studiot

Like this ? Maybe @Sensei has some ideas ?

Confucious he says "He who is downright rude and dismissive to all around him soon ends up with egg on his face". You said Which means that all biological life (whatever that tautology means) ........ and added the rider '100% true'. Not some life or even nearly all life but 100% of life will encouter difficulties with survival. The dinosaur mass extinction (K-T event) was not even the greatest mass extinction in Earth's history - that distinction goes to the Permian - Triassic (P-T) event. But neither was 100% So life survived.

Perhaps joigus cannot dispute the correctness this statement, for he is a Physicist. But I can because it is just plain wrong. To the best of our knowledge Paleoclimatology tells us that the Earth has only had its present nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere for less than half its existence. And the oxygen was not a component of the original atmosphere. The oxygen was actually released as a waste product from lifeforms that existed before oxygen for example stromatolites. Naturally the climate was also different then. So if the climate changed again, so would 'biological life', but it would probably still thrive, just as it has done before.

Hey Seth, I was trying to give you the opportunity to expand on your statements. That is to note that H and G are both state functions, ie they refer to the system itself, and in themselves can be (are) defined as postive. But ΔH and ΔG ie changes of H and G are not, they refer to processes not the system itself. Also I should have said sign conventions ( I did consider going back and adding the s but I was too lazy) since the difficulties arise as there is not a single sign convention in fact, but two in play simultaneously. This is because you ahve to have a convention to determine whether you are talking about work done on the system or by the system And a second convention to determine which you call this positive and which negative.

Now you are just trying to be a smart-alec. The rest of your post completely avoids the vicious false accusation you made upon myself. This is a false accusation that is not borne out by my few posts in this thread which suggest I came to both learn and discuss. I started by declaring that I was no expert and offering what little I knew about the subject for discussion. You have just responded to a later post where I thanked you for something I have learned.

This is a false accusation that is not borne out by my few posts in this thread which suggest I came to both learn and discuss. I started by declaring that I was no expert and offering what little I knew about the subject for discussion. You have just responded to a later post where I thanked you for something I have learned.

Actually joigus, the Oxford English Dictionary makes it quite plain that the verb 'needs' can be applied to a person or a thing way back to medieval times. There is no special distinction so your example is perfectly correct common English ie not very special. It is, however worth pointing out to the OP that on a technical site like SF, many words do have a special technical meaning. And many disagreements and misunderstandings arise from folks not being careful to distinguish. I do not know of a special technical meaning, so I think that your use of the common Englisn 'needs' is fine, but it would be unfair to knowingly misdirect someone whose first languauge is not English by misuse. Even someone whose Engish is as impeccable as that of joigus.

Actually, thank you. For introducing me to a new term I had never heard of. I take it that is what you are doing here in particular to a group of individuals.

What sign convention are you using here please ?

Did you hear the one about a psychologist ? She joined a Science club and was obnoxious about Science just to laugh at the mayhem she could cause. Goodnight all it's past the witching hour here.

+1 🙂

One thing you can say for the Laws of Physics. They hold good in China as well as California. The DSM doesn't hold in most places ouside the US. In fact in the short series of lectures I attended they took pains to point out its shortcomings.

I have been wanting to use the acronym LOL for a while so here goes. I think that coming to a Science forum and opening a question in the Physics section entitled Questions on Thermodynamic Free Energy and then complaining there are other uses for the word Law is equivalent to me taking my book of Mathematical Tables off the shelf, opening it at the table entitled "squares, roots and reciprocals" and complaining that it doesn't show the sine of the argument (do you know what an argument is in mathematics ?). You say you have an interest in Earth Science. Do you know what the word Law stand for in the home of Earth Science, Scotland ?

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.