studiot

Until 2000 it was 'believed' that lifer could not exist and develop at the bottom of the deep oceans. https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast13apr_1 http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mathematical-physical-sciences/maps-news-publication/maps1526 https://www.chemistryworld.com/feature/hydrothermal-vents-and-the-origins-of-life/3007088.article The hydrothermal vents and associated lifeforms were discovered. Although not silicon based they have quite a different biochemistry form the rest of life on Earth. For instance Hydrogen Sulphide plays an important part. You might like to look at these articles for some inspiration and cast your net a bit wider.

I would prefer you started by placing your conjectures in the correct part of the forum, namely speculations, and by accompanying these speculations with evidence, following the rules here.

This is complete rubbish.

Welcome. You should post a new thread, including your fishy data, not resurrect an old one. Please note that new members have a five post limit in the first 24 hours to prevent spam. So do not waste them.

Hello and welcome Sakshi. A better statement would be to say No bond is 100% covalent in character. It has some percentage of ionic character. You understand this you need to think about comparing covalent and ionic bonds. Covalent bonds are all about sharing electrons. Both molecules involved in the bond have an influence or share in the bonding electrons. The actual bond is due to the lowering of electron energy that one or both bonding molecules experience as a result of the sharing as compared to not sharing. Ionic bonds are all about transferring electrons. The bond is due to the electrostatic forces between the newly created entities - the ions. However these ions are not free to go on their travels. As soon as that happens (eg in solution) there is no bond at all, although there electrostatic forces still operate. So two bonded ions are not the same as two free ions. The crystal structure and bond angles of a covalent material is governed by the disposition of the atomic orbitals of the parent molecules. Water and diamond are good examples of this. One important feature is that there are no free electrons kicking about so covalent materials are poor conductors of electricity at best. (Yes pure water is a poor conductor) But in an ionic compound the crystal structure and bond angles are governed by electrostatic force laws between positive and negative entities. This becomes a balance between like charges wanting maximum distance and the unlike ones wanting minimum distance apart. However in answer to your original question the observed crystal structures and bond angles are rarely exactly as calculated from the above simplified principles. The result shows some compromise between the two extremes. The metallic bond fits in intermediate between these two extremes .

Thank you for updating my knowledge.

Well of the fundamental units measured in Science (eg mass, length, time etc) one is number of particles, N. This appears in many equations and has no quantum uncertainty or Plank size associated with it. The smallest value of N is zero. Nice summary, I particularly like the focal point example. +1

Two other inspiring books I wish I had acces to at that age are The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Geometry David Wells The Self Made Tapestry Philip Ball Incidentally all these books can be found second hand at sensible prices, and some for free online as PDFs. Perhaps you have noticed that I have been concentrating on Geometry. At age 12 your son will not yet have learned enough algebra to look forward to more formal maths. All these books have the added advantage that they widen horizons, connecting Maths to the wider world.

An embedding is technically an injection An injection is a mapping from a domain set to a co-domain set (they may be the same set or different sets) If every member of the domain is mapped to (injected) to a member of the co-domain and vice versa the mapping is said to be onto. This is the case when embedding an N dimensional object in an N dimensional coordinate system. If every member of the domain is mapped to a member of the co-domain, but not all the codomain members are used the mapping is said to be into. This is the case when an n dimensional object is embedded in an N dimensional coordinate system (n < N). So yes, though you would probably not bother with the distinction.

Excellent answer, Moontanman, +1 You have been doing your homework.

Or indeed an N dimensional object. I think you mean of dimension less than or equal to N. Physically, wouldn't a point be the smallest unit of space? Well according to Euclid a point occupies zero space (space = volume as Mordred likes to say)

Well there you have an immediate problem. Is -1 smaller than zero? Or is zero the smallest unit of some measured value? Of course in quantum theory the 'smallest unit' gives rise to the uncertainty.

I think that is a metaphysical point you are making. It certainly disagrees with Euclid. The first of the Fundamental Definitions, which precede event the axioms, is A point is that which hath no part. An old fashioned way of saying zero dimension. For those interested the second fundamental definition is A line is a breadthless length. Of course, the ancient Greeks disagreed on definitions Aristotle: A point, a line and a surface all define the prioor by means of the posterior, a point is an extremity of a line, a line is an extremeity of a surface and a surfeace an extremeity of a solid. Proclus gave us A monad having position. The modern view of a point is as the limit of some process.

Yoy said 30% HCl, but what you didn't say was what you meant by this 30% w/v or 30% w/w? The most likely meaning is the first one. I see that you have enough Chemistry to be able to calculate the required mass of HCl to react with 10g of carbonate. From this can you reverse engineer 30%w/v to accomodate this figure?

Welcome Oliver; What in the water do you think could become radioactive?

Welcome Ben; Is this classwork/homework? Part 1) If so can you tell me the reaction equation? Since you have used a fancy word (stoicheometry) can you calculate the molar masses of HCl and CaCO3? Do you know if the carbonate is monvalent, divalent or trivalent? part 2) Any Chemistry library or lab should have international tables where you can look up the density of hydrochloric acid at various concentrations. You can probably google this as well. This will be empirical, there is no general formula you can use.

This second quote was not addressed to me but seems to me to be the most coherent and cogent statement you have made here. It begins to address my question about your use of the term 'velocity', which I will reproduce yet again for your convenience. It also introduces some useful thoughts for comments to help you communicate since I am beginning to get an idea of what you are talking about. But please answer my question since I believe you are using some terms in an unconventional way and confusing many responders including myself. I have emboldened the original question but reproduced the quote where I added further explanation. The as measured velocity of a rocket ship (particle) whose velocity is approaching the magnitude, c, behaves differently from the as measured velocity of light. This is confirmed by physical observations. So please answer the question in the context of your hypothesis.

Intriguing thoughts. Welcome Razee. +1 How are you using the word "projections"? In projective geometry there are more points on the projective plane than on the Euclidian/Cartesian plane for instance. For comparison of planes the extra point is known as the point at infinity and is considered appended to the plane in question. Here are a couple of philosophical points to conside as well. You cannot have a 'point' without something that is 'not point' or 'no point'. So you need something additional to zero dimensions ie a null dimension to complete the set. This would be the 'point at infinity' in projective geometry.

What would you expect us to say? Congratulations you have derived the conventioanl formula for the area of a trapezium as being the average length of the parallel sides times the perpendicular distance between them. Incidentally I would check the first line of your proof for what I assume is a typographical error. BCEG is not a triangle as stated. Also the letters are not in cyclic order round the square.

That is an interesting conversation you are having with Strange, and to a lesser extent with swansont. What do they have that I don't, especially as your current conversation has a bearing on that question of mine you keep avoiding. Perhaps you only read the current page here and don't check if there were any replies since you last visited, but I spelled out the question yet again in the last post on the previous page. So please check back and answer the question.

Thank you, but That was not the Physics question I asked. I will repeat it since the question mark seems to have escaped you. The as measured velocity of a rocket ship (particle) whose velocity is approaching the magnitude, c, behaves differently from the as measured velocity of light. This is confirmed by physical observations. So please answer the question in the context of your hypothesis.

If you say so, I suppose it must be true and the discussion can proceed no further.

Well I did ask you a serious question about Physics. How about an answer? Thank your for the information, additional to your original posts in this thread. The point about the link between statmech and information theory is that they use they are analogs, in that they use the same mathematics (for somethings anyway). The difference is that information theory refers to something abstract (it could be the arrangement of marks on a pice of paper) whilst statmech refers to the arrangement of concrete things. (I am using abstract and concrete in their proper English language context here.) The commonality is in the mathematics of the arrangements, so it is not suprising (to me at least) that some of the results carry over. But what I am asking is do you know enough about the physical world to distinguish where they do and where they do not?

You need to make up your mind. Maxwell did not work in kg and metres. I gave you the modern answer because you posted a couple of paragraphs of working using modern units.

Considering you had to ask about magnetic poles along with your stated background, and I am still waiting for you to reply to my helpful answer to your question there, you seem to claim a great deal of knowledge of Physics. Considering the above, what do you mean by asserting the velocity of a neutrino is c? Do you mean the same thing that Relativity means in respect of light? Do you really understand these things? In particular do you understand the link between information entropy and statistical mechanics? Is it not because of this link that some of your equations come out the same as those of statmech?