studiot

Strange, Did you get out of bed the wrong side today ? I quoted exactly where it said that in the opening post (twice now to avoid confusion) So positive is not 90o apart from negative.

A better way in a game (not reality) might be to posit an 'opening zone ' where nature has done it for us. This has already happened with the South Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly , where some solar wind is already getting through. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Atlantic_Anomaly

They can't all be 90o apart from each other If positive is 90o apart from zero and negative is also 90o apart from zero then positive is either 180o or 0o apart from negative.

About as much as a vacuum cleaner can affect an Atlantic gale.

One another, causing potential energy. I also just meant to hand wave away wave functions since most people probably have probably heard of them and not quantum fields. Yeah, it was unnecessary and poorly stated. I can only say that if your previous statement was poorly phrased, this is even more puzzling. Whatever do you mean?

They can't all be 90o apart from each other

No they definitely are not, but they are definitely not probability calculations either, though a probability can sometimes be derived from some quantum expressions. Pressure on what?

It was nice of you to thank me for my reply. Did you follow it up?

Your male friend has decided ? What does the baby's mother think? If and when a coronavirus vaccine is developed would he wish to refuse that ? What about polio ? I don't know what country you are in but part of the problem in the UK was the insistence of the authorities to only offer a coctail vaccine. Many were afraid of the coctail effect, egged on by the then Doctor that String Junky refers to, and refused the MMR vaccine. Sadly there has been a large spike in measles cases in the UK in youths who did not receive the measles vaccine. Measles can be extremely serious in youths of their age (late teens to early twenties) whilst quite mild in smaller children. The cause of Autism is unknown, but recently changed methods of classification and the offer of special funding may well have led to an increase in diagnosis in the UK.

Which nicely illustrates the one point I have been consistently making. It is not a simple life/not-life classification; it is far more complicated than that. Yes it is worth makeing that distinction since life appears to be not one single phenomenon, but a class of phenomena. +1

Yo baby. +1 It was only the minutest nit anyway, I agree with pretty much all you have said. (But surely a sample of atoms could contain only 1 atom ?)

With respect I think you are sidestepping that issue. In 1960 there was already a debate about whether to classify viruses as alive or not. At least most were prepared to agree that there is an issue and to discuss it.

Even if there is only one atom of Caesium left? We don't. The classic example is the second law of thermodynamics,developed in the 18202 and 1830s. By 1880 they were teaching "We don't know why this law is what is is, but it has never been observed to be broken" In 1990 they were still teaching this since no failure had been observed. I fully expect them to still be teaching it in 2090. The longer it goes on repeating a result the more confidence we have in what we know.

Indeed for instantaneous implies a step function for which the derivatives used in the equations do not exist. If you would go learn some mathematics, as has been suggested, you would know this and not try to misuse equations.

Yes it is worth makeing that distinction since life appears to be not one single phenomenon, but a class of phenomena. +1 I have to observe that the little bit of biology I did in the early 1960s gave all of those criteria plus a few more that I forget. But they did not require all life forms to exhibit all of these behaviours. They were also prepared for a fuzzy boundary between life and non life, where they placed viruses for the reasons CharonY gives. I don't see that we have improved on that approach since.

I see you have now used up your 5 posts in the first 24 hours limit. Hopefully you have enough info to complete this and your other similar questions. Come back tomorrow and say how you got on.

Just expanding on your TD (Tricky Dicky) statement.

How about comparing with related questions? Is a ship alive because it carries a coat of barnacles, without the ship the barnacles would not survive. So is a planet alive because part of it contains microorganism with no locomotive capability, but which can change its chemistry dramatically (the Earth would not have an oxygen rich atmosphere without stomatolites) Can part of an object or a whole be alive or does it all have to be living ? What about dead tree branches ? Or can one livinh whole actually conmprise several living organims? For example stomach flora, without which I would have no digestion.

Devil's Advocate

Yes. But there is also a point to my DA observation.

So do I after a good dinner and some whiskys.

Do you realise you require a mass density distribution to do this, not "a body of mass M" and why ?

Several members have already remarked on this. Additionally the need for a crash course in A level and post A level Maths has already been admitted by the OP. Forcing equations of non linear oscillators is definitely a post graduate subject, let alone post A level.

I am looking for a definition that tells me a volcano is definitely not alive since volcanoes seem to me to satisfy both MigL's list plus your growth one as well as the ability to exist in a dormant phase where none of these happen.

Hello Sarah, Emily Violet. When using mathematics in any sort of technical equation it is really useful to be able to say to yourself in plain words what the equation says in symbols. Now your proposed equation in symbols says 4 moles of zinc plus 1 mole of potassium dichromate plus reacts with 7 moles of sulphuric acid to produce 4 moles of zinc sulphate plus 2 moles of chromium plus 1 mole of potassium sulphate plus 7 moles of water. This proposed equation does indeed balance. It forms your master recipe. So the first thing to do is to calculate how much of each sulphate is produce by 1 mole of sulphuric acid. That is the equation right through by 7 4/7 moles of zinc plus 1/7 mole of potassium dichromate plus reacts with 7/7 moles of sulphuric acid to produce 4/7 moles of zinc sulphate plus 2/7 moles of chromium sulphate plus 1/7 moles of potassium sulphate plus 7/7 moles of water. Keep these as fractions for the moment. Now fill in the quantities for 4 moles of sulphuric acid That is multiply the equation right through by 4 4*4/7 moles of zinc plus 4*1/7 mole of potassium dichromate plus reacts with 4*7/7 moles of sulphuric acid to produce 4*4/7 moles of zinc sulphate plus 4*2/7 moles of chromium sulphate plus 4*1/7 moles of potassium sulphate plus 4*7/7 moles of water. You can now ignore the fractions you don't need and work out how much chromium2 sulphate you can get. What do you think will happen to the other reagents, are they in excess?