studiot

So long as you don't equate this to the practices of Plato's soldiers.

Gabriel's horn stretches to infinity so no we couldn't make one. But did you notice that one of the see also references at the end was The shape of the Universe? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe It has some pictures to show some of the shapes I was referring to. This discussion is a sight more sensible than the original.

Your headline question If you define a range as having two endpoints, In theory, yes by the method of exhaustion. But what does this have to do with your first post?

Well climate models of any distinction include various feedback mechanisms, but I didn't think this was the prime thrust of your thread. I will see if I can sort out some references if you like. However in electronics you can have active or only passive components in a feedback loop. The point of an active component is that it is self energised, (so far as the circuit it participates in is concerned) and so can offer control at low to very low to zero levels of output. Passive feedback cannot do this as it takes some power from the controlled sources and if the (desired) output of the controlled source is zero then there is not power to be had to drive the feedback loop. This is why, for instance, it is impossible to remove crossover distortion in amplifiers by passive feedback alone. How about the other points I made? Edit, I can't now edit my previous post but I see I made a silly mistake. But as you observe the timescale of action by life is much longer than annual average variations over 10,000 years. This line now makes proper sense.

I'd like to complain, That cake should have come my way. Straight lines, parabolas etc are obviously well lines (1D shapes). But a straight line can 'sweep out' a plane surface (2D) by moving it parallel to itself And a parabola etc can make a tent shape by sweeping it similarly. I thought I was making it easier, sorry. Did you look at Gabriel's Horn?

I avoided this thead until now but have just read through it. Lord Antares, You have worked hard to keep your thread on topic and made some good points and explanations of your position, despite the noise level so +1 for all that. However you have made one mathematical mistake wtf tried to draw your attention to. You are trying to use prior probabilities to predict certainty. That is impossible (+inconsistent with mathematical statistics). You ask how long... before something will (certainty) happen. Prior probability can only ever offer an estimate, which is couched in terms of a cumulative of overall probability. You have then two approaches. If you allow the mokey-writer to start and slice the output into 130000 characters (I think that was the right number) of episodes and call each one a trial or experiment, 1) You can try to calculate the overall probability of success which should gradually increase as the number of trials increases. But it will never reach 1. 2) You can try to calculate the overall probability of failure which should gradually decrease but never reach zero, as the number of trials increases. . Rubbish, you get information every time you select a random number. (Kolmogorov).

Yes several members (including me) have now asked that question, since the OP has said both yes and no. So can we have an answer please, OP? I'd say that straight lines parabolas, hyperbolas and their surface equavalents etc go on to infinity, yet we can fully describe their shape everywhere. However this shape is even more bizarre because it has infinite area enclosing a finite volume. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel's_Horn

Well yes geologists have come to accept Life as a geophysical agent. But as you observe the timescale of action by life is much longer than annual variations over 10,000 years. So stromatolites created the oxygen rich atmosphere over periods lasting billions of years, and they are still going. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolite Some marine life plays its part in returning carbon to the rocks, from whence it came originally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonate_platform But there are also many inert agents in play some of longer periods than this. Milankovich cycles. http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm Not sure what you mean by 'active' feedback, as you have distinguished it from non active feedback? But you have certainly started with some perceptive thoughts +1 They just need some tidying up and pushing into shape.

I am concerned that much of what you have written is not what you actually mean. I suggest you take a deep breath and review your thoughts carefully. Then recast A) self defeating statements such as " a state of constant change", which is insufficiently specified B) self contradictory statements such as "If the radiance could have another shape...." which directly contrdicts "Radiant shapelessness". C) Statements where you have just picked the wrong word or phrase. For example do you mean hypnosis or do you mean something like that which occurs in a snow or fog whiteout? Then what you are trying to say might be more coherent and thereby more easily understood.

The idea sounds like a development of the 'stationary' nature of the contact point of a bicycle wheel with the ground.

For good administrative reasons please put your comments ouside the quote box. Otherwise it makes things very difficult for others. Sure thing we can set it to one side temporarily. Moving on to This is a very bold assertion to drop so casually into the conversation. Please post your detailed explanation and justification for making it. I expect to see substance in your post without having to leave this website to look up references, in accordance with the rules of this forum. Though of course a reference as backup to your own working would be good.

A sketch of the arrangement would be helpful.

C & B is an engineering book (Mechanical). Other branches of Engineering have their own. But for Physics I would look at the following list. Basic Termodynamics Gerald Carrington Oxford University Press An excellent thoroughly modern book about Classical Termodynamics including Gibbsean and Caratheodory formulations. He does not, however treat Statistical Mechanics. But all subjects treated take the reader from basics all the way through undergraduate and just into post grad level. Statistical Thermodynamics Andrew Maczek Oxford University Press Supplies the missing SM material Both owe much to this book Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics A H Wilson Cambridge University Press "This account written primarily for theoretical physicists and for experimental physicists wwishing to enter more deeply into the fundamental principles of the subject." Elements of Classical Thermodynamics for advanced students of Physics. A B Pippard Cambridge University Press This small book offers a great deal of insight behinfd the scenes. Finally in some European countries (France in particular) the subject is studied in a different way, as part of a wider 'materials' based subject. The classic text here is by J Lemaitre (University of Paris) and Chaboche (Office National d'Etudes and des REcherches) My English language translation was published by Cambridge University Press as Mechanics of Solid Materials

If these assertions of yours come from your studies, you have been seriously mislead. In particular concerning relativity, you can use anything you like as a reference point. So yes you could use the 'fixed stars'. But the point of relativity is that you will obtain a different answer if you refer to a different reference point. Newton knew this, although the credit for first stating this in a form we can recognise is given to Galileo by modern reference to Galilean relativity. Einstein added something extra with special relativity, giving special status to the speed of light. Actually the history of relativity goes back at least 5000 years to the ancient civilizations of the Nile and the fertile crescent. But it was a very different concept then. Even in Galileo's day there was no modern concept of velocity or even speed. They simply had no means to measure speed in anything other than comparative terms. But comparison is a form of relativity. So they knew that a dog can run faster than a man, but had no means to put numbers to it by measurement. We can discuss the development of relativity from the earliest times if you like.

Hi Oliver, I take it you don't live by the sea? If you did you would be used to the fact that things don't last. Cars, bridge steel, metal lamposts rust more quickly, aluminium corrodes, even stainles steel does not last indefinitely. Non metal materials don't fare any better In the water fibreglass boat hulls are subject to absorbing salt water and swelling, becoming jelly like.

Chemical Reactions, you are obviously enthusiastic about doing practical chemistry, Well done for that. Keep at it. But please listen to others who have been there before and consequently know a thing or three. +1 to Sensei.

Along with another member, I asked a question about your assertion. Please address it.

One of the oldest failings in logic or reasoning is to examine only two alternatives and then draw the conclusion that one must be true. At least one other alternative is that the alleged events you refer to may be false or mistaken. So there should be at least three alternatives examined, one being 'neither of these'. It is maybe also worth pointing out that the New Testament is a collection of works written by many divers souls over a time period of nearly half a millenium, at least a couple of hundred years after the lifetime of Christ.

But everything is at rest, relative to itself. So no substitution has occurred.

Thanks for telling me something I didn't know. +1 Should I repost this in the 'today I learned thread'?

But the self referential frame of a particle is oftern called 'the natural frame.'

YaDinghus, welcome, I think you will be an asset to the forum. +1

Whose old concept would that be? Please provide a reference.

Hi vovka, what are you studying? The problem with internal energy is that substances expand on heating so work is done, so using Cv leads to false values. That is why the old term for enthalpy was 'heat content'. As regards the polynomial expansion of the variation of heat capacity with temperature, I noted the dimensional analysis problem. This simply means that the constants a, b,c d, etc must have suitable physical MLToK dimensions to bring the equation to dimensional balance. There are various versions of polynomials in use. As regards the extracts I have Heatcap 1 came from Chemical Thermodynamics Frederic T Wall 2nd ed 1965 Freeman San Francisco and London This is a very good book, with lots of background explanation , but I think you might have trouble finding a copy today. Heatcap 3 came from Materials Thermodynamics Chang and Oates Wiley 2010 Heatcap 4 came from Thermodynamics Cengel and Boles McGraw-Hill 1989 Heatcap 2 came from Chemical Tehmodynamics E F Caldin Oxford University Press 1958 There are more useful pages to go with this, but I doubt you will find the older books, so if you let me have a PM with an email address that can receive jpegs I can let you have a few more scans of surrounding pages, at better quality if you want to print them out.

I presume there is a particular starch involved. This may be for a pharmacy course and pharmacists often use average molecular weights. And 'starch' is a common constituent of pills various.