studiot

Thanks for putting it so clearly and succinctly. +1

Yes indeed, 'species' is a fundamental term in Darwin's work. But you should remember that in his time biological classification was only just becoming developed. I cannot tell you what the modern definition is. Perhaps a biology expert here will step in and oblige. What I can tell you is that Darwin was so well aware of the different views about the word species in his day that he not only devoted a chapter to his definition, he suffused his meaning throughout the book and indeed introduced the subject in his historical survey that preceeded the main text. He also took great pains to differentiate between the terms variety and species. Note the use of the word variation even included in your extract. But no I don't think he was fully satisfied with his definition of species and was open to improvement.

Colour has only a minor peripheral role in noting volumes. There are many different graduated volume measuring vessels. Such as measuring jugs, measuring cylinders, burettes, pipettes, syringes.... They all serve different purposes and introduce their own special pros and cons. And each has its own way of using it. There is no meniscus in a syringe for instance. So I say again, explain what you want to do, or do you want to discuss measurement of volume in general, in relation to these or something else again. When you are talking about "the upper layer" do you mean the meniscus or do you mean there are (coloured) layers or what. Help us to help you.

Here is the nearest classical analogy we can get to entanglement. Suppose I cut a coin in half so I have two thinner coins, one with a head and a blank face, the other with a tail and a blank face. Now I send one half-coin to my brother in Australia and keep the other at home. As soon as my brother receives the half-coin he can determine whether my half is the head or tail half, whether or not I have looked to see myself. If in fact I did not look he could not communicate that information back to me any faster than the famous Cutty Sark tea clipper. (or perhaps by modern steam radio). Of course electrons do not have 'blank sides' and can adjust of the distance, but in answer to your question, I would say how, not why and we do not know the answer to this yet.

Did you spot my edit, whilst you were replying?

Superposition and entaglement are entirely different things. Superposition is a general mathematical process used in many branches of the physical sciences and engineering and thus has a classical as well as a quantum manifestaion. In quantum theory you will find it used in what is known as the LCAO or linear combination of atomic orbitals in the derivation of the molecular orbitals that form when atoms bond together. On the other hand, Entanglement is an entirely quantum effect which has no direct counterpart in classical physics. Fermions obey the Pauli exclusion principle so if two entangled particles (electrons) are separated and subsequently one is incoporated in an atomic or molecular orbital where its spin is set by the prevailing conditions of the orbital, then this is reflected in the spin of the other.

I wan't aware that there is a modern version of Aramaic. Thank you I will look it up. But rather than being incompatible with what I said before your various posts serve to reinforce it. Until my friend explains this history, I wasn't aware of that either. Particularly the Alexandria connection and the fact that the 'Bible' is not one book but a collection from different places and times. Different 'Bibles' contain or omit different individual books. But this is about numerology (a word that post dates pretty well any Bible) and I have offered my thoughts on where there are actually mathematically sound numbers.

Also nicely put. +1 to you too. I admit I was rather abrubt before, especially as the statement is just a tad ambiguous. But I did not give any thought to the possibility that anyone would interpret it as meaning species extinction. I assumed it meant or included things like weeding out the weakest, culling the herd and all that. go well.

I suggest you check up on who actually wrote those words your poat attributes to me before trying to be clever. Talking about well written As far as we know death comes to all members of all species, with that does not necessarily mean extinction. Considering again the words you quoted from another suppose you apply the same principle to 'food supply insufficiency'. Again member death results, but not necessarily extinction.

I'm sure there was a great deal more too it than my extremely brief overview. I would offer a correction I did say ancient Greek and Ancient Hebrew. They are not the same as the modern versions.

Logic shows that extinction (death of a whole species) is not beneficial to that species unless what comes to that species AFTER death is an improvement. (it is said Heaven for man for instance is an improvement and if all things are clearly seen it is easy to see that improvement.) Extinction MAY benefit a competing species, or may not, ecology being complex. Did even the extinction of dinosaurs benefit man? Think of how interesting a zoo of dinosaurs would be especially when a group of freedom lovers cut the locks caging the carnivors .. or even the large herbivores with feet the size of railroad boxcars. Logic doesn't show anything of the sort. Extinction is not a logigal or illogical subject. However who mentioned extinction? I was talking about death (as I believe was QuantumT) as applied to individual members of a species and as opposed to a species of immortals.

Thank you for the reply Wasn't there a question in the title?

Once again you avoided my comments. Please give me a straightforward answer to a straightforward question, without second guessing my meaning, which is clearly not what you are guessing it to be. I clearly stated that your statement about rest electrons is false due to Earnshaw's theorem. I clearly stated that the wave function has a value at every point in the domain of interest, whthere it is interpreted as a probability or not. Claiming fluctuations or random variations or probability does not alter this. Or are you claiming that non tunneling electrons do not have a wavefunction that extends beyond their situs?

Activation energy is not required. It is just a standard bit of engineering. If you place a sample of combustible material at temperature T0 < less than its auto ignition temperature into an airstream which is at Tig (or above though the equation does not allow for this possibility) then heat will be transferred from the air to the body. If the air temperature is < Tig then the sample will never be raised to a sufficient temperature to ignite. So we can measure Tig by having an air source that we can steadily raise the temperature of until ignition occurs. This heat transfer will depend upon the surface area of the sample since it is only necessary to ignite the surface layer, not to heat up the entire sample to Tig For combustion to then be self sustaining it is necessary for the heat of combustion to be sufficient to raise interior parts of the sample to Tig This will be where the 4pi factor comes in - it is the surface area to voume ratio of a sphere. Obviously the density and heat capacity are specified in terms of mass. Does this help?

Many think that there are multiple environmental crises assailing the planet. Here is an article on a fresh report from the https://www.ippr.org/, by the BBC https://www.ippr.org/ The degradagation of arable land is cited in the New Scientist book https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1473629772/ref=asc_df_147362977258469057/?tag=googshopuk-21&amp;creative=22110&amp;creativeASIN=1473629772&amp;linkCode=df0&amp;hvadid=310865071345&amp;hvpos=1o1&amp;hvnetw=g&amp;hvrand=18039469306525565984&amp;hvpone=&amp;hvptwo=&amp;hvqmt=&amp;hvdev=c&amp;hvdvcmdl=&amp;hvlocint=&amp;hvlocphy=1007149&amp;hvtargid=pla-563590850360&amp;th=1&amp;psc=1

I didn't mention the word fluctuations. Was that post an answer to mine?

Do you mean this equation? What do you not understand about it?

I am still waiting for an answer to my politely put question.

There is no such thing as a rest electron. See Earnshaw's theorem. The 'size' of a quantum particle is totally dependent upon its environment, since its quantum expression extends over the entire quantum domain, perhaps to infinity. That is how quantum tunnelling works for instance in this computer of mine.

You are trying to make your wishful thinking fit the facts. Further you are clearly not a woman. Other examples of our senses failing to sense interaction between body and environment are such things as not feeling the ground as you walk or the air rushing in and out of our lungs. There are many subtle 'measurements' made by out bodies about interactions with our environment and what is going on inside us. This includes a sense of time. Have you heard of Biorhythms? Why do your stomach juices start to flow just beofore a regular dinner time? Talking of regular measurements of time. So many 'free thinkers' start with this basic mistake. No early clock possessed a consistent movement. Obviously regular consistency is desirable but; It took literally thousands of years of progress before Harrison achieved the first clock that could be described as regular or consistent.

This is complete and utter balderdash promoted from one who has openly stated they have not the read the opus citatum. This would seem to me to be false bravado mocking of something clearly not understood. Having referred specifically to Darwin's "Natural Selection", proper discussion etiquette requires that you use his stated definitions in analysing his statement. So here it is. I think it is important to notice that not Darwin adopts the practice of clearly defining all his important terms before he uses them. This includes both Natural and Selection. Do you know what Darwin means by his use of the word 'selection' ? Can you honestly say that you are criticising the same meaning? D Naturally ( ) if you read the work, you would also find answers to this part of your post as the great Man has carefully already carefully considered your apparent point of view and detailed how he has dealt with it in his work and in particular in the working definitions he has chosen to employ. Are you aware that Darwin not only consistently employs his definitions throughout the work, but also includes discussion of the meaning imparted to particular words by other authorities? So yeah, "it not only should be clear and possibly unambiguous what is meant", but it actually is.

Is there any reason why a definition cannot also provide a scale of measurement? Surely that is a more useful definition. Let us say a body A exhibits a certain physical phenomenon. Let us observe that a different body B exhibits the same phenomenon but to a different unspecified amount when the phenomena are placed side by side. An in some (dare I say most?) cases it is all we have. So we choose a standard, say body C, and compare the phenomenon due to A and B with that of C. Now we can remove C from the discussion and try to establish the relative values of that phenomenon between A an B. The postulate comes in to Newton's analysis that this phenomenon is one of direct proportion.

Do we have a language problem? Can you supply more detail about what you are trying to do? Everyone here is just guessing - not a good way to help.

Have you investigated the effect of a magnetic field upon photons? If so what effect did you find?

The measurement of all quantities in Physics, except one, are by comparison with a standard. And a form of comparison creeps into the use of the one exception (that I can think of).