studiot

And angle ?

How does Pi work with this or surds??

They were all darn good yarns and rather frightening to boot. Writers had to rely on good stories in the first place in those days, before CGI.

Yeah, +1 I have heard of constructivism, but not intuitionism. Not sure of the difference or why two different words are needed.

Since the volume of of fluid is taken as constant The left hand side tells you that the time rate of heat flow into the fluid in the bath time rate of heat flow =( mass of fluid times specific heat) * ( the time rate of change of temperature of the fluid) time rate of heat flow =(volume * density * specific heat) * (the time rate of change of temperature of the fluid) time rate of heat flow = [math]\left( {V{c_f}{\rho _f}} \right)\left( {\frac{{\partial u}}{{\partial t}}} \right)[/math] This is not part of the conduction equation of the bar. But the conduction equation of the bar does give the quantity of heat passing through any cross section of the bar, as a function of the distance along the bar. Formally it says that the time rate of heat flow through a section is proportional to the area of cross section and the temperature gradient at that section or time rate of heat flow through a section = (a constant) * (area) * (temperature gradient) time rate of heat flow through a section = [math] = \left( { - {K_0}} \right)*\left( A \right)*\left( {\frac{{\partial u}}{{\partial x}}} \right)[/math] The constant K0 is called the thermal conductivity and taken as positive, from its use in other situations. Since heat flows from a higher temperature to a lower one this introduces the negative sign. Equating these rates of heat flow leads to the equation shown. The hint tells you to find a solution to the for the temperature u at x = L.

US gallons or Imperial gallons?

Also the Andromeda Strain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Andromeda_Strain

More or less, but the brain of course plays a major role. Thank you for your reply. I'm sorry if I was not clear enough, I don't think you quite caught my meaning. In Thermodynamics certain property variables such temperature are only defined (ie they only exist) if they have the same value for each and every part of 'the system'. A system that has different 'temperatures' in diferent parts does not have a temperature. I was suggesting that free will might be a similar property variable in the appropriate discipline. Not exact the same, but similar. So an entity that is capable if multiple different response to a single stimulus cannot then have 'free will', since part of that entity opposes the response or intent of another part.

Personally I favour a stream of warm air particles. They are indistinguishable from ordinary air particles.

I am not familiar with either of those models. However I do know that my old Ti-60 works entirely differently from the modern school calculators, and I have an even older National Semiconductor that works in true Reverse Polish. I can't get on with my daughter's Casio fx-83 (as bought in a supermarket) and she doesn't like my Ti-60.

This is homework which implies it is a learning exercise of some sort. Part (some say the best part) of all such learning excercises is to find out what you can't do as well as what you can.

Moving this lost the post I just made. In general the loner the wavelength the harder it is to focus and the alrger the emitter will be. Since you don't want much heat, what is wrong with a laser, the one out of a CD player will do.

There was also a sequel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Andromeda_Breakthrough And another serial another also around that time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Pull

+1 Which is why the article is way too narrow in its persective. It is too narrow in view of mathematics being purely about numbers and number theory It doesn't mention variables and dependence/independence It misses the link between time and mathematics in economics, thermodynamics, chemistry (each of which offer special relationships)

Unfortunately 'the truth' is another of those slippery concepts, like 'God'. It has a variable meaning depending upon circumstances, both in the originator and the observer. One big problem with religion is that it surrounds itself with a complex network of such concepts. ScienceForums is currently debating at least two other subjects involving the much more restricted meaning of scientific and mathematical truth. This I agree with it can also be a very big problem

Is the question of Free Will capable of simple rational analysis, leading to a simple yes or no type answer? We are historically and culturally conditioned to seek simple answers. Indeed we often abstract a quality or property from the world around us to attribute to something with varying degrees of success. Is the world round ? Leads to the abstraction of a perfect circle. Did we really mean a perfect circle or would a lesser 'roundness' do? What is the temperature of that bar of steel? Classical thermodynamics (and common sense) requires that bar to have one uniform unique temperature for the question to have meaning. One end in ice and the other in a furnace will not do. In part our success in answering such questions depends upon our ability to abstract, isolate and encapsulate such qualities and their definitions. So back to Free Will. Is this a thing like thermodynamic temperature unformly possessed of the whole organism or being ? Does it have to be possessed by each and every instance of that organism Could you put you hand into red hot coals or seize a bar or red hot iron. Some people have been know to do this, but others not. Does part of the being fight 'free will' of another part ?

Yeah, the poster's other contribution in the burning cola thread seemed a bit disconnected as well. As regards spammers more generally one good result of Covid is that the incidence of unwanted spam phone calls has reduced to a trickle, as as spam Email.

A suggestion. Your diagram reminds me of something called a Venn diagram - Have you heard of these ? The point of a Venn diagram is that you draw a circle round everything you want to contain it and then a square outside that to contain everything else. You may make the diagram more fancy by drawing several circles, each containing different collections of things you want. These may overlap. The thing is that the circles are boundaries between your collection(s) and the rest of the universe (the reset of everything that is) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram Now the problem with this, for you to think about, is that boundary. Is there a boundary to the Universe and if not how does that work? I see you are new here so be advised you are allowed up to 5 posts in total in the first 24 hours.

Thanks for saving me +1 (The post concerned looked like a valid animation of a tetrode amplifier.)

This thread just appeared in the activity list and the trash can so I cannot reply. Can someone explain what is wrong with it please?

Now this particular study suggests coal rather than oil which could also be the case since they burn similarly. Burning oil produces less carbon dioxide than coal but burning enough of either (or both) for hundreds or thousands of years would certainly explain the decrease in life and how it was kept at such low levels. Firstly a complaint. Not your fault exactly but the link you gave want me to join their club or somesuch so I cannot view it. However you had the foresight to post a short extract +1 Now let us look at the geological basis of the idea. The Carboniferous period, when the coal was laid down, immediately preceded the Permian. Say 370 to 280 mya and lasted about 90 million years. The Permian itself then lasted a shorter period of roughly half that duration, from 280 to 235 mya This was followed by the Triassic ( the first of the Mesozoic periods; the Mesozoic lasted until the dinosaurs) The actual mass extinction you refer to took place over a very short period of time at the Permian-Triassic boundary. It is known as the P-T boundary event. Now the Carboniferous was a relatively settled period unlike the following Permain, when the massive Siberian lava flows occurred. So the Carboniferous conditions were right for the steady laying down of the sedimentary coal measures etc. And it is true that the Permian saw some spectacular vulcanicity. The Mesozoic era also accounts for about 70% of the world oil formation. So question 1. Why in 45 million years did the Permian not burn up all the coal , if this was a feasible option? Question 2 Why did life flourish during the Permian and why did the mass extinction wait until the P-T boundary to happen ? Question 3 How did the oild which was largely formed after the P-T event cause the P-T event?

I am reporting responses for blatant promotion of falsehoods, to whit the denial (3 times like St Peter) that the opening post contained the circled words in my screenshot. Also for failure to answer valid technical questions about other presented material.

Both emitter and receiver couple to the same radiation field; they just label events in spacetime slightly differently, because their coordinate systems are rotated by some hyperbolic angle. Yeah I've been trying to say this in a simpler way all along. +1 James has totally ignored the first time I said this. James isn't only flying in the face of experimental experience, he has posted self contradictory 'maths' as well. Please note that since the relative velocity v does not appear in any of these equations, the presented maths clearly implies that the 'so called' effect is independent of v. This contradicts the initial premise of a receding light source. This is also why he has been unable to put numbers into his 'maths' to answer my very simple measurement question. (I actually carried out the measurement in question about 1980)

Aw you spoilt the surprise.

So let me try this with some figures. A Wild distomat DI 10 laser distance meter has an emitted power of 0.08mW at a wavelength of 875 nm. What is your predicted change in wavelength when used to measure the length of the Obridge Viaduct at a target 360m distant?