studiot

Based upon this it looks like floating of ice is not a chemical reaction because it is not causing any rearrangement of atoms. But in case of rotting of milk we have rearrangment of atoms, so it is chemical reaction. Is it correct? rotting of milk (chemical reaction): formation of acid i.e taste of milk becomes sour floating of ice (chemical reaction): none, but there is a physical change i.e. ice is melting. Interesting definition that is nearly correct, but not quite. Chemical reactions involve the breaking and/or the making of chemical bonds between the atoms. It is not necessary for new substances to be formed, although it often happens. This will normally involve rearranging the atoms, but there are rearrangements, such as the phenomenon of creep, that do not involve the breaking or making of bonds. Floating of ice is a physical phenomenon, but melting or solidifying , vapourising or condensing are chemical reactions as they involve breaking/making of bonds. Does this help ?

You forgot Black body definition Kirchoff 1860. Stefan's law 1879 It's one of the Princeton Mathematical Physics series of Monongraphs Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics G W Mackey 1963 (Professor of Mathematics at Harvard) I know it's now over half a century old itself, but I don't have any newer ones from an underlying pure Mathematics point of view, all my later stuff is via Physics or Chemistry. For example The mathematical Principles of Quantum Mechanics By D F Lawden (Professor of Maths Univesity of Canterbury New Zealand) leans much more to the applied side, although it does include much more detail about quantum angular momentum,which of course is not included in Schrodinger.

Modern ? Black body 1860 : Compton 1923 : Bohr 1913 : Davisson 1921 a century to a century and a half ago. Here is something more modern, at least into the second half of the 20th century. It is set in terms of more modern maths than Schrodinger,, Hilbert or Heisenberg had.

If that was directed at me I see no reason for any sort of war, except perhaps the Jersey Battle of the Flowers. A while back I asked the OP if he understood the significance of 1001. This only has meaning if we first state the base (in my case 10, in your case something else) and then it still requires us to agree the meaning of each place. Furthermore if we have two such numbers say 1111 and 1001 we have the question of the convention about the meaning of putting these two together. Do we just add them ? If so by what rules ? Or do we concatenate them to form a new number 11111001 ?

Flu vaccination in th UK starts in September and only the stragglers (like me) are left until December. I got mine in early this year at the end of November. I never notice any change after the vaccination , but my wife always feels 'off colour' for a few days and needs at least some paracetamol. We both still do it though since neither of us has had the infection for years. I'm equally sure it would be wrong to pretend that there will not be a range of reactions to the covid vaccine and that many will notice some mild effects. Absolutely sure this this far outweighed by the benfits like a ton to an ounce. As to whether the Pfizer vaccine is dead virus or fragments of virus is a bit of a pointless argument. If I gut and fillet a dead fish for the table, it is still a dead fish (but with bits missing). If I hold a hog roast the thing turing on the spit over the firepit in the garden is still a dead pig (but with bits missing). But if I put a loin joint of pork in the oven, that is fragment of pig. I understand the difference between the Pfizer and Oxford vaccines are the difference between my fish or hog roast and sticking the legs off a pig onto a turkey.

There have been more than 2 in the UK alone, and these were for the dose 1 stage only as no dose 2 stages doses have yet been dispensed. However the incidence and range of reaction is incredibly low compared to that of the normal annual flu vaccination. I can't speak for anywhere else as I have no information there. Possibly those in Scotland were not as severe, certainly no one has failed to recover from them.

Vaccination hasn't reached us lowly peasants yet, so this is the best I can do. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-55315802

Kinda depends what your complaint is. And also what you have already said to the supplier and who the supplier actually was (ie Samsung or Currys or ..?) It is always best to formally, but politely, follow the letter of the (consumer) law so that you do not give away some of your consumer rights from the outset. The appropriate phrases are. I am cancelling the contract for a full refund as the goods were not of the quality demanded and/or suitable for the purpose sold. I like to add I may choose to simply buy another working one from you with the refund. This, of course, is then a new contract. If you do not start with this you may allow the supplier to 'send away for repair /replacement or have to accept a credit note or other lesser result. Other actions you can take are the trading standards office. They tend to be slow and prefer larger target cases than individual. I have also found that proposing to write to (or actually do so) the chairman in Japan about the events and the company image in the UK often gets great results. Particularly with Japanses companies who are very image sensitive. The UK subsidiary management often feel that it is their place block complaints, rather than deal with and sort them.

Yes indeed all very true But there are other considerations as well as the bare base number, we take for granted and therefore tend to forget. Firstly there is the positional notation we use today. For programmers who often split or group digits together to form nybbles, bytes and words etc there is also this grouping convention At machine level there is also the question of what is used to represent the 1 an 0 symbols. There are several options here, rather more than MigL's on/ off option.

Youtube is not a formal scientific channel. You should be barking at me, not Koti. Especially as the thread I referred to started out the in same way as yours. If all you want is commentary on the video then It is a poor quality video that cannot be said to show anything in particular at all. It is meaningless rubbish. So my advice is to forget it. However there are many good videos and presentations on Youtube offering material about Science and many other matters, often made by amateurs and/or enthusiasts on a particular topic. I totally agree. +1 But sometimes there are good and genuine attempts to demonstrate something scientific to the best of the producers' ability. For instance the Unilever series of videos in Physics and Chemistry.

I don't know what you mean. There has been an ongoing cycle of improved theoretical abstraction resulting in improved technology resulting in refined abstraction resulting in..... since time immemorial. I think it would help you enormously if you recognised the idea of abstraction and the abstract and its connection to the physical world. I think it (not) understanding this underlies your (current) difficulties in numbers/bases/units/dimensions/powers and probably other areas.

There has been a great deal of mathematical development in axiomatic QM since the workers you mention. You should look up the work of your countryman, V.S.Varadarajan, who died last year. He proved one of the 10 Mathematical axioms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veeravalli_S._Varadarajan

Anyone remember this long thread by a flat earther, youtube videos and all ? It took us ages to realise the promoter was not making a genuine scientific point .

There is good evidence that Man's first number system was base 1. The story of how we got from there to here (today) is quite interesting.

I was suprised that we didn't see any great increase in American brands I was used to seeing when I worked abroad. Supermarkets in the UK all have their own brand and also sell products from a huge variety of manufacturers. They have also extended their range over that last few decades, from mainly groceries to pretty well everything.

I think discussion should start (and then finish) with a definitive statement for the term 'fragment of energy'. Energy is not a thing that has embodiment of itself. It is a property that things possess by virtue of their configuration, situation or activity.

They used to but Wal-MArt sold them off in October this year. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cn54ndxy92yt/sainsburys-asda-merger They started as Associated Dairies of Leeds (in the North of England) a long time ago. By the 1980s they had grown to be the largest supermarket chain in the UK but they then lost their way and were bought by Wal-Mart I think in the early 1990s This acquisition was never a big success for W-M and they have been trying to sell it of for several years. The UK Mergers and Monopolies Commission prevented a previous sale to a rival supermarket chain, I think the new owners are venture capitalists.

Towards the beginning of this thread I asked you a simple question you have yet to answer. This question was intended to help you think about your question on bases. In modern times we enjoy a very efficient representation of numbers the means the 'base' is the count (number or integer if you like) of different symbols that are required to represent any number value whatsoever, when used in combination. So base 2 has two symbols :- 0,1 and base 10 has 10 symbols:- 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 The next number in the base 10 system is represented by a combination of two existing symbols as 10. Using only two combined symbols will take us up to 99 and then we require to start combining 3 symbols for 100 As soon as we start combining symbols we also require a convention to distinguish between say 32 and 23. This modern convention is one of the strengths of the modern system. However it was not always so For instance Roman and earlier civilisations used fewer symbols and as a consequence they representations contained more than one base, which made their arithmetic much more difficult.

Actualy no, calculus is definitely advanced but there is much more to it than you imagine. Unfortunately, thread you started about it a few weeks ago was never finished and it seems has already been forgotten. Once again I ask you to stop introducing irrelevent material and concentrate on the answers to the question you actually asked. Calculus has nothing to do with numbers representations or most of number theory.

I'm disappointed that is all you have to say about John Cuthber's useful and bang on topic answer (+1 John). That said, if you really don't know the answer to these questions you have made do you know what onethousand and one looks like ? Can you write it down ? To add to John's and swansont's comments Not only did Newton invent the differential calculus (which has no relevence to this thread) he also invented the calculus of finite differernces, which does. Finite differences are vital to constructing and using tables of numerical values (in whatever base you choose) as before artificial devices were made to do the this work they were the only way to calculate. Obviously someone had to work out these tables in the first place and Newton was the boy that made it possible. It is also disappointing that you are running round again spinning off question threads without ever dealing with or properly absorbing the answers. Slow down and catch yourself up.

Then why are you talking about selection bias, which is quite a technical matter ? If you are a non scientist seeking explanation of stuff you are reading in some of these reports, there's nothing at all wrong with that. Plenty of folks here will happily help with that. I think the government study I picked out looks well thought out, not too technical and offers many useful points for considerations and discussion. Would you like to do that ?

It is known that the covid virus affects people in a variety of ways and to a large range of severity. Experts are now beginning to uncover the genetics behind these differences. So one might reasonably expect there to be a corresponding range of 'protection' life given by the vaccine. The vaccines themselves (ther are several types) work in different ways as well. The Pfizer vaccine is basically dead virus. The Asta-Zeneca vaccine is basically a different virus with bits from covid tacked on. The reason for the original lower effectiveness of the Asta vaccine is thought to be because the first dose, if too stron, prepares to body to reject the carrier virus and never gets round to responding to the added covid.

Careful or our numerologist will introduce the golden ratio Pi.

Just to add a little here since swansont didn't bring out the very important point that since the process starts with hydrogen fusion is necessary to reach heavier elements. As MigL observes this process yields a net amount of energy up to iron and then as swansont onserves energy must be added to proceed. This energy is not available in ordinary stellar processes. It can only occur in novae and supernovae. When these occur, heavier elements are created from fusion, theya re often radioactive and start to decay by fission to other elements or isotopes, many of which are heavier than iron. I think, but I am not totally sure, that high neutron fluxes also play a part in some transmutations. Though I am unsure what any of this has to do with any version of string theory. That about sums up the OP nicely. +1 Back to the thinking cap @physicsxstrings I think you should try to produce something a great deal shorter and less ambitious but far better thought out. That approach could lead you to make some real progress.

Thank you. However a quick reading of the government comparison of studies (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6240172/) shows three things 1) The study compared many sources not only cell phones. 2) The study looks at many situations not just clinics. 3) The study appeared to be about male infertility only. What was you impression of this study ?