studiot

Yes welcome back. +1 This is (almost) Eddington's presentation. However his answer to these follow up questions places the 'network' at the forefront ie the most important part of 'reality'. What do you think

Controlled experiments now. Are you moving the goalposts? Please try to be more specific, rather than rambling all over the web, and formulate a specific question that does not need to be reconstructed at the first comment.

How would you propose to gather data to establish correlation without someone doing an experiment in the first place ?

I have just logged in after helping someone with triplet states elsewhere. I must say I have not been attracted to participate in your threads and would not have participated in your last one since it was posted in the manner of someone seeking a fight, rather than help or a discussion about a point that puzzles you. We have other members here who currently start off " I tried to measure the Faraday constant but my results were double what the y were expected to be. Can eanyone help explain this ?" Or "why did such and such textbook use this particular eqaution, I could not find an explanation ?" Anyone looking at these threads anyone can see these members received all the friendly help and discussion possible. Not, as you last posed "I think such and such theory is wrong. (Full stop nothing else to explain"

Gauss' Law says that The total flux through an enclosing boundary of a region equals the strength of the source (or sink) within that region. There is also the trivial case where there are no sources/sinks and therefore the flux must also be zero. The law is a multidimensional version of the relation between a boundary integral and an integral taken over a region. This can be traced to its simplest form which is known as the fundamental theorem of calculus. Did you find your table of vector operations?

You are all correct. See here The Maths I was referring to earlier is called recurrence relations

All the 8 product rules he uses are listed inside the front cover.

Glad you are making progress. So long as you don't get the incorrect impression that GR completely determines motion. It doesn't And it can be difficult to later unlearn a half truth you were told to keep things simple.

I don't know what you want to discuss recursion in relation to ?? When I was young there was a brand of coffee essence that came in a bottle. The picture on the label showed a waiter holding a tray. On the tray was a bottle of the coffee... with a picture of a waiter holding a tray with bottle of coffe on it............ I used to wonder about how many waiters there were. Sometimes it can come to a conclusion. There is a whole mathematical theory of 'recursion formulae'. This used to be a way of solving equations and obtaining tabulated data in the days before modern computers.

Yes, I agree with Ethan, but I think he is skirting round the issue and it would be very easy indeed for a lay person to get the wrong idea. I find this misleading because there may be other forces acting on the object that do not 'curve' spacetime. Yet these forces still influence the motion of the body. Newton was not specific (or choosy if you like) about which forces contributed to his net force , Ethan appears to be. True enough, but other than stating that theya re difficult to impossible to 'solve' Ethan nowhere explains what he means by a solution. Nor does he mention the uncomfortable fact that any solution to any differential equation can have arbitrary things added to it. This is true even of the Newtonian wave equation. Nor does he mention the other (essential) part of solving a differential equation - that of including the boundary conditions to achieve any useful solution.

OK so here is some quick figuring. Harry slope = 0.0415 Joel slope = 0.0015 Nernst equn = 0.012 As you can see Joel only has two points on a much wider concentration range + / - 10 : 1 as opposed to Harry + / - 2 : 1 1

Thank you , John. I did find that article when I was looking and although I think the author did a very creditable job for year 12 (not sue what that is in Oz) I also think he was reading too much into too little information. Was it concordant? Well all the data was pointed at temperature variation as opposed to concentration variation and I haven't extracted the concentration slope at 25oC, I note that the voltage readings were generally above those observations made by Harry. I thought there was not enough comparison to be worth offering here, but but I will look harder over the next couple of days.

So why did you not read my previous post before you replied to it? This implies you consider the prefix to mean beyond, which although I dispute as a populist myth. Please explain to me how the noun 'metacentre' is beyond anything, or the adjective 'metastable' is beyond anything ?

I agree with the second sentence, but not the first. However detailed discussion of these points would be off topic here. I agree with the proposition here, it is a good one. But I cannot see the connection to the example given at the end of the paragraph. Nor can I see any connection to the OP subject. Again I agree with the sentiments expressed at the beginning and end of the paragraph; but not the conclusions about builders of models or the meaning of meta metaphysics. In particular the meaning must hinge substantially on the meaning attributed to the prefix 'meta', as I previously indicated. This implies you consider the prefix to mean beyond, which although I dispute as a populist myth. Please explain to me how the noun 'metacentre' is beyond anything, or the adjective 'metastable' is beyond anything ?

Of course not. You don't need fancy curved demon apparatus. That would not work anyway. Simply cool the gas. You can do this until it becomes liquid or solid, but again it is not necessary. Change of entriopy is defined as [math]dS = \frac{q}{T}[/math] So if q is negative (cooling) then dS is negative. This is the basic reason the Entropy function was introduced in the first place. However, a caveat. That refers (as requested) to the entropy of the gas. There will be counterbalancing changes in the rest of the Universe.

Conditionals are difficult. Do the easy stuff first. Conditionals are part of the 'more'. Was the easy stuff helpful?

'Valent', yes that was the term I couldn't think of, thank you for reminding me. Staff in the NHS are offered the quadrivalent version, patients the trivalent one. Here is another BBC article about one method of creating flu vaccines you mentioned. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/health-50650495/how-do-eggs-protect-us-from-flu Here is a BBC simple article about herd immunity. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/health-48682113/immunisation-why-we-do-it-and-how-herd-immunity-works

I don't know how the 'vaccine' is distributed in the Americas, but in the UK there are two different versions, which can change from year to year as CharonY says. Both versions of the vaccines are cocktails containing (hopefully) immunisation against several different strains of flu. The version given to the general patient population at larger contains fewer strains than the version given to hospital staff. So your mother would have had a different version from her patients, had she chosen to accept it. Personally my reaction to the innoculation is so slight that it is difficult to say whether I have any reaction or not. Certainly I can't see how the balance of risks and benefits don't weigh very very heavily in favour of the vaccination.

There is no need to leave. You will find help here. It is one of the main purposes of SF. The study of language has a scientific (logical) basis. Answering your questions are off topic in this thread so I have started another.

There are some who consider language a scientific subject. Certainly it can be very technical. You might enjoy "The Cambridge Encylopedia of Language." I believe you can get a pdf download for your E reader. Tenses: Some languages (Latin, German, ...) use changes to the endings of nouns to indicate different purposes. English does not do this very much. Most languages (German, French, Latin, Russian .. ) offer a much smaller set of changes to verbs than does English. Although there are only three basic tenses, Past Present and Future, English has many variations on each. These variations often confuse those learning English as a foreign language because the ideas behind them are not well explained. (I learned a bit of Russian at school in 1960 ans was suprised that you do not have a present tense like our verb "to be") Now this must be difficult because English uses a second auxiliary word to modify the meanings of both nouns and verbs. For now I will give one example reason of why English has so many tenses for verbs. Verbs are 'action' words. Actions can be momentary (finished as soon as they happen or are started) for example: John kicks the ball Or they can be continuous or ongoing for example: John is digging the garden. With three tenses there are several possibilities. John was digging the garden (past) but has now finished (present) John was digging the garden (past) and is still digging the garden (present) John is digging the garden (present) and will still be digging the garden at half past two. (future) etc There is more if this is helpful.

Which is why I find the drop in life expectancy suprising.

Surely the number of smokers / as a number or % of polulation has been declining for some decades now?

My tables don't give me anything for Boron Nitride, so you will have to trawl throug very modern articles. Good search terms are Fermi Levels of Boron Nitride https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=727lXYrWJoikUoC6uogO&q=Fermi+levels+in+Biron+Nitride&oq=Fermi+levels+in+Biron+Nitride&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i10i160.1000.8308..8706...0.0..0.972.9484.9j5j1j3j4j3j4......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i131j0j0i10j33i160j33i21.w5c8iCB1P4s&ved=0ahUKEwjKiYCA4pfmAhUIkhQKHQCdDuEQ4dUDCAc&uact=5 Band structure of Boron Nitride https://www.google.co.uk/search?ei=42_lXcK2MPeE1fAP9ciUmAE&q=band+structure+of+boron+nitride&oq=band+structure+of+boron+nitride&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i8i30.52984.55868..57892...0.2..0.170.1562.14j3......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0i7i30j0i13j0i7i10i30j0i8i7i30j0i8i7i10i30j0i7i5i30j0i30j0i5i30.2iHT0ogxWLw&ved=0ahUKEwiCtLb04pfmAhV3QhUIHXUkBRMQ4dUDCAo&uact=5 Can you see where I'm going with this? try also doping B N https://www.google.co.uk/search?ei=rG_lXfnPBN-U1fAP0_aNiAE&q=doping+boron+nitride&oq=doping+boron+nitride&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i7i30j0i30j0i7i5i30l2j0i5i30j0i7i5i30.51262.52462..53248...0.2..0.170.594.5j1......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0i8i7i30j0i13i5i30j0i13i30.NW-OVvtnlHA&ved=0ahUKEwj51e3Z4pfmAhVfShUIHVN7AxEQ4dUDCAo&uact=5 Perhaps also carrier mobility in B N

Thanks. The website of that rag is much less busy and therefore makes it actually readable, unlike our rags that I usually give up on.

Wiki has a good roundup of the properties that have been known for a long time such as its hardness and lubricating abilities. But it sounds like you are interested in electronic uses? It's possible uses as a semiconductor are still being studied https://www.nature.com/articles/nphoton.2015.277 (Wiki give the bandgap values) Does this help as a start?