studiot

This is rather vague. The first thing to consider is Is the electron bound to something, an atom, an ion, a crystal lattice.........? Or is it free as in an electron beam or beta ray? Then you can think about its spin.

No, we have yet to 'design' a properly self repairing machine, or one that can grow successfully. There is a very good little penguin book called Cats Paws and Catapaults by Steven Vogel Which compares how Nature and Man achieve design objectives in many ways.

You have to be careful here (and in Science generally) since this has more than one meaning. For any observer time passes normally for herself. She just witnesses it passing differently for others who are travelling at (any) speed relative to her. If they are travelling at the same speed together, however great, no effect will be witnessed. The relative speed is zero. The any effect observed will depend on the relative speed and is so small at to be unobservable at low relative speeds. That is why we say there is an effect at high relative speed. Does this help?

+1 to both A good topic and a well thought out reply

So what do you think the products are? In particular what ester do you wish to dissociate?

Light Modern Optics Robert Guenther Wiley Vibrations and Waves A P French MIT Introductory Physics Series Nelson Optics Smith and Thomson Manchester Physics Series Wiley Quantum Mechanics Quantum Mechanics Sarah McMurray Addison Wesley Quantum Mechanics Davies and Betts Chapman and Hall Physics and its Applications Series book 8 Quantum Mechanics Mandel Manchester Physics Series Wiley See also the following Manchester Physics Series book for background Properties of matter Flowers and Mendoza

1) I don't say, that gas doesn't give back any force - but we need to include the size of a body, during those interactions. When we push a solid object in one spot, we push it as a whole body, but in a gas or liquid, we push only part of the mass - and only this part is pushing us back. 2) And now imagine, that a solid body is attracted by the gravitation of a gas cloud - what will happen, if they collide? Simply - solid body will pass through and locate itself in the center of mass. However I would say, that it will be rather the gas, which would "wrap itself" around the solid object... (1) Well since I don't agree with (1) I obviously can't agree that (2) follows. Consider the loudpeaker in your room. In the productuion of sound it pushes on one very tiny part of the atmosphere. But the entire atmosphere is connected and pushes back. The mechanism may not be exactly the same as for a solid but the principle is, in that the push is passed on from portion to portion of the 'body' , solid or gas, indefinitely. In fact indefinitely means until friction dissipates it. (2) In Science we need to be more precise than in normal language. So I can't see how a solid body can both pass through the gas and locate itself at the centre of gravity. Surely what actually happens depends upon the relative velocities of the sold and the gas? I have cut concrete with water jetting. Here the fluid passes through the solid. Equally a fast enough solid ball will penetrate and pass right through a cloud. Nature is more complicated an vaired than we can imagine.

Stand in front of a hair drier or better a jet engine, and then say you can't feel the push of a cloud of unconfined gas.

Thank you for rewording/expanding that part of your previous post. I read it to mean something quite different, to whit a 'definition' of a functional. A functional is a map from a vector space to the underlying field of that vector space. The space of all functionals of a given vector space is the dual space of the tangent space of that vector space. In the case you are exhibiting the underlying field is R, the real numbers. I don't think you can define or explain what a tensor is in under 10 words.

I'm sorry?

Try this https://www.heathrobinsonmuseum.org/ Bit out of town, but parking posiible. You wife might also appreciate it.

The current density is a function of the rate of reaction at each electrode and that is a function of the concentration of the reactants. The overall current density is the difference between these two equations.

"Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them" Surely Psychology is part of Philosophy, as the Man said.

Science tells you how to put spin on a tennis ball when you hit it, and what happens to the ball when you do. Philosophy tells you why you bothered to hit it in the first place.

Doesn't the current density refer to the solution electrolyte, not the electrodes, or have I got that wrong?

Not a problem. [math]P = \frac{{{B^2}A}}{{2\mu }}[/math] Where P is the raising force. The formula comes from a simple application of the virtual work theorem. You need to provide more detail of your experiment for more detailed information.

So am I now safe to view this site without sunshades again?

Midway throught the festive break and I needed to reply to a PM, whilst briefly here, I saw this. I think it shows that, but more than that as well. This is where my two examples were going. Good to see some responses.

Gosh your thought empire has expanded greatly. But you still haven't offered anything for others in your new proposed property you call direction. Here is an example. I propose a new property called squiffyness. This is what you can do with it. When you are making a jelly (Jell-O), measuring the squiff allows you to tell if the jelly will stand up as a rabbit or slump to a sloppy mess, when turned out of its mould. You measure the squiff by taking a sample in the bulb of a squiff meter, filling to the set-one line in the measuring tube. Squeezing the bulb causes the contents to rise up the tube, the distance up the tube being graduated from 1 to 10 in squiff. A reading of 3 squiff of less means that the turned out jelly will stand and wobble. Greater than 3 squiff will result in a slump.

I'm sure he doesn't because there was a Roman coffin find announced today near me (Ilchester).

I was thinking of this quote Basically this is still being argued in Quantum Physics and offered as one explanation of quantum Uncertainty / waveform collapse. It is the same view that Einstein rejected with his comment about "does the Moon cease to exist when I stop looking at it", except that in Berkeley's case nobody was observing. Yes Wheeler's thought offer another version. Any of these versions have serious implications for Schrodingers cat. Suppose we vary the experiment slightly. Let it proceed as per Schrodinger until the box is opened. Let the opening be delayed at least 50 years. There will then be a feline corpse in the box, but it will be impossible to pinpoint the precise date of decease of the animal.

I'm glad you noted buy or sell, as the second cost is often forgotten. In the UK there is also a tax to add in. Some brokers offer fixed transaction costs, regardless of number of shares bought/sold. I have a spreadsheet I prepared which adds in all the costs and comes up with a target reselling price tabled at various levels of profit (absolute %). The time over which the share price reaches this (hopefully) can be a few hours to a few years so decisions need to be taken buy the transactor as to what is acceptable. The spreadsheet provides the necessary information to do this.

So why mention great circles or introduce references to them? If you must call it a tridentity, then OK. At least you have found a suitable nice new word that sort of echos what you want to say and does not redefine an existing term. This is really good as it avoids confusion well done. The technique I was referring to will serve for Euclidian and non Euclidian space. The term refers to how you calculate distance, not angle. The big stumbling point as I see it is most people look at what you are proposing and say So what? What does it offer me or tell me? When would I want to use it? Show me an examaple of its use (however trivial; trivial is good for an initial example as complexity hides the underlying message)