So how about responding to those members (including myself) who answered you ?

You haven't posted your working, but it would seem to me that you have not taken into account the different time coordiantes in the different frames. If [math]v = \frac{{dx}}{{dt}}\left( {S'} \right)\;and\;u = \frac{{dx}}{{dt}}\left( {S''} \right)[/math] then what are u and v in terms of t' and t'' ?

It could simply be that no one here knows anything about the ancient history of mirrors. I definitely don't. However you don't seem to be a crank and your posts seem genuine as is the proposed subject. I suggest you email Brown University who seem to have some experts in the matter. Good luck and I at least would be interested in their answer if you were kind enough to post it or a precis here. +1 for your patience https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Joukowsky_Institute/courses/13things/7306.html

Perhaps you would like to think about the proposed situation. One clock is in 'freefall'. So how is it 'approaching the other clock', which is not in freefall ? You need to choose one inertial coordinate system, declare that one to be at rest and then relate the motions of everything else to that system.

That is the 64 billion dollar question all right.

What instant would that be ? Or rather one might ask whose instant ?

Hello, Some preliminaries will help to understand. In non quantum computing the computer can be designed to work in serial mode or parallel mode. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. This applies both to the hardware design and to the software design. These are not independent but the detail only concerns implementation, not the end result. Put simply Serial mode involves doing things step by step, one thing at a time. Parallel mode means doing several things at once. For example consider the simple calculation add these two numbers together. [math]\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {62310721} \\ {\underline {25644387} } \\ {87955108} \\ \end{array}[/math] In parallel mode we would add each digit to its corresponding one simultaneously. Because the addition is simultaneous we would not know what the carries are at that time so we would have to ignore them. We would then perform a second step to add in the carries. So this addition is a two step process if carried out in parallel as shown. [math]\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {62310721} \\ {\underline {25644387} } \\ \begin{array}{l} 87954008 \\ \begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {\underline {00001100} } \\ {87955108} \\ \end{array} \\ \end{array} \\ \end{array}[/math] To carry out this same operation in serial manner takes 8 steps, but includes the carries along the way. [math]\begin{array}{l} 62310721 \\ \underline {00000007} \\ 62310728 \\ \underline {00000080} \\ 62310808 \\ \underline {00000300} \\ 62311108 \\ \underline {00004000} \\ 62315108 \\ \underline {00040000} \\ 62355108 \\ \underline {00600000} \\ 62955108 \\ \underline {05000000} \\ 67955108 \\ \underline {20000000} \\ 87955108 \\ \end{array}[/math] Essentially quantum computing works in all parallel mode since quantum mechanics is all parallel

I seriously suggest you read the rules here, ask amoderator if you are unsure, and recast your question in accordance with SF rules. https://www.scienceforums.net/guidelines/ particularly rule 2.7

[math]\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {62310721} \\ {\underline {25644387} } \\ {87955108} \\ \end{array}[/math] [math]\begin{array}{l} 62310721 \\ \underline {00000007} \\ 62310728 \\ \end{array}[/math]

Another member started a project to look for something similar. There is much useful material in this thread for you. I will will draft a further response and add a list of books as requested in due course.

You have a PM

Sorry I am not going to play playground politics here. Have a nice day

Edit to be appended to last post I seem to ahve missed the editing deadline. But no one today (though we now have many versions) would say that the periodic table is wrong or gone because there is so much right with it. The table of the standard model has a long way to go yet since it is younger. Incidentally you might like to know that the periodic table was the first really useful demonstration of the then newly discovered mathematical theory of 'mathematical groups in algebra. They didn't really realise they were doing group theory back then, however in modern times that same group theory muchmore developed has played an very important role in the moulding and remoulding the 'standard model.'

When I learned the particle physics I know most about, the standard model didn't yet exist. Since that time I have seen it appear in very simple form, grow and change many times as it develops towards greater concurrence with observation. Where have I heard that story before ? Well just over 150 years ago chemists and physicists of that time would have seen the 'periodic table' appear and watched it's subsequent growth, revision and concurrence with observation. There were glitches and inconsistencies along the way (there still are some minor ones) sometimes the table structure helped revise incorrect theory, sometimes observation brought about revision of incoorect table entries. But no one today (though we now have many versions) would say that the periodic table is wrong or gone becuase there is so much right with it.

Interesting interactions maybe, but were you selective in your replies ?

The Winchcombe meteorite from a few days ago contains chondrites and possibly simple organics https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56326246

I like that last paragraph as well, even if it is only half true. +1 phi

It is noted in my original reply that the 2009 experiment you linked to does not show physical monopoles. Here is a description of the experiment, note that the opposite pole does exist as I said, but that it is hidden away creating a "quasiparticle that serves as a magnetic monopole analogue." So divB = 0 is currently safe, though as MigL notes (and again is discussed in the table in the article i linked to) if a monopole is ever found it is easy to modify this equations to accomodate that.

1) Magnetic monopoles were not discovered in 2009. 2) Your link is not a true representation of Gauss law of magnetism. It is a modern derivation of it, which does not take into account the fact that the original law, as Gauss experimentally verified it, was only show to be true to a first order. He found that to a first order [math]F \propto \frac{{{M_1}{M_2}}}{{{d^2}}}[/math] That is the force between magnets varies as the product of their pole strengths and inversely as their distance apart. He tested this over distances between 1.1 and 4.0 metres. ref : C F Gauss Poggend An 38 p591 1833 Go and read his paper.

Did you actually read the article by Dr Siegel that I posted ? Experimenters have been 'discovering' monopoles for a long time. The trouble is no one has yet reproduced the findings of any of them so the claims cannot be substantiated.

At room temperatures the normal chemical process is the combination of iron with oxygen, rusting as you rightly say. This chemical process is called oxidation. Since the bulk of the planetary surface iron is near room temperature, it has largely been oxidised over time so the ores are largely oxides of iron (there are more than one). The reverse process is called reduction (which means the removal of oxygen). The chemical which effects the reduction is called the reducing agent. Reduction is largely accomplished by heating the iron to several hundred degrees centigrade in the presence of carbon monoxide. The heating is carried out either electrically or by burning the coal (as coke). If the coal or coke is starved of oxygen in the burning/heating process carbon monoxide is given off. The final temperature of the iron that melts and leaves the furnace is over 1200 degrees centrigrade.

Magnetic monopoles have never been observed. This history (the most up to date I could find - 2019) has an easy to digest explanation by a renouned expert Physicist. Note the string monopoles are simply very long thin strings with a pole at each end so the poles are really well separated. But both exist. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/02/07/the-enduring-mystery-of-detecting-the-universes-only-magnetic-monopole/ Note also that just as 'holes' in semiconductors are not real particles but the net result of the surroundings which can be considered to act as though they were real, it is possible to arrange spins so their combination acts as if it were a single pole.

Good advice in all threads. +1

So no answers to discuss then, just gobbledegook.