studiot

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.

I know you are looking for something more subtle, but sound is a pressure pulse or pulses. If you want permanent then that pulse has to do some damage to the environment, eg shattering glass, being powerful enough to blow the microphone diaphragm , simply shift a pile of sand grains or dust. But if you can accept temporary then you must specify a time scale. For instance if I walk across the grass, I will leave a recognisable trail, but that will fade over time as the grass straightens up. Note fingerprints also do 'damage' as the ridge pattern is pressed into the greases or other soft material. But no, sound will not leave a permanent or semi permanent aura that a psychic or sensitive could return and pick up.

Only if you can get Alexa to do what you tell her.

Did you think to compare any of this twaddle with any known experimental facts? Hypothesis : the photon has mass is enough to condemn it from the start.

Read this book, Professor Beerling presents a genuine geological history of the Earth's atmosphere. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Emerald-Planet-changed-history-Landmark/dp/0199548145

Welcome The last poster ignored the Moderator advice and didn't come back so don't waste your first day's post limit of 5 posts being half hearted about it. Follow the mod's advice and post your thoughts, whatever they are. Can you seriously not even make a start on this question? Do you understand the information given? Can you tell me, for instance how much of the 98g of the salt actually dissolves?

The description 'Properties' hides a multitude of different situations. I I am guessing that by this statement you are distinguishing between properties that are inherent in something and those which are bestowed upon it by external agency. Please confirm this or explain further what you actually mean. For instance So far as we know you it is impossible to remove the property of mass from something. But we can remove or bestow certain types of energy at will.

Yup +1

It should be noted that the general heat capacity, C, is path dependant so your question nedds to supply more information.

Geogebra might help you It's free. https://www.geogebra.org/?lang=en-GB