studiot

Thank you. +1

To amplify Mordred's statement ( +1 ) Mathematically and logically a relation is a particular conncetion between pairs of (mathematical) objects. Equality as represented by the equals sign = is characterised by three properties. Where A B and C are three mathematical objects 1) Reflexivity A = A 2) Symmmetry If A = B then B = A 3) Transitivity If A = B and B = C then A = C These may seem obvious but they are fundamnetal and very important. Another stronger reelation is identity. This is different from equality and should be carefully distinguished. All identities are also equalities, but not all equalities are identities. An easy way to see this is to compare the following [math]{x^2} - 1 \equiv \left( {x + 1} \right)\left( {x - 1} \right)[/math] This is an identity. Note the different symbol. It is true for all x or each and every possible value of x. But [math]{x^2} - 1 = 0[/math] is only an equality. It is only true for certain values of x and not true for many more. To pick up on the remark about chemical equations. You noted that chemical reactions represent a process as well as an equality (mass balance charge balance etc) These are more properly shown with various arrows for this reason [math] \to [/math] etc

At the risk of starting another silly argument, I would like to ask Does anyone have any information as to the effect of sunlight (UV) and heat on covid-19. ? How far is it degraded by these two agents? Thanks for all the information you provided. +1

Clearly they teach a different version of History in your country. If you do not know the story of De Havilland (or apparently Parsons and Turbinia and the famous experts of the that time) or the current British Government specification for emergency ventilators (as broadcast today) for covid-19 sufferers why attempt to devalue others by such comment ? Or do you think this is irrelevent to the discussion?

So ? Remember also that I was offering balance. But if you think Strange was right then What abour De Havilland? What about Charles Parsons ? What about Columbus ? Back to the present. What about the UK government published specification for ventilators ? It has direct bearing on the De Havilland question.

There's good and not so good in this but IMHO it certainly doesn't deserve a downvote. On the other hand Would you also have refused to give Noether a hearing on tha basis that she had no formal qualifications ? Now we have fair and honest balance we can say

The experts tell us that the reason why washing hands is so effective against CV is that the virus particle is held together by a fatty blob. washing with soap/detergent/surfactant attacks this blob and so the virus falls apart. Given this information I was wondering about the possibility of introducing a suitable surfactant into the lungs of seriously affected patients to reduce the concentration of virus and give their own defences a better chance. Pulmonary lavage is not common but has been done for other purposes. https://respiratory-research.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1465-9921-6-138

You had the right of it. "Torque is force times lever arm." Ignoring losses the engine output shaft has cogs solidly affixed which mesh with cogs afffixed to the wheel drive shaft. Both of these are much smaller radius than the wheel itself. The torque transferred from the engine to the wheel is constant throughout (though different for different speeds etc) since we are ignoring . If we call this T then T = Rshaft x Fcog Fcog = the contact or pressure force between the engine cog and the wheel shaft cog. At the wheel the torque is transferred to the road by the friction between the tyre and the road. T = Rwheel x Ftyre friction Since both torques are the same Rshaft x Fcog = Rwheel x Ftyre friction Does this help?

But they will not (cannot) guarantee electrical isolation.

Any fluid or squashy substance, liquid or paste, will not work for you since they do not prevent the metal conductive parts contacting. Since you haven't told us your application here is a solution for certain types of power transistor. https://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/heatsink-mounting-accessories/7128225?cm_mmc=UK-PLA-DS3A-_-google-_-PLA_UK_EN_HVAC+%26+Fans+%26+Thermal+Management_Whoop-_-Heatsink+Mounting+Accessories_Whoop-_-PRODUCT_GROUP&matchtype=&pla-339395015021&s_kwcid=AL!7457!3!413164769885!!!g!339395015021!&gclid=EAIaIQobChMInKmxiLmw6AIVRcjeCh2kYAeQEAYYASABEgJvUvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds This has a thermally conductive/electrically isolating mounting slip and also an isolating sleeve for the mounting bolt. At one time these were made from mica, but now various proprietary artifical materials are available.

1) Thank you. Sadly this means you are not discussing Special Relativity which is all about transformations between frames and you only have one frame. Can you not see that if you only have one frame you only one x, one y , one z and one t and therefore one v ? I suggest you are still trying for an absolute frame. It is very difficult to abandon this idea. 2) Yes the fundamentals. Marcus has put his finger directly on the issue. +1 with a very deep and fundamental point. This is not a valid line element, because it isn’t an invariant. Invariants The whole point about multiple frames is to find an invariant which means it is the same in all frames. There are many possible candidates as I noted. S and ds must be invariant as they form the 'stick and ball' model of events which is totally frame free (ie no frames at all). S and ds stand alone on one side of the equation and the chosen formula stands on the other. They come from different places. The formula side is determined by the characteristics of the frame system chosen and is intimately bound up in what Marcus and Mordred call 'the metric (tensor)' But S and ds are there whether there is a coordinate system or not. Further the choice of the conventional 'four square' formula trickles down from General Relativity to Special Relativity to Newton depending upon circumstance and therefore meets the requirement of complying with observational evidence and testing. So I am sorry you have put a deal of hard work into your development but you have made a fundamental mistake right at the beginning. That is why I am trying to discuss it with you. To save you abortive work. By the way are you any (distant) relative to Robert Gordon (1668 - 1731) of Aberdeen?

Having had to remove many self adhesive labels in my time I have found the simplest method is to heat the label before removal. This strips off the glue with the lable rather well. Different methods of applying heat can be used from a hair drier to hot water. For instance I use a lot of malt and generate usable jamjars clean enough for new food when the malt is used up. Here I wash out the empty jar in the washing up water, then fill it with boiling water and stand it in the washing up water. After about half an hour the label just floats off cleanly, taking the glue with it. If I scratch off the label cold that always leaves a difficult to remove residue. The best chemical solvent I have found for removal is petroleum. This does not damage plastics as acetone (and acetic acid) is wont to do. A dip of a rag into the mower tank and a wipe/rub removes most organic material a treat. But this is best done in the open air and you should always wash the object afterwards.

In what way does this answer my question ? Or if you prefer Ghidion's version which amounts to the same thing. If the velocity as measured in the laboratory frame is v then the velocity as measured in the particle frame is zero. You cannot escape two frames. It has been nearly a century and a quarter since the SR paper and clever folk were thinking about this even before that. Do you not think that in all that time these clever folk and subsequent ones did not give consideration to the issue you are raising ? In fact they thought far more deeply about it than you probably know. They considered justification for 'key assumptions' such as you are making, and the justification for choosing the specific form of the equations. Part of this justification is how and why it fits in with known observations and other known deductions about Physics. Your key assumption is a quadratic. The general quadratic is [math]d{s_2} = + {g_{11}}dx_1^2 + {g_{22}}dx_2^2 + {g_{33}}dx_3^2 + {g_{44}}dx_4^2 + 2{g_{12}}d{x_1}d{x_2} + 2{g_{13}}d{x_1}d{x_3} + 2{g_{14}}d{x_1}dx4 + 2{g_{22}}3d{x_2}d{x_3} + 2{g_{24}}d{x_2}d{x_4} + 2{g_{34}}d{x_3}d{x_4}[/math] What is your justification for reducing it to four or two terms? Or indeed why a quadratic at all ? Why not a modulus or a quintic?

Here is a good article with two ways to calculate the formal charge, one without lone pairs. I can't do any better than this. https://www.masterorganicchemistry.com/2010/09/24/how-to-calculate-formal-charge/

There are various forms of planed or finished specifications. Here is a good guide https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/29617/what-is-the-difference-between-planed-square-edge-timber-and-planed-all-round All finishing will result in some dimensional reduction. So the term "ex 4 x 2" is used to indicate the starting point and the purchaser specifies the final dimensions. There has been a trend since the 1960s to use more finished timber in building. So for instance my 1930s rafters are sawn and 4 x 2 or 6 x 3. The timber is also a resinous fir which resists attack by many borers and fungi, if kept dry. More modern timbers are finished. Partly because the crampon connectors now used bite better into finished timber and truss design has also changed towards more smaller pieces. Moisture content makes a difference to dimensions, most evidently where the modern timbers have been 'treated' after finishing (it cna't be done effectively before) because they alck the natural protection I mentioned earlier.

Once again you avoid answering my question. As to the school playground remark "no it doesn't" I assume that refers to your quote from Professor Blood. He says there is no evidence for particles, but does not rule them out. Unlike you and your other reference. But equally he very carefully distinguishes between waves and wave functions. Wave functions are not waves. But enough of quotes from others. You should post a point of your own to this, using scientific terminology correctly and preferably backing it up with some mathematics.

Did you want to pursue this? I see it links in with your discussion with Hypervalent Iodine.

You asked for substance. I asked you a purely scientific question with exactly zero value judgement content. So how can this be a 'non issue' ? I further note your quote from Professor Blood (which seems to put my view rather well) runs contrary to your stated (scientific) position here in this thread. He, at least, used correct terminology.

In which case you will be able to produce (here) a derivation purely from known wave properties of the observable properties of particles.

It's not laid out on this forum (as required in the rules) That is why I asked the question. How can you say there are any particles and then immediately say that the statement waves are all that exist is compatible? I'm not quibbling I asked a serious quesion which you seem to want to avoid answering. Do you fear that your 'argument' ( you have used this term correctly) will not stand up to the rigour of scientific scrutiny?

Introducing v begs the question As measured by whom ?

Aren't these two sentences self contradictory? Also real" and "exist" I think you are using too many non scientific words.

Pretty obviously not since dS is a function of four independent variables !

No I don't think they do all intersect at a common point. Normals certainly cannot. That is why I asked for proof that they were supposed to.

No, it does not work like that. It is better to think in energy terms than in 'force' terms. Bonding action is not really explained without quantum theory, which is an energy theory. (It's actually easier that way as well). But remember I said 'within the same molecule or ion' The lone pair and the chlorine electron are never in the same molecule. Another thread please e.g. How a lone pair works ?"