studiot

At last somethig you and I can agree on. But then you have not answered one of my questions or addressed one of my points. All your responses to me have been about other things.

+1

Interesting question although isn't there hydrogen about in/from water and hydroxides ? +1

I have asked you politely for a simple example, posted here. A moderator has given you a specific instruction to follow the rules with your postings yet you continue to defy and argue with the rules., rather than complying with them. and do so in your other threads as well. I have formally reported this. For your information, anything you refer to on another site may be removed or changed by that other site by the time another member her come to try to read it. This could happen after 5 minutes, 5 hours or 5 years. This forum prides itself that this ensures that, if it is still here in 5 years time, a serious scientific thread will still be intelligible even if the other site has long gone. Scienceforums has maintained this reputation over nearly 20 years, whilst many other sites have definitely bit the dust or changed.

Placer deposits are the result of erosion/weathering and subsequent transport and deposition to an accumulation in another location. There are several mechanisms available. But what does this have to do with the diamonds I referred to, particularly the Eurelia ones ? Do you have any figures that allow you to openly scoff at viscosity variation in very very high viscoscity materials ?

It is to me Please explain what you mean?

Thank you for your summary, it enables proper discussion to proceed. +1 I think there are three separate things involved here. Firstly the proposed fusion reactions/processes. I am not competent to assess these so I hope someone with better knowledge will comment further on these. Secondly the proposed geological results of such a process, suppose it was in action. We must ask the question how does your explanation stack up against more conventional explanations. 1) The Carpathian deep earthquakes. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0040195108002473?via%3Dihub 2) Ultra deep diamond formation and subduction zones. Kimberly is not the only non subduction boundary place these are found. But how long do you think it takes for diamonds to form, and then be brought nearer the surface? Other finds have been in Brazil, Australia, and Africa, but all on the subducting margins beneath the ancient continent of Gondwana. 3) So whilst there may be legs in your process, is it necessary? That does not dismiss the process, just that it may yet be shown to be one of several.

Thank you I have learned something - a new word from this thread. +1

I look at lots of aquaria and that might give me the impression that all fish are brightly coloured and patterened. My friend looks at the fish on the slab in lots of fishmongers and concludes that most fish are white fleshed. Another friend opened the door and looked inside a smokery. He concluded that all fish are yellowy brown. Who is correct ? In other words who has followed the Scientific method to properly gather and analyse evidence? Where is your proper evidence ?

Why do you not post an example here, if what you say is true ?

I think you should refrain from posting this obnoxious nonsense.

If you are able to work with tensors you should be able to take a tensor and post here (not a link to something) a simple example of the alleged discrepancy.

Your own Bible gives the lie to that statement. Seems to me a pretty clear record of antisocial behaviour by the leaders gangsters? of the day. So you do want to tell a Mathematician what an equality is. Wow and goodbye.

Is this another attempt to bash mass production ? Suppose you wanted (to build) a house. Would you make all the bricks individually one at a time or would you think mass production might be advantageous ? Furthermore would you follow the brickmaking instructions in your Bible when you made them ?

Please don't try to tell a Mathematicain what a mathematical theorem or its proof is. Probably the most famous counterexample (do you know and understand this word ?) is "The triangle inequality" which is, by definition, not an equality and was known before Euclid. FYI there are many uses of such mathematical structures in Physcs, for instance the Second Law and The Uncertainty Principle.

Well to continue the themed answer. The OP asked about surfaces, and I was trying to put things into context. I have chosen the plane and hyperplane because their geometries are linear. The plane and hyperplane are perhaps the simplest surfaces. We can build shapes in n dimensions considering intersections of lines, and planes. So we have polygons in 2 dimensions, polyhedrons in three dimensions and n-polytopes in n dimensions. Polygons are constructed from lines of (n-1) ie 1 dimension, but exist in 2 dimensions. Polyhedrons are solid shapes with surfaces constructed from planes. Again (n-1) ie 2 dimensions, but existing is 3 dimensions. Polytopes are shapes whose surfaces are (n-1) flats, existing in n dimensions so a polyhedron is also a 3-tope with 2-flat surfaces. Having got this far we can generate geometry on these surfaces and hypersurfaces. This will be the familiar Euclidian Geometry, or Cartesian Geometry if we involve coordinates. So for instance triangles will have interior angles adding to 180 and areas equal to 1/2 base times height, that will not vary with position on the surface. When we come to curved surfaces equivalent triangles will not be so simple to handle. Also we can generalise polytopes to curved closed surfaces such as spheres and ellipsoids and more and even to more complicated object we call manifolds.

I hope this is not going to turn out to be a sales pitch for the many books and other materials from this character, who died 30 years ago.

All agreed, but John, I'm disappointed, you didn't tell Bartholomew Jones (why do you have to have such a long name to write out ? ) about the Scottish verdict. In point of fact there are three increasing levels of proof required in an English prosecution ( and a different one for civil matters called the balance of probabilities). The Police require the lowest level of evidence to charge someone The Crown Prosecution service requires a higher level to take the case to court reflecting the likelyhood of a successful prosecution. The Court requires the ultimate beyond reasonable doubt for a guilty verdict. It is customary here for someone (usually Strange) to post the cartoon about peer review. I'm going to say +1 for being (I hope as well as appearing) open minded enough to ask a sensible question. In fact proof was not mentioned in you question. To proceed is not synonymous with to prove. In technical terms 'Theory' may include several 'Principles', which are the scientific equivalent of mathematical proofs. An axiom or principle is a statement offered without proof but in the knowledge that it is not known to be contradicted within the conditions of application. All too often the conditions part are forgotten, particularly in arguments (of the disagreement type). I have a great deal of sympathy with the point of view emboldened. For instance shoe manufacturers (or is it shoe retailers?) have stopped offering half sizes - which is very difficult for me as I am a half size. Definitely a retrograde development. Other clothing retailers do the same thing with other garments. But my point to you is that, once again your approach is an all-or-nothing (binary) approach to something which has a scale from good to bad or black to white with many many shades of grey in between. It is therefore possible to proceed too far in either direction away from a comfortable middle way. And the greed of some humans feasts on this to the detriment of all others.

What all 20 ? What subject are you studying that you do not know the answers to any of them ? How about your thoughts on question 17 ? Did you really not understand it ? This is simply a matter of common sense, although it contains some points of chemistry worth discussing I see that HOI and Chenbeier have done question 1 to death, it really is a chemistry question. +1 apiece.

Gosh you have got a lot of geometry and topology into this question. So there is a huge amount of terminology to master. Starting with the sequence of linear (= flat) objects point, line , plane, hyperplane ....... subsequent flat objects are also called hyperplanes or n dimensions or n-flats. point, zero dimensions line, one dimension plane, two dimensions hyperplane three dimensions, for more we do not distinguish further names just an n dimensional hyperplane. We can follow David Hilbert and build flat or Euclidian geometries of n dimensions using these. One of these objects of n dimensions divides or separates a space of (n+1) dimensions into two regions, both of (n+1) dimensions. So a point is a 0 dimension object that divides a line into two lines A line is a 1 dimensional object that divides a plane into two half planes A plane is a two dimensional object that divides 3 space into two regions (region is a respectable word for a subdivision of a space of any dimension) So the n dimensional object forms a boundary between the regions. Curved objects come later and involve more concepts and terminology, depending onif your interest is geometry or topology.

That's a heftly 7 inch lump of 1 inch rebar you have shown. It doesn't look stainless, which would offer good resistance to hydrochloric or sulphuric acids. But stainless rebar can look dull like that. It is not higly polished like cutlery. It looks more like standard high tenisle steel with the normal black oxide coating. The black oxide is what give cast iron its high corrosion resistance. You would have to expose clean metal to get the solution going. Even then, if it is a high silicon steel it might still be resistant. Why do you need to dissolve such a large amount ? Would some shavings not do ?

Is there such a thing as a 'perfect human ' on these scales ? In actual fact don't we all appear somewhere on them ?

Kirchoff's 1860 law stated (states - it is still 100% true today) The power radiated by a body in thermal equilibrium equals the power absorbed by that body.

Once again, in general terms autism isn’t a condition that needs to be “cured” - Due to the shortage of interesting (to me) threads at the moment I had a look at this one, as I have a passing interest in the subject. What a sad suprise! I must say this is the first time in the last 8 years I have considered handing out a negative rep. After restraining myself I decided to content myself with a positve one to Markus (+1) for his measured response. Autism is not a disease or condition to be medically treated, any more than is pregnancy.

Ah yes Von Neumann +1 Here is a series of 35 short lectures on Von Neumann Algebras. http://people.math.harvard.edu/~lurie/261ynotes/lecture1.pdfhttp://people.math.harvard.edu/~lurie/261ynotes/lecture1.pdf The link is to the first one, change the number to get the rest. This is an excellent series in its range and content and in the way it breaks the subject up into small digestible packages. enjoy. Note a Borel algebra is the same as a Sigma algebra