studiot

Put on a pair of thick gloves and some blinkers to reduce your visula acuity. Now try a blister pack as many less able have to do. I have a neighbour, of whom it is said that her dog gets more of her pills than she does as she drops them on the floor. Remember this is homework help.

The critical point of water is 374oC (Standard steam tables) Water around hydrothermal vents can reach 400oC. (Woods hole Institute) So for at least some of that water around the vents 'boiling' has no meaning.

Not really, no. These "formulae" are so bad they are not even wrong.

Hello and welcome. Topology is a very wide subject that enters and affects many different areas of mathematics. Since you mention Analysis I am going to offer material relevant to Topology and analysis. But one of the attachments lists other areas such as geometrical topology or algebraic topology. Come back if you want more information here. I am posting the introduction and contents pages from two different elementary (both very successful) Topology and Analysis textbooks. Reading this should help you understand what you require from Analytic Topology. I am not suggesting you will use these particular books (though they would serve you very well) But they list the subjects you need to know the meaning of. The first is a British book by W A Sutherland and published by Oxford University. Introduction to Topological and Metric spaces The second is an american book by G F Simmons, Published by Magraw Hill. Introduction to Topology and Modern analysis.

I was specific, but I have repeated the extract and underlined where your words make no sense. You clearly (but wrongly) stated velocity to be unaffected by the magnetic field. (For example the Hall effect). Now you are talking about Lorenz forces, not velocity,

But that is not what you wrote before, and why do you think it is any more correct?

What does this mean?

Well it depends, but this is where you do some work. First approach your project supervisor and alert her to the possibility you might need a backup reference as you are going to approach outside professionals. Ask you GP if you can discuss with his secretary. Ask in your local pharmacy or hospital. In my road we have at least one retired pharmacist. I don't know where you live, but since this is a national science fair one of the drug companies might be prepared to offer (small) sponsorship or help. Now put your thinking cap on and see what other sources of help you can identify. Good luck.

I assume this was a muffed up response to my post, not one of Strange's many. I think the solution to your issue lies in the geometry of your setup, which is still not clear to me despite the excellent photos. I would like to take you back a step to start with a simpler situation. We live in a three dimensional world, but conside a two dimensional magnetic field uniform and parallel to the x axis, and lying in the xy plane. Consider also a wire in this field. The wire can be oriented parallel to the field, or perpendicular to it in two further ways, making three in all. Now consider relative translation between the wire and the field (the field moving one way or the wire moving the other) This can occur parallel to each of three axes. Thus we have a total of 3 x 3 = 9 possible different orientations to consider. How many of these will give rise to an EMF? Now compare this list with the orientation of your magnetic field and your wire.

I think you might have an updated version of the Faraday Disk? (He did not have a Neodymium magnet) Here is Sear's version

Sounds like biological sciences are for you or would you consider others ? As a for instance how about investigating better packaging for medication for old and /or disabled people? Today's blister packs are highly unsatisfactory.

This is nonsense English. Are you using a translator?

No, the OP did. But you introduced the specific cat 'paradox'. I have always udnerstood that this came after Copenhagen as a sort of toungue in cheek response to show how weird or even downright ridiculous and peverse quantum theory can be. The cat question was "is the cat alive or dead at a particular point in time before we have interacted ?" (ie opened the box).

You would have to state what your reference base is.

I am posting here because it is my experience that members don't bother with the books section. At least this way those interested in Earth Science will see it. I have been reading a New Scientist up to date overview of Earth Science, released in 2018. New Scientist Instant Expert Series This is Planet Earth. Well, the book, though a small paperback, is ambitious. "Your ultimate guide to the world we call home" It certainly boasts some exceeding clear well presented diagrams, even though they are all in grey shading. It is also a compilation of chapters from well qualified scientists in Oceanography, Biology, Geology/Geophysics, Climatology/Meteorology, Seismology and so on. The book is aimed at a broad sweep for the lay person and much of the presented material does indeed bring the subject bang up to date. But there is something missing. I am not sure about the editorial policy of the New Scientist. Because the book contains quite a few dubious claims, without substantiation. This issue of missing substantiation goes further because even statments that are well established as correct fall short so the reader is not offered a way of verifying them or delving deeper into them. For instance after a solid coherent short history of seismology with one of those excellent diagrams, the statement is made about the mantle But it does not explain what lab experiments or where to find out about them, nor does it explain the the connections between these experiments and the planet. Tremendous and very suprising advances have been made in the last decade here and these experiments are not mentioned. The other difficulty for critical appraisal is the stype of presenting yerbuts. Speculations and hypotheses are presented as though they were gospel and then the chapters present an alternative by saying that. Professor XXX is finding something different on the other side of the world.... So if any member is thinking of referring to this book as support here or elsewhere, remember this and read it properly. It is very difficult to tell what is firmed up and what is still at the supposition stage.

Perhaps I should have said full understanding.

I don't accept that Schrodinger's cat is a very good example since it is possible to circumvent the 'paradox'. Remember also that the architects of Copenhagen knew and stated that it was 'rough round the edges' i.e. it was incomplete but that it was the best they could do at the time. Sadly time has not yet matured it into a better interpretation. Perhaps one day we will have enough information to complete the jigsaw picture.

You are misunderstanding what HTML is. HyperText Markup Language. Just the same as words on a page. What you are proposing is implemented with words on a page with some greetings cards that incorporate a small battery to power some desired effect like a sound jingle or flashing lights. But sending a card is sending a physical object. With HTML you are sending nothing physical so you would have to rely on HTML commands to activate something at the receiving end that already has power. This is already part of the protocol it. It was never very well used, but modern remote automation phone apps are becoming more popular (and still require a source of power at the receiving end). This is not like USB which can provide both power and data soen the same connection, or non contact charging which requires close proximity.

Exactly so. So the rate of rotation - which is a reflection or refraction - is the rate of change of velocity. QED.

They are inner products of kets (Dirac notation), I'm not sure that the second one is complete though. Phi and psi are vectors in a Hilbert phase space.

Further to what swansont said, You cannot have a mass without a gravity well. A gravity well is a local minimum in the value of the gravitational potential. (Remembering that GP is reckoned as negative) It is the local increase in gravity due to that mass.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=2bskXOLSA4KelwT3v4igBQ&q=van+allen+belts&oq=Van+Allen+belts&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0l10.164.3468..5318...0.0..0.764.4320.4j5j0j1j2j1j2......0....1..gws-wiz.....0..0i131j0i10.0qOpUIXkqXw When I was a nipper, Tehre was a SciFi series on TV called "The Big Pull" about the first manned rocket to go beyond the Van Allen Belts. It was very scary.

Are you sure? How does that work? Exactly right, which is why a change of direction is an acceleration. That's not an arguable thing it is a definition, first taught (or should be) in high school. +1 for encouragement. Well caught. We had a lovely dancing cognac flame on ours. https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/christmas-figgy-pudding_us_56718ccfe4b0648fe301b30a?guccounter=1&guce_referrer_us=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvLnVrLw&guce_referrer_cs=ItdtJDFaufqw4syfad7Zzg

It also fills a large volume; it is diffuse. So these particles travel a long way before they are fully deflected.

But which answer did you choose? The original kneejerk guesswork from ignorance one you already had, or the scond quite different answer that two people with postgraduate degrees told you? I wonder why.