studiot

No, not really. The formulae v2 = u2 +2fs, and v = u +ft is taught to high school pupils who study kinematics of constant acceleration. When the constant refers to the velocity we have the simpler formulae v = u and s = ut. Maxim, since you say you have some higher Mathematics you should be able to cope easily with this modern book on University Mechanics which covers Relativity in the second half with really clear explanations and working. Dynamics and Relativity W D McComb Oxford University Press Here is a sample page on relativistic acceleration

How would the rocket master be able to tell if his acceleration is constant or not in his own frame? Surely this is one of the fundamental principles of relativity?

By pushing I assume you mean acceleration? Questions of energy depend upon the frame in which you are making the measurements, but to a general observer the KE increases as the mass appears to increase. Don't forget that kinematics is mass independent it deals with accelerations and velocities; distances and times without regard to the masses and forces involved. Such considerations lie in the province of dynamics.

Even in the 1960s there were electronic circuits where there was absolutely no relationship between voltage and current, let alone Ohm's Law. In my experience Ohm's Law is a very bad place to start as it is usually coupled with untenable and unneccessary explanations about hosepipes, electrons and other confusing matters which leaves all too many beginners floundering.

Tectonic activity can defeat any safety measure or fail safe system.

I wish I wish I wish I could impress this on Physicists. +1

It is clear that your English is not perfect so here is the answer to the question I think you originally wanted to ask, which equivalent to "What happens if you apply the Lorenz tranformation twice (or many times)?" Mathematically that means "what happens if you compose Lorenz tranformations as in acceleration?" Well if you make the substitutions and do the algebra you find that you have another Lorenz transformation. That is the Lorenz transformation is an eigenfunction of the system.

Here are some thoughts to kick off your analysis. Initially the mirrors (call them A and B) are co moving, so it does not matter which mirror frame you choose to work in. At the instant mirror A emits a photon, momentum balance requires it to start moving away from mirror B and the photon starts travelling towards B. From this point on frame A and Frame B are not the same. So the first decision is, which frame do you wish to work in?

Could the explanation be that Engineers control their volume and thus never get drunk? Input = Output plus Accumulation

I didn't need to provide an email address to read the document. But I warn those trying it Half of it is in Russian (cyrillic script). The layout is broken into alternate Russian and English paragraphs, which makes reading easier. There is a lot of algebra which is in Roman script (English) The English half is a google translation, for which the OP offers an apology. But it is the best google translation I have ever seen and quite readable. I think he has done his best and I can see why the whole can't be reproduced here. However Peter, all here would welcome a bit more substantial statement within the thread - it is the rules you know.

Crossing boundaries? I came across this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/stories-43557836/jews-and-arabs-living-side-by-side So let's follow the example and stop hurling red points about, whilst we applaud something to be encouraged.

I already asked that, but please also see the edit to my last post, added whilst you were posting the quote.

If you want to get picky, then no that is not correct. Firstly solid state is a phrase, not a word. Then, of course, we have to look back in history to see when it was introduced and why. The phrase 'solid state' (we do not use the american hyphen in England) was introduced to distinguish between the all solid, no moving parts vacuum tube devices (valves in England) employing thermionic emission and the all solid state semiconductor based devices employing electrostatic potential barrier technology. Further this was done as an advertising gimmick to promote the then new semiconductor diodes and transistors over valves. However Scientifically, particually in Physics, the term coalesced during the mid 20th century by workers in many fields to include properties of mostly regular (ie crystalline) solids including, but not limited to, specific heat, optical properties, magnetic properties, electricla properties, crystal structure properties. Better to have just explained exactly what you mean without a semantic sideshow.

In fairness to Moreno, that is not what he said. I took this to mean that there was no fluids in the reactor in any capacity and that the above English was just the sort of poor typing I might (and too often do) make. Moreno repeated the phrase solid state, without the hyphen in a subsequent post.

Thanks for all that support. Any change a moderator might tidy my spelling since itis now too late for me to do this. My apologies.

Wow you have done a lot of algebra! Read here for a better history of how the confusion over ideas of motion were resolved over the 200 years from about 1650 to about 1850. https://nature.berkeley.edu/departments/espm/env-hist/articles/2.pdf Note that this article still presents the same assumption you have made right at the beginning of your own article and caried through all that algebra to a wring conclusion at the end. Your mis-assumption is that kinematic formula for constant acceleration may be used. This was not the case when you developed the tables of lifting force v energy. Since your thesis is that the modern version of The Law of Conservation of Mechanical energy is incorrect, can you state it, including the conditions under which it holds true? You need to show that your analysis satisfies these conditions. Have you done this, I can't find it?

You demand some sort of solid state reactor then offer me a liquid fluoride one ??????????????? or a gaseous helium one?

Perhaps if you stayed long enough to complete explaining your enquiry an answer might be forthcoming, but welcome to SF anyway. Plasma is a state of matter where the atoms have become ionised so devices sensitive to electric fields will detect plasmas.

Jammed moderator rods / broken/faulty rod control mechanism. Fluids are used to cool a reactor, how would solid state cooling work? Fluids are also needed to transfer heat to the generating plant. Without this transfer what would be the point of the reactor?

Whilst reflecting consider that changing from a MLT system to an FLT system has implications for the OP. Pressure, for instance is a function of time in the MLT system, but not in the FLT system.

The length of the side of an arbitrarily oriented cube is a scalar. In the equation work = F.dl Work is a scalar, being the dot product of two vectors force and length.

It should not be thought that mass, length and time is the only viable scheme (for mechanics) Charge was at one time used as the electrical basis but has been replaced by current. Here is a mechancial scheme based on force, length and time as opposed to mass, length and time. This is interesting because mass is a scalar but force is a vector. Length can be either a scalar or a vector and time is neither a vector nor a scalar.

Your deadline is to close to perform any useful experiment in Biology for this project. Perhaps you prefer Biology, but you say this is for a Chemistry grade so why not do some Chemistry? From you description I am guessing you are in an urban area? So what sort of pollutants could be in the soil? Have you any nearby factories etc or were there any in the past, or is the school built on former landfill for waste disposal? Is there a watercourse that could bring in pollutants? If the school is basically built on ground only disturbed by the builders then the most likely pollutants will be from the building. This can provide a source of chemical pollutants because many building products are alkaline (cement, plaster etc) so will change the soil acidity/alkalinity. So there is something to look for. Don't forget that you can test not only the soil itself but also the soil water. Since you are studying Chemistry, you have presumably studied some chemical reactions. Look at some of these, look up what what is in 'good soil' test your soil and water. Look for lead, copper, iron, manganese ..........

As I understand it, no they are not the same. Quantum confinement (of particles) happens when the physical size dimensions of the material are comparable to the DeBroglie wavelength of the particle. In these circumstances some physical properties of the material (particularly optical ones) are substantially different from the bulk material. Particles (eg electrons) may still be 'bound' or in a bound state within this small something. The bound state simply derives from the fact that the quantum particle is not free to roam throughout space but subject to boundaries of some description, although the size of the region of space available to it may be substantial (unlike quantum confinement). The boundary may also be non physical eg a potential barrier or well or series of wells. In the case of quantum confinement the boundaries are physical in that they are the edge faces of the material concerned. An example of a bound state would be an electron within a standard sized crystal of a (semi)conductor. Drawing that crystal out to a 'nanowire' would make the electron subject to 'quantum confinement' in the wire.

Well here is a mathematical thought about it. One way to construct the integers is as follows Axiom 1 There exists (mathematically) an integer (we call 0) that is not the successor of any integer. Axiom 2 Every integer has exactly one successor. Noting that if B is the successor of A then A is the antecedent of B, Zero is the ultimate antecedent and it does not even require space to exist in.