studiot

Energy of what ? 'Energy' is not a substance. What is the 'energy' of a single point mass in an otherwise empty universe ? So the question arises "How do you treat the energy of the very first point mass to be 'created out of nothing' ?" Gravitational 'energy' is potential energy or the energy of configuration (of a system). Some of this is released to other forms as a system is reconfigured. This happens through the action of forces (if your view is Newtonian) or GR field equations (if your view is relativistic). Makes one feel like the first chicken contemplating the first egg.

So do you have something specific to discuss ? Remember that this part of the forum (like most of ScienceForums) is for science and technical stuff. There is also politcial section if you want to discuss political aspect. Note you are allowed a total of 5 posts in your first 24 hours to prevent members being bombarded with spam (It works quite well) After that you can post to your heart's content.

+1 Thanks for the response I was hoping someone would try it as I have never put anything on youtube before. It did say something about private and then something about waiting a day whilst it 'processed' when I asked to make it public. That dfay has now passed. But I really don't know what I am doing so welcome all the help I can get.

I have managed to upload a 14 second video to youtube. The person standing on the scale starts quietly at rest to give a still reading. Then raises their heels slowly up a couple of inches and slowly returns back down to rest. The repeats quickly. The scale reading can be seen to drop in both cases. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCwgvQf05SU

But such corrections were made, even before modern astronomy. But don't forget that measurements were/are made using angles, not distances. And all references to positions are in relation to an observer located on Earth. The astronomical system that has been developed assumes astronomical bodies are located on a sphere or spheres which rotate about the Earths axis. In the case of multiple spheres these are thought to rotate at different speeds to acount for the differences between fast moving objects such as planets and slower ones such as stars. But in all cases the actual radii of these spheres, ie the distance to the objects is irrelevent to angular measure. A more important, but finer correction needs to be made to do with what is meant by the 'position' of the object of observable size (diameter). How to we identify the centre of such an object in an observation ? Bear in mind that for most of the history of astronomic observations, the only important observation was about what is known as 'transit' ie the highest point reached by the object in the sky. For any observer the local noon is the time of transit of the Sun. To find the correct. postion astronomers and surveyors use what is known as The Equation of Time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_time

It is a safety issue. If you add concentrated acid to water, the reaction can be so violent that the mixture spits drops of concetrated acid about. This is because the acid heat of reaction heats the liquid in direct contact and can be enough to generate steam which propels the drops. This effect is even more pronounced if you try to do it the other way round ie add water to acid, which is why you should always add strong acid to water, a small amount at a time.

That is not recommended practice. Here is the CDC policy So the policy is to wait 90 days after recovery. The UK NHS mandates a shorter time

What level are we discussing this topic at ? I am suprised at this argument because I think complex numbers are above the level of this question. However I could ask what is the square root of infinity in the extended field of the reals or the square root of 5 in the integers.

scale is really the wrong word as is size, since they both refer to measurements in our normal 3 dimensions of space. consider the following sequence [math]\frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{4} + \frac{1}{8} + \frac{1}{{16}} + \frac{1}{{32}} + \frac{1}{{64}}..........[/math] The sum to infinity of this is 1. That is using successively smaller and smaller intervals as marks on a coordinate axis allows you fit an entire infinite 'dimension' into a length of 1 unit of one of our normal space dimensions. You could say the 'scale' is different or shrunk etc but there is much more to it than this. The lesson to be learned from this is that we are dealing with ratios (of two numbers one from each system), not simple numbers on their own. I will return to the significance of this after my next comment. Now consider a standard trio of three dimensional axes, say x,y,z. This trio of axes can be right handed or left handed, but there is no movement in 3D space (ie any combination of rotations and translations) that can turn a left handed set x,y,z into a right handed set x,y,-z. But if we had a fourth space dimension like the other three we could do exactly that ie we could move our trio about in 4 dimensions and turn a left handed set into a right handed set. So there is something to gain from this if it were tue. Of course observations suggest that we cannot do this and thus suggest that there are only 3 space dimensions available. So what do we have to gain by introducing string 'dimensions' ? Well consider the following again in normal dimensions, just 2 D will do this time for the example. A ship is observed from 3 observing stations and their lines of sight plotted on a chart thus. In theory the intersection of any pair of lines of sight should give the exact position of the ship. So all three lines should meet at one single point. But it can be seen that in my sketch, as in reality, they do not meet like this but form a small triangle pqr, the centroid of which is taken as the actual position. Notice I said small triangle. With better optics we can determine our line of sight more accurately. But there comes a point where the dimensions of triangle pqr are less than a planck length and we cannot do better than this. We then have here a situation where we move from an exact position to a most likely position and probability of position. What is meant by saying that the 'strings' are smaller than the planck length is that we are in the same position as the observers of the ship. Yes we can propose mathematical structures within the string similar to series I showed earlier to give us desirable properties las we did with the extra fourth dimension for our trio of axes. But as with our series we are talking of ratios.

Yes you are nearly right, good catch. +1 -32 is also a square root of the OP wanted to ask, but didn't pose correctly. neonwarrior did however identify his/her problem of taking the square root of (-2)5 = -32 However within the real number system, negative numbers do not have even one single square root.

Alternatively if you want to use brackets to write the square root as the power 1/2 then you must use [math]{\left( {{{\left( { - 2} \right)}^{10}}} \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}} = {\left( {1024} \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}} = 32[/math] Again you must work from the inside out, working out the value of the innermost bracket before applying the out one.

Well dissociation is the noun, which can stand by itself. Dissociative is an adjective which needs something to describe eg 'a dissociative reaction' (although many authors talk of dissociation reactions). Dissociation is a process which you may wish to distinguish from the reaction as only part of the overall reaction which may involve dissociation and other processes. "associatively dissociation. " is totally incorrect as you are trying to qualify a noun with an adverb. I would in any case frown on the correct, but confusing, English associative dissociation. Does this help ?

This is improper use of brackets. and of the square root function. If you are going to say "the square root of" this is incomplete by itself. It must be the square root of something. That something is called 'the argument' The result of applying the function to the argument is called the result of the function. But it must be the whole of argument. So we often put the whole of the argument in brackets. In this case the something or argument we want to take the square root of is stated to be minus 2 to the power 10, So we put all of that in brackets [math]\left( {{{\left( { - 2} \right)}^{10}}} \right)[/math] and take the square root [math]\sqrt {\left( {{{\left( { - 2} \right)}^{10}}} \right)} [/math] Now the question is unambigous and you can work on it using the PEMDAS or BODMAS rules you should have been taught. Note that the rules about brackets are often not included in the PEMDAS statements. Brackets are evaluated from the inside out. You work out the innermost pair of brackets first, then the next and so on. So only Ghideon's second answer to your question is correct as you have posed it. Here is a more complicate SAT question. [math]\frac{{126 - {5^0}}}{{{5^3}}} - {\left( {\sqrt {\frac{{\frac{{32}}{4}*6 - 3\left( {2 - 3*\left( { - 1} \right)} \right) + 4 \div 2 - 116}}{{ - 2 + {5^2} - 32}}} } \right)^3} + \sqrt[3]{{ - 8}}*27 - 12{\left( {1 - 2} \right)^3}[/math] This is worked out for you in fine detail here https://steemit.com/mathematics/@hansenator/sat-math-problem-4-extreme-simplification

You seem not to have picked up my points. The article claims an observed anomaly in the Euler Axes. These are purely mechanical. Gyromagentic ratios and random quantum fluctuations are outside this framework. I noted that both you and the 'prof' mentioned curvature in your discussion. However my point is that curvature has nothing to do with the fundamental sub atomic viewpoint of forces and particles. The relativistic view of gravity is additional Physics and does not have the same effect on the other three conventional members of 'the four fundamental forces'.

They are not dimensions in the same sense as length or time. They belong in a virtual space called phase space.

You cannot have a CPU "just connected to the power", and not connected to anything else. It is the most basic rule of logic circuitry that all connections (inputs, outputs, control terminals) must be conncted to something. If you do not do so then the conditions at the terminals will be indeterminate (not much use in a logic circuit) and may lead to damaging electrical runaway conditons. In fact a CPU has several power supplies, and the power supply itself which provides these is a sophisticated system that brings the power up gradually in the correct order, and after the already mentioned clock signal and other connections are available. Programs are not loaded into the CPU. They are loaded into a memory array. The CPU has what is known as in instruction set. This is basically a map of the outputs generated by possible combinations of inputs. Not all possibilities are used. When all the power and connections are available the CPU is designed to enter a standard state and load whatever is found/presented at the 'input' terminals by the external circuitry.

I am not at all clear what this discussion has to do with a 'fifth fundamental force' ? Firstly I was not aware that three of these forces are considered to be due to curvature of some manifold of any dimension. Secondly what radiative mode ? Again I was not aware that any of the known four forces were able to induce radiative effects in one or more of the other three. For instance in NMR the magentic effect is induced in an external magentic field, not say gravitationa one. Finally I think that the argument of the proposers is that there is some observed observed physical motion of the muons that is not accounted for when all known acting forces are taken into account. This is neither a relativistic nor a quantum effect. They seem to be saying this event is similar to the one which caused Rutherford to say "It is as if you fired a 20 inch shell at a piece of paper and it bounced back and hit you in the eye" or something very similar.

There is a difference between nutation and precession. The article describes the effect as a wobble which implies nutation. Wiki offers the following diagram that shows the difference clearly.

+1

Watched the BBC article on the News tonight. There they said that the result was abnormal muon rotation found by the Fermilab accelerator near Chicago. They also said the effect had been recently confirmed at CERN. From their description I would have said they meant nutation not rotation.

I would like to defer discussion of hydrogen bonding to another thread as it is taking us further and further off topic. The weakest standard bond my copy of Lange's Chemistry Handbook lists is the lithium - Lithium bond at 11 kcal/mol and the strongest hydrogen bond this modern article lists is the formic acid - flouride ion one at 48 kcal/mol (on page 22) https://www.tdx.cat/bitstream/handle/10803/7945/tdhg.pdf?sequence=3Girona But the important point I wanted to make was not the strength if the individual bond but the collective strength of many bonds applied to large molecular aggregates. Yes, most Science texts are expensive, especially working ones. To continue with the mechanical aspect here is some data to review. Don't worry about the forumale, just look at the daigrams and the text and get an idea of how any soil material is made up and behaves as it does mechanically. This will help enormously when we look particularly at clays. I have mentioned the Atterberg limits, but you did not answer my question or the one about vitrification so here are a couple of photos of how geologists and soils engineers test soild for plasticity. I'm sorry I don't have any more time tonight but will come back to it. So here is a website that explains clay from potter's viewpoint , including the subject of my other question - vitrification. https://thepotterywheel.com/types-of-clay-for-pottery/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-56662742 From the BBC 1 hour ago.

You seem to be asking for the rules of logic. There are many. Did you try typing into the search box the rules of logic ? https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=rules+of+logic As you found out Philosophy consider all sorts of other rules of other matters as well. The Stanford Encyclopedia is a sort of Wikpedia of Philosophy. I started you near the beginning and hoped you would find your way round it a bit. Like Wikipedia or Google, the more specific your question the better focused your answer.

https://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html#r

Yes I don't think there are many fridges or freezers on the market without this system +1 You got there before me, but I'll just add my diagram anyway, which shows the back of the device. Most of these have the drip collection and evaporation tray mounted directly on top of the motor to use the small amount of heat the motor generates. The drip tube coming out of the cold compartment is a frequent source of blockage and water collecting inside the device. But the important point here is the word evaporation. I already mentioned that water vapour is invisible in connection with the microwave, which also gives off water vapour despite the Tiitus' protestations to the contrary. Not only this but with typical vapour generation rates for both devices, the vapour will be warm not hot so near impossible to detect by touch. So it is quite reasonable to think that the evaporating water vapour from not only these devices but the rest of the kitchen activities of cooking and washing will disperse and finally condense on that large cold slab formed by the exposed masonry arch. I note from the pictures that there appears to be some scour on the black coating on that region. I also take it that Titus did not blacken the arch at the original refitting, so it was quite possible that an older bodge was concealed under a more complete black coating at that time. If that is the case then no 'cavity rubble' would have been evident at the time of the first refit. Condensation deterioration inside old chimney stacks that have not been used (ie heated) for a long time is a well known phenomenon. The masonry not only provides a massive cold sink but also often as moisture absorbant one to boot. As regards gas televisions, back when the UK converted to natural gas, my brother was heavily involved and had an interesting isuue to resolve. British Gas at the time was legally bound to convert all existing gas devices free of charge. There were some gas powered radios (not televisions as I recall) in the remote North of Scotland that therefore had to be converted. This caused much head scratching at the time.