studiot

Science recognised many more types of equilibrium than the limited view you offer here. So Science distinguishes for instance stable, metastable and unstable equilibrium in one classification; static and dynamic equilibrium in another, further your system is stated to require two or more entities. What about the equilibrium of a single entity or system ? How does your assertion fit in with these ?

finding acceptable double arrows for chemical equations [math]Fe{\left( {OH} \right)_3} \Leftrightarrow F{e^{3 + }} + 3{\left( {OH} \right)^ - }[/math] [math]Fe{\left( {OH} \right)_3} \leftrightarrow F{e^{3 + }} + 3{\left( {OH} \right)^ - }[/math] [math]Fe{\left( {OH} \right)_3} \mathbin{\lower.3ex\hbox{$\buildrel\textstyle\rightarrow\over {\smash{\leftarrow}\vphantom{_{\vbox to.5ex{\vss}}}}$}} F{e^{3 + }} + 3{\left( {OH} \right)^ - }[/math]

Interesting you should post this the day the BBC publishes this graph suggesting the opposite in the UK. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52361519

A really good bok for your purposes would be Ted Nield's "Supercontinent 10 billion years in the life of our planet." Ted is an expert in the subject, not a journalist. But the book is meant ofr interest amateurs, and you will find his explanations highly understandable. He answers your questions about many things including unbalance. But also critically why Atlantis could not have existed, and many other ideas from the past and today and into the future.

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.

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 ?

There was a short but heartening article on tonight's 10 O'Clock local News . The University of Bristol has developed a new class of totally artificial vaccine and has one ready for trial against Covid-19. The explanation given was that they have developed a suitable base molecule to attach fragments of the covid virus to, in order to fool/stimulate the body's defneces into producing the necessary antibodies.

Mass density ? What theory would that be? The average density of Earth is about four times as great as that of Jupiter, yet the gravity of Jupiter is nearly three times as great as that of Earth.

First and foremost, you are answering the wrong question. The proposal in this thread was not to about flood alleviation per se, but transporting some of the (flood) water from areas where there is excess to areas where there is deficit. There is no requirement for total flood alleviation. Having said that, the two can be linked or combined. Yes there have been proposals, some of which were implemented for extended perdiods of time even several thousand (up to 5,000) years ago. The Harappan ciivilisation was a good example which controlled the waters of one of the great rivers of the world on its flood plain. More recently, the Romans are famous for their aqueducts, some of which are still in use. As I said, there is another point of view and dams are not the only engineering solution (although the Nile flooding has been reduced by such dams in additions to the extension of irrigable land). More recently the Chinese are working on projects to control the waters of another great river. Do you therefore think the Dutch should all move to another country ?

Yes indeed, but there is another viewpoint about this, other than defeatism.

+1 But just think of the business opportunity. Someone is offering to buy your half of the great lakes for more than you value them as.

So would I.

A very good point that also applies to other nations right across the globe. I wish others would think like you. My view is there is a lack of politcal will / organisation not a lack of physical resources to achieve this. If you were dying of thirst in the desert which would you value more A pint of water or a ton of gold?

In the meantime some good news, especially for the OP. Free Fish and Chips for all. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-52047985

I was not thinking about patient treatment, either giving them sunburn or cooking them. I was really thinking about decontamination, for instance whether to turn the washing machine temperature up or expose stuff to the strong sunlight we have at the moment. And I was tryi g to fit into Hypervalent Iodine's one of three threads as requested.

Thank you. +1

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

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.

I am sorry if my diagram confused you. All I did was cut and paste the drawing instructions given by Dima and attempt to use them to draw a diagram. That diagram was the result. I then asked if my diagram correctly showed his intentions but was not answered.

+1 We're back to this again. It never was properly resolved.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51906604 To be tested on volunteers in the US