studiot

BBC report which states the above and looks at possible reasons. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-50631220 Dows anyone have comparable figures for other places?

Here is an example of a metaphysical proposition for you An astute paragraph. Furthermore there is nothing to bar overlap between the disciplines under discussion. (Science, Metaphysics, Meta-metaphysics, Philosophy, Logic etc....) In the event of complete overlap between two disciplines iNow's comment would perhaps apply to one of them.

Not a lot since it implies some serious difficulties with Entropy.

Where does the speculation enter this? What, for instance is the speculation about metastable equilibrium? (Do you consider that physics or metaphysics?) As far as I understand it, the term metaphysics has a perfectly respectable meaning that does not involve speculation. It is mentioned more than once, for instance by J C Maxwell in his famous textbook Matter and Motion

Yes you are correct an I would be interested in your ideas as to how the experimental results might have come about. The results, though sparse, do show a creditable straight line but at double the correct slope. Further the equal concentration EMF is off the expected value by an unusually large amount (0.04 volts), but does lie on the straight line. These two facts about the data seem to mitigate against overvoltage/polarisation effects. But I can also draw a very creditable S shape through the results. I also found a website where a crank was trying to prove his Daniell cell was giving an inexhaustable supply of electrical energy. Strangely his equal concentration voltage was also 1.06 volts.

Nor have I but I agree with your comment. Also +1 both for discussing the title question accurately. My comment is about the meaning attributed to the prefix 'meta', which does not signify 'beyond' but something a bit less distinct. For example 'metastable equilibrium'. So meta-metaphysics means something that is similar to metaphysics, but not quite the same in some way. So I call upon @Devries to clarify please.

A thought about solutions occurs to me. Did you take water of crystallisation into account in your weighing out of the chemicals? http://www.docbrown.info/page01/AqueousChem/AqueousChem5.htm They give 5 for copper sulphate and 7 for magnesium, which is the same as zinc.

V = IR Since V was of the order of 1 volt, what value of current does that make I ? I don't see any good reason why the equal concentration voltage was not 1.1 volts either. But hey, never mind, you have learned a lot and had some fun.

I would respectfully suggest you deal with one issue at a time and defer the question of volume until you have settled that which (to my mind) is more fundamental. What makes you so sure there was a beginning? Why could not reaching back in time be similar to reaching for absolute zero of temperature - you can never get there either the 'curve' is asymptotic (how is your maths do you understand asymptotic?). The closer you go the harder the next tiny increment becomes and each increment is smaller than the last.

I'm sorry but it is a very silly question. Please explain your level in mathematics This is very important since I am assuming you not only know simple calculus such as the meaning of dx/dt but also more difficult stuff since you posted a very difficult differential equation. What do you understand the constant (v0)2 to mean ? What do you understand the variable v to mean ? Not quite, especially since the equation you posted does not contain v (or dx/dt).

Yes, of course. It goes back to the days of Newton and the study of mechanics. 1. Firstly a property called mass is identified for what I think we can all call objects without confusion. This property identifies the attractive force between any two objects as being proportional to the value of this property possessed by each body individually. Note 1. Reasoning by proportionality played a bigger part in Newton's day than now. Note 2 It is interesting to see that the use of proportionality leads to some of the types of property I referred to earlier, most notably the transitive property. 2. A different property is defined by Newton's 3 laws of dynamics which we call 'mass'. and in particular it is the constant of proportionality in Newton's Second Law. We identify this property as the resistance of a body to impressed forces even in the total absence of the gravitational force as already noted. It is called the inertial mass. We do not know why when we take the numerical value of the inertial mass that value works correctly in equations for the gravitational effects.

Invariant. What exactly is that supposed to mean? Do you know the two different meanings of the word mass in Physics?

Didn't take you long to dismiss thousands of years of human thinking by the best in the business. Strange has already observed both that it depends how you define property and how you define mass, which situations both mitigate against a clear unequivocal answer. Momentum = mass times velocity, (since you don't like my relational symbolism I have used the equals sign) So does everything that has momentum have mass? And what about the two different definitions of mass as defined in Physics, which one are you using ? You didn't answer my question before, why not?

I really don't see the issue here. One of the characteristics of 'properties' as defined in pure logic and in mathematics is that the can characterised as including one or more of 1) Reflexive A ~ A 2) Symmetric If A ~ B then B ~ A 3) Transitive if A ~ B and B ~ C then A ~ C The equality property obeys all three of these There are other properties (often called relations) as well https://www.varsitytutors.com/hotmath/hotmath_help/topics/reflexive-symmetric-transitive-properties So how do you think this applies to 'mass' considered as a property? , bearing in mind that there are two entirely different and unconnected definitions of mass in Physics that some accident of the Universe brings into coincidence.

Just spotted this, which may be the problem. I don't know what your resistor(s) were in series with the electrometer but I think the input resistance to the meter might have been to high. 5x1013 Ohms is huge. Can you repeat with something like 10 to 100 MΏ in parallel with the meter? I assume you had selected voltmeter mode?

Good we are getting somewhere. Yes v2 = C gives the velocity of the particle at x = 0; and it is a maximum. Now I hope you know and understand that 1) A single oscillator does not make a wave 2) This equation is not a wave equation. 3) The velocity of a wave is not the same as the velocity of the particles. So this equation gives us the velocity of the particle not a wave. Of course since this is the maximum value this is the place where the particle would first reach the speed of light. (Which is what you asked about) If we write v0 = √C and the whole equation as [math]v = \sqrt {{{\left( {{v_0}} \right)}^2} - a{x^2} - \frac{1}{2}b{x^4}} [/math] we have an equation for the velocity a a function of the displacement, x. Because the square root must not be of a negative number, this places some conditions on possible values of a and b.

How can it be? What about velocity? This is after all what you asked about. Yes, x = 0 means the place where the y axis crosses the x axis. But what are you plotting on the y axis? Again I ask what about velocity? If the particle (call it 'the particle' not 'the mass' to avoid confusion with the mass term, m, in the original equation) is oscillating what is it doing at x=0?

Re-reading the NYT article in the OP reminds me that different folks mean different things when the talk of temperature degrees. The NYT figures were in Farenheit. In many other parts of the world they will be in Centigrade. And of course, the non technical press may well not bother with the units depending upon their angle. So full marks to the NYT for this at least.

Indeed, so what does this mean physically? Is this a maximum or a minimum?

This is ridiculous. Why don't you just answer a straightforward question? What happens in the equation [math]{v^2} = C - a{x^2} - \frac{1}{2}b{x^4}[/math] if if we put x=0 ? Note you may need to refresh the page once to see the result of the mathml formatting.

What do you mean what does the math give? What do you think it gives ? (I already told you it gives you the answer to your original question) What more do you want? Hint what happens if you put x = 0 into that equation? (I also suggest you replace dx/dt with v for velocity)

I offered you some help and asked you a polite question. Was there some reason you did not answer, whilst responding to others ?

Physics, metaphysics or philosophy a good plan would be to test your idea. That is the way Science goes about its business. So to test, Take some space filled with matter, measure the gravity in that space. Remove some or all the matter Remeasure the gravity again. See if there is any difference. Now various scientists since Cavendish first did this have made successively finer measurements and no one has ever detected the effect you describe. How say you now?

Of course not. C is the standard constant of integration (which has to be determined from the boundary conditions).