studiot

I too like Strange's analogy +1 I also note some unnamed member voted me a -1 for giving two other members positive feedback. Stand up and be counter Sir or Madam.

Classical Physics (and other Science such as Chemistry) does not explain or treat creation or annihilation. Classical Science is concerned with finite term interactions or process and the statements you embolden refer to these. Questions involving infinite time space or matter are left unresolved, apart from potential theory. Some forms of creation/ annihilation and some aspects of infinity are treated by what is called Modern Physics. Within the context of classical Science five types of system are distinguished, open, closed isolated and quasi. An open system allows both mass and energy to enter or leave the system during the process. A closed system allows energy, but not mass to enter or leave the system during the process.* An isolated system allows neither mass nor energy to enter or leave the system during the process. An quasi system allows either mass or energy to enter and leave the system during the process, with the proviso that the amounts entering must equal the amounts leaving. * Can you see why we can't have a system that allows mass but not energy to enter or leave a system?

Perhaps you should spend your time on a minecraft forum. What is contradictory about it? The fact that you can't understand such a simple concept that a kid on a bicycle riding to school can reveals your lack of raw intelligence. LMAO! Post reported.

Before wasting your time on lengthy typing sessions I suggest you clean up and clarify this premise statement since it appears self contradictory to me as it stands.

This would be the first time I have noticed this chain of reasoning in your posts. I am not saying you did not post it before, but that if you did I missed it. So thank you for making your position clear. However I see two problems with this chain. Firstly you use of the phrase 'every single observation we make' which is too all embracing and trivially falsified. In general all embracing staments contain the seeds of their own destruction. And it is quite unnecessary since one single observation of a non artificially occurring phenomenon that can be definitely attributed to an 'intelligent arrangement' could be used as evidence of some form of intellignet design. Second and more important you clearly have insufficient knowledge of the mathematics of arrangements as your conclusion does not follow from your premise. There are those here who would be happy to explain such amthemaics to you if you were prepared to listen. One question, are you familiar with the First Law of Thermodynamics?

But you haven't proven anything. All you have done is made some further exaggerated statements and one plainly false one. You should read Russell "Why I am not a Christian"

Actually, no. All I have done so far is examine the consistency of your assertions with your premises and found the chain of reasoning wanting. So I consistently pointed out this lack of coherent reasoning. So far, I have not ventured my own personal; world view.

That presupposes it was 'designed' at all. Can you prove that?

I would honestly say that far from seeking to silence you, a great deal of patience has been expended on your behalf, waiting to see if you had anything coherent to say.

+1 Does this thread have a point?

Preaching is unwelcome here, most especially in a section entitled Modern and Theoretical Physics.

Why not try what was suggested instead of something different? That way you can move on with the questions.

A mixture of fact, fiction and pure fancy. Fact Fiction Modern particle physics lists a veritable zoo of particles, many, if not most of which have mass but are not eelctrons, protons or neutrons. Pure fancy As far as I am aware, there are no particles with mass where we have not experimentally measured that mass. You have introduced the word 'potential' Do you understand its technical meaning, since there is more than one type of potential and they have very different properties. Do you, for instance, know which type of potential is associated with which force?

Why would there be a different surface temperature? A wall in contact with an atmosphere and nothing else in the system, will be at the same temperature. This is often known as the zeroth law of thermodynamics.

OK so there we have it. Let us address only the first question in this thread and yuuki, please copy and paste the other three into new threads (you can have all four open at once). Then post a note here to say you have done this, if HI can't delete those parts. On to question (1) 'Chemicals' is not really a scientific term. Substance is a better general one. Please can you say if you can name any of the three substances in the list? Can you also say if you understand the following terms Pure substance Compound Mixture Element Atom Molecule Amorphous Phase State These are essential basic technical terms, each with its own special meaning.

Already moving the goalposts this early in a discussion? You original assertion (repeated) was that gravity and electrostatic attraction are one and the same ie identical. So let's stick with that rather than changing the subject. You made the assertion, so it is up to you to provide the evidence. You already have evidence that I am quite ready to say when I agree with you.

Yes that is what I suggested and explained why. You would not be the first newcomer to try to pack too many questions into one thread so take heart and deal with one at a time. The support is here, but try to work with those helping you.

I await you evidence with interest. At least this time you have already moved your position since you are now willing to admit there are dissimilarities. Since you acknowledge this how can you rationally claim they are the same?

You need to distinguish between emissivity and reflectivity to start with. First the energy naturally emitted. First calcualte the energy emitted by a perfect emitter ( a black body) then multiply it by experimentally determined emissivity (engineering tables are available) to obtain the emission from your wall. As to reflectivity, this coefficient is also available from engineering tables, and will tell you how mauch irradiated energy is reflected. So for instance a polished metal has low emissivity bu high reflectivity. Does this help?

I don't agree with you but that is not the topic of this thread, which is more specific and limited. BTW now you have your own personal thread as well as special attention from the powers that be, why are you bitching? It was within the first two lines of my post of less than ten lines. (specifically lines two and three) If you can't find it in that space I have no hope of a rational discussion.

Good Morning, hypervalent_iodine. Is there also any chace of splitting this thread into 4 as I suggested?

I already did but you made no answer. It's there in my post in this thread.

Why are you attempting these questions, if they are beyond your present knowledge?

We may not do complete questions for you, but we do provide hints. So there are two types of solvent. Polar and non polar. One of these dissolves ionic substances as ions in solution One dissolves non ionic (covalent) substances as non polar molecules in solution. This is very general, but what your question is about. Think which one is which ( Which conducts electricity and which does not) Edit, I see there are more questions. 2) Makes no sense. 3) & 4) I agree with Area 54 we need to see your beginning of these questions as we don't know what your knowledge is. By the Way you should separate these questions into four separate threads, otherwise any answers will get hopelessly mixed up. You should ask a moderator to help with this - they are very friendly.

I couldn't see where that shows 2 is prime?