studiot

Water in soil has an additional complication due to the what is known as the pore pressure. This is a measure of the interstitial and intermolecular forces for different soils, clay for instance has a high cohesion which holds the water and slows the drying process compared to a non cohesive soil such as sand. So the first thing to do is to identify the soil type and measure its cohesion, or better work on a range of soil cohesions for your application. I would also look at the websites of manufacturers of grain dryers who face a similar problem.

No, Bender is providing an example of the original question working out in practice towards a better conclusion than the original statement. Cooperation is better than confrontation.

A roundabout and good old classical mechanics. This is Einstein's principle of equivalence and the roundabout Agreed, +1 Note that it is simpler to understand that observed 'gravity' is greater at the poles than the equator due to this effect

Start with the null hypothesis in this case. hint the clues are in the words 'change' and 'null' So suggest a sensible null hypothesis about climate change, qualitative at first. Decide something that would be true if the null hypotheis was true. Then put numbers to it so you can measure it.

Once again, thank you for a productive discussion, rather than just heckling. Yes you are correct work done = moment x angle turned and since the dimensions of moment are the same as those of work/energy angle is regarded as dimensionless. Good point +1 However energy involved in a static lever is zero, but the moment may not be. What say you ?

Then I'm sorry, but you haven't been listening and only seem to see what you want to see.

It is a discussion, not a battleground. All views are welcome. I hope to learn something from the discussion; if others do vas well, that's great. Exactly. The ratio of energy to moment in say a static lever is meaningless since they are different things even though they have the same dimensions. But the ratio of say inertial forces to viscous ones has meaning and is dimensionless since both numerator and denominator are of the same nature. The ratio of distance to time is also not meaningless. Since they are not the same and their dimensions are different the ratio produces a new quantity. But even that may not be enough to have real meaning in some cases.

Perhaps there was a message rather than a meaning in that equation Mindlessly following rules can lead to difficulties.

Forgive me. I thought I posted in the Philosophy section. And haven't we got a live thread discussing the fact that Philosophy and Science can each address matters unavailable to the other?

Still avoiding answering then?

Thanks. I have two simple points of logic to make. 1) Given that nothing 'exists' (or existed if you prefer) and that something exists it cannot be held that nothing has no properties since there must be somewhere (even if only in my mind) where nothing exists and also somewhere (else) where something exists. So nothing has the property that it shares a boundary with something. 2) To create is a transitive verb which therefore requires a creator. No problem with that. But even the authors of the Bible and past Christian material understood this. That is why for instance the early authors wrote the hymn line "Begotton not created" But the existance of creators and creations does not mean that other methods/modes (non creative) of appearance are precluded. For instance a) spontaneous appearance or b) Happenstance

Is that why you keep avoiding my questions?

Yes exactly. +1

Rearrange that equation to show that energy = 5 times moment (in suitable units) Is that so?

Maybe so, can you provide a reference for this definition? Let me get this quite straight. nothing is defined as that which produces nothing? or did you have better wording in mind, because nothing produces nothing is not a definition of nothing, unless it is recursive.

I am trying to be open minded about things, I really am. So I asked a civil question, which I will repeat for your convenience, after reminding you that the rules here, and common civility require you to attempt an answer. For you information, Nothing may or may not have properties. I think this has been discussed before. Or is you mind already biased?

What exactly would be the purpose of the reverse osmosis module? What would it do? And what do you mean by connect?

Randolphin, Do you regard the verb 'to create' as a scientific word or just plain English?

Well spotted +1

Good morning and thank you for your thoughts. By dimensions I don't mean units I mean the MLT etc referred to by swansont in the previous post. The question was Is it necessary.....? This was inspired because we write equations differently in different scientific disciplines. Many still write a 'chemical equation' with an equals sign. Sometimes they include other information in the chemical equation such as energy production or state of reactants or products etc. My second example just shows that even in mechanics odd things happen, although that equation is dimensionally consistent. Here is a third example from computer programming. i = i + 1 Please all remember this is a discussion subject, not a battlefront. So the question is really about should we (try to) impose rigid definitions from one branch of Science on another?

Thank you John Cuthber for the typographical correction. Now we have all calmed down and reached the stage of more reasoned discussion how about this equation [math]\frac{{M{L^2}{T^{ - 2}}}}{{M{L^2}{T^{ - 2}}}} = \frac{{Energy}}{{Moment}} = 1a[/math] Where a is a constant depending upon units.

So where are the units of energy on the left hand side? This equation has no force on the right hand side, but is dimensionally consistent Force = rate of change of momentum

No the heat evolved is not in the water. Further you have avoided the question what are the dimensions of HCL etc. They are not the dimensions of energy. So what? Dimensional analysis requires that the same dimensions appear on both sides of the equation. It does not require that their values be equal.

No the equation is complete Yes the equation shows the masses of both the reagents and products. What do you think the dimensions of HCL for instance are? There is no evolved heat on the left hand side so none is shown.

How is that?