studiot

Congratulations on looking at the 1905 paper itself. Note that the route Einstein took was to start with consideration of time and thus simultaneity (not space, but separate from space). This was the beginning of the development. The few paragraphs leading up to this point you show are very important.

Only some? can't think of any of our lot I'd call honest. At least Canada managed to complete an election. Not like our unseemly shambles.

I doubt it. School relativity always has some kind of underlying 'absolute rest frame', even though it is not always explicitly stated. Full blooded Galilean Relativity has no absolute rest frame. They knew this, even in Newton's time, but chose not to go there. Are you not speaking to me? I have posted several simplified answers for you to point you in the right direction. As regards your discussion of 'the medium' and Swansont suggesting you consider the difference between sound waves and light (waves?) Professor Beiser has written this little piece especially for people like you. Note his version of the postulates is a modern professor version that I mentioned already. The arrow denotes the beginning of the two boats scenarios in the first slide.

Are you referring to Fermi energy uF [math]{u_F} = \frac{{{h^2}}}{{2{m^*}}}{\left( {\frac{{3N}}{{8\pi V}}} \right)^{\frac{2}{3}}}[/math] where m* is the effecitve mass of an electron in a metallic crystal and is positive and N/V is the density of valence electrons. or the Hall effect where m* can be negative for anomalous materials? I'm sorry I still haven't found an easy way to increase the size of my MATHML lines. The bl___y input editor keeps resizing downwards whatever I do. A much simpler example comes from fluid mechanics and Stokes' formula for the effective mass of a bubble rising in a fluid. This is inertial and based on Newtonian mechanics, replacing the mass in Newton's second law with an effecitve (inertial) mass so that.

GR does not constitute the whole of Physics. Explanations of certain processes successfully employ the concept of effective mass, which can be negative.

If you really want to follow Einstein's exact route ( no reason why not) Then you should bear in mind that he did not choose the easiest one. This situation is common. Many famous theorems and conclusions were arrived at by more arduous routes than the ones we use today in hindsight. So you need to read what Einstein actually wrote, not how some professor now presents the theory all neatly packged up and gift wrapped.

Not really. Here is a simple illustrative example of the difference between invariant and constant. Newton's Laws will do. Consider a block sliding over a table top. Part of the table top is polished, part has a cloth and part has a high friction baize cover. Newtons law of friction says that the frictional force experience is proportional to the normal reaction (= weight) of the block. Proportional means that the frictional force is a constant times the weight. But This 'constant' has one particular value all the time the block is on the polished surface. But the constant has a different value on the cloth and the baize. So the constant is not invariant. But under all these conditions Newton's Law of Friction is invariant. Invariant means the same, or has the same form. [math]F = \mu N[/math]

Indeed so what? The great artesian basin is almost as far below sea level as the tarim basin is above, both distances simlar to the height of England's highest mountains. But the difference is that there is surface water farming and so on in the GAB (google has lots of pics). But the Tarim is a desert. So no surface water, no farms, just sand dunes (again google has lots of pics) Carbon sink is really another journalistic term but has value as a general term that "carbon dioxide falling with rain does not". Science is about appropriate accuracy. But why are you arguing about minor issues whilst completely avoiding the main subject in this thread ? Which was, to refresh your memory, Being dubious is fine and scientific, But ignoring the answer provided to your specific question several times is not.

I can't see what this has to do with the title sunject of this thread and its opening post. The speed is not clear in the papers, but they do say that they are using an electron ebam with energies in the 50 to 800 Mev range. So I calculated and posted what I thought might be helpful to the discussion viz the range of electron velocities resulting from these accelerating voltages. As you can see the Newtonian calculation leads to a significantly greater speed than c, whilst the Relativistic calculation shows how squeezed up velocities are at that level but the range remains less than c.

Please, you started your involvement with this discussion so well, as I already noted. So don't spoil it by drawing you 'Science' from illeterate Daily Mirror journalists. Carbon dioxide does not fall with the rain. Some aerial carbon dioxide does indeed dissolve in rainwater. But then it is no longer carbon dioxide. It is carbonic acid. However we are talking about desert conditions. And in my school a desert was a place where there is little or no rain or surface water in general. The process I am offering is entirely separate from this and will not work well in say the gault clay in the London basin, despite the plentiful rain in that region. As to the quantity of water contained within the rocks, this has been a matter of debate for more than a century. As 2/3 of the surface of the Earth is covered with open ocean, to a depth of some miles in some places (google tells me the average depth is 3688 metres), This leaves only 1/3 of the top surface of the Earth to hold both rock and water. Clearly there is more water not in the rock in this bit. So if, and it is a big if, there is any more water, that water is a very long way down and outside our discussion. Furthermore none of such deep water will be in any sort of contact with atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Nor do I.There is no such process as 'suction' in the known universe. Suction is just a convenient fiction, like centrifugal force. The proper desciption is usually best, IMHO. In any case I was not referring to suction. I am not sure you have caught the mechanism I was referring to. In the diagram consider two vessels, both open to the atmosphere. One contains a substantial amount of water. The other has just a thin film of water on the bottom. Which bowl of water will absorb the most carbon dioxide? Now place a large bath sponge over each bowl, covering the water. Again which bowl will absorb the most carbon dioxide? Clearly the one with the most water in both instances. Here is the mechanism I suggest.

I don't think this sentence has your usual clarity. The concepts I think you are trying to express are know as homogenity and isotropy. These conditions are separate and don't have to both occur together. But remember there is a difference between a body or system with mass (called a massive body; use of 'massive' does does not imply that the mass is large) and light which has zero mass. Newtonian mechanics and special relativity both assume / are founded on the principle that they both hold good. Colloquially, Isotropy says that the controlling laws operating at any point are the same in all directions. So it doesn't matter which way you look the effect will be the same. Light (unless constrained in some way) spreads out equally in all directions. For massive bodies, and Newton, it doesn't matter which way you push the body, it will accelerate the same. Homogenity says that the effect will be the same in each piece of space. So light will travel at the same speed between the Sun and the Earth and the Earth and Jupiter or between my porchlight and the person walking past my front door. It will take the same effort to lift or move a 1 lb bar of platinum in New York or London or Tokyo. All of this assumes that these are the basic properties of space itself and that there is no interaction between the space and its contents. This assumption is all changed by general relativity and the effect of mass. (so far only mass, but now we also have dark energy and dark matter). Mass interacts with the space via 'gravity'. So does light, but in a much smaller way. Does this overview help? The complications arise when we

Harmful content = hidden malware of some sort, which I did not detect. Nothing to do with the subject of the papers. Did you draw any conclusions (about the papers) from the table of figures I posted?

I came to that conclusion about 2 pm today when poking around whois, looking for any info on the outage. Suprisingly the registration end date is public domain. The alleged server host (UK servers.com) were rude and unhelpful when I phoned them to ask if they knew when you ywould be back up. So all in all I am glad to see you back. So let's party.

Do you consider this a constructive answer when you don't know why I asked the question? I asked the question because the word pathogen has been employed to mean many different things, In view of your arrogant responses to myself and others in defiance of the rules here I will simply refer you to a standard Biochemistry text, which contains the answers to your specific questions in section D (overview of the immune system), starting on page 77. Biochemistry Hames, Hooper and Houghton

Something to bear in mind. You want to be an entomologist and realise that you will need to use mathematics in your daily work. From your point of view you will not need superslick mathematical manipulative skills. What you will need will be an understanding of what say a summation, an integral, or a derivative will give you. You do not need to know how to fiddle the formulae to get fancy formulae, let the mathematicians do that. So you will need to know that when you see this symbol called 'the integral' [math]\int_a^b {f\left( x \right)} dx[/math] You should be thinking of the area or volume of some shape, more complicated than a square or rectangle. Probably the area of a graph. When you see this symbol for summation using the greek letter upper case sigma [math]\sum\limits_1^n {\frac{{\left( {{x_i} - \bar x} \right)}}{{\left( {n - 1} \right)}}} [/math] you will probably be working on some statistics perhaps a bug count, averaged over several zones. and this symbol called the general derivative describes the 'rate of change' of something [math]\frac{{dy}}{{dx}}[/math] You will most probably meet the derivative in the form of a 'differential equation' when studying insect biochemistry, perhaps the rate of production or use of some enzyme or other compound peculiar to an insect of interest. [math]\frac{{d\left[ A \right]}}{{dt}} = - k\left[ A \right]\left[ B \right][/math] Don't worry, such equations have standard solutions that you use. As to the book here is the note inside the front cover. Go well in your future studies.

Can I just ask what you mean by pathogen here?

I think you are talking about the projectile equations under gravity, but where is your attempt?

No I mean they (the pdfs) do not contain any harmful content.

See if you can get a copy of this book. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mathematics-Statistics-Biosciences-Its-Applications/dp/0135605415 An early SH copy will do and they come at ridiculous prices. Note the authors include statistics, which will be the principle maths you will need. The rest is largely just to understand the formula etc you will meet in the stats.

Well the monomer has three OH groups (two direct and one CH2OH) and there are several thousand monomers in a particular cellulose polymer. So how long is your piece of string? Do you want to dissolve some in carbon disulphide and spectroscopically check out the amount in the cellulose xanthate for instance?

hope so You have me there. You've spotted the spelling mistake. There is a spling mistake in every studiot post. Sounds good to me

Thank you for this response. Did you catch my point that in arid/semiarid regions there will be next to no vadose water and the phreatic surface will be a long way down in general? Unless there are substantial underground waters as reported by the Chinese. So here is a credible mechanism. I prefer Eric Lerner's explanation that Science has discredited itself. Advertiser no longer use HI Tech as a selling point because the general public have become disillusioned with Science, and many of the attempts by the scientific community to fix it have made matters worse, not better. And that is even granted the resurgence of evangelical fundamentalism in the Bible Belt. Interesting. My lecturer at the City of London University, all those years ago gave that derivation. Certainly there is a German word wanderin and derivatives which means to roam and corresponds roughly to the English word wanderer. But, of course the Germans pronounce w as we pronounce v. However much of the German language come directly from Latin. And my Oxford has vadose coming from the Latin vadosus = shallow. So you may well be right. There is probably a common root here in the Latin. Thank you for that correction.

Perhaps if you were to make your query more specific(and preferably in normal text) someone might be able to help. Do you mean in the cellulose ?

But that does not prevent there being limitations. In fact there are a whole variety of them for many different purposes, made more complicated by differences in criminal and civil law. Coincidentally I had a conversation last night with an old school friend, now retired, but a solicitor by profession. He was telling me about a some grit in a piece of bread which damaged a tooth. I asked if he was going to sue and he said "probably not, but he had three years to think about it "Me "3 years ??" Yes he said, you have to issue proceedings within 3 years for this type of thing. If only Imatfaal was still here to explain.