studiot

In this thread the damn stupid editor, which was most definitely not WISIWYG, changed my typing in an equation so I can't type it in correctly and false information is presented in the posts. I tried it three times, it was correct in the typing box, but changed as soon as I posted. The edit typing box does not allow access to the super/subscript icons either. So I can't change it back.

.Damn stupid editor changed my typing d/dt [C] = k [A]ab

My apologies the last post was a victim of forum timeouts. The equations should have been Chemical equation A + B = C since you mention only one product I assume it is not a dissociation reaction. With rate equation

Of course not. Either There is sufficient (local) warping for things to be different, then they are different, by definition. or There is insufficient (local) warping for things to be different in which case they are not. Either way nothing is changed, everything is the way it is.

Some years ago, I visited my (rich) uncle who had a large garage. I noticed some medicine bottles hanging by strings from the roof joists. Upon enquiry I learned that it was his high tech solution to his problem. Each bottle represented the exact position his car, my aunt's car and my cousin's car needed to be in o fit in the garage. So each car was driven in until the bottle just touched the windscreen at the correct point in relation to the drivers mirror. Also easy to reset for a different car. You could substitute a soft weighted bag.

test ended 2100 Scottish time Edit So login maintained for 30 minutes will test again for 45 minutes.

test started 2030 Scottish time

Thanks, I will try this during the evening while something good like the Lone Ranger is on the box and report back. There are plenty of religious users I would like to render inactive. Then I might be able to find some actual Science on this forum. There are some 2 or 3 hour periods when all that happened was religious nonsense today.

Thanks for the interest. Resources are currently limited since I am in the remote north of Scotland, but I don't think it is dictated by the ISP. The internet is a subcontractor to British Telecom Fibre and runs television etc just fine over the broadband. This PC is just a small acer aspire one netbook with Windows 7. I don't normally login here until I need to respond to something. This morning I logged in specifically to type in the response in the outlier thread and I found out that I was logged out by the time I had finished it. So yes, this is a different IP from the one in Somerset normally used, but that is not a fixed IP. Happily the typing was not lost after I logged back in again but it was a nuisance. Edit this post took 10 - 15 minutes because I had to answer the phone midway, but did not drop me.

It can take me 20 minutes or more to compose/enter a proper and sensible post such as the one I just made in the 'outliers' thread. By the time it is ready I find myself logged out, which is very annoying. This also used to happen with the old system but the dropout time was longer. Can the dropout time be reset upwards?

Before rushing off to repeat the experiment (and perhaps the mistakes) you should consider the method very carefully .Firstly the mechanics of doing the trials. Are the trials carried out in six different flasks at the same time or is a trial repeated in one flask six times? Are the flasks clean? Especially if you repeat in the same flask which risks cross contamination. How are you measuring product concentration? How long does it take to make a concentration determination? You are recording instantaneous concentrations. How would a 15 second error in timing make to the 2min, 10min and 20min marks? The recorded concentration is only valid if the reaction mixture is homogeneous. Is it stirred? or how else do you ensure this? How temperature sensitive is this reaction? How much heat is evolved? Are you monitoring to see if all the trials have the same conditions? How are you noting down the results? I presume that each column in your table of results is meant to represent a single trial. If so the result 14,8,22 indicates some sort of recording error. If you can't sort this out looking back then this trial needs to be discarded - it is worse than an outlier. Secondly the reaction itself You say it is a catalysed reaction. Is it autocatalysed or are you adding a catalyst? Assume the reaction is [A] + = [C] Is either [A] or very large compared to the other so effectively constant? How about [C] ? is this always small or does the reaction approach completion? What reaction rate equation are you assuming to give the figures you have stated - 8, 16, 20 g/L

Well this looks like a typical rate of reaction determination to me, but I'm sorry to say rather sloppily recorded. In the first place we have 24 not 18 data points since at time zero there should be no product in each of the 6 reaction flasks. ie all the curves must pass through the origin. Secondly the results are stated as quantities of product, but are recorded as concentrations. Thirdly, as I have already pointed out, the readings are tabulated in an odd, seemingly impossible, manner. If this last issue were sorted out so each reading could be properly attributed to one or other flask of reactants, then I'm sure the curves (they look like a power law to me) would appear more sensible. We could then propose a rate law and deduce the deviations of each trial from this for statistical analysis. Since this is about chemical calculations which are rather specialised, perhaps this thread should be drawn to the attention of our chemistry experts.

That's better, but I would start by plotting the course of 6 individual trials of the reaction. That is rearrange your data properly so it doesn't look as if you have mixed up the reading from flask 1 with flask 3 etc. I say this because the in first entry 2 minute row is 14.1 Yet the first entry in the 10 minute row is 8 suggesting the reaction went backwards.

A first class answer. +1 I would add that your description needs to identify these data points properly so the appropriate modelling distribution and sidedness can be chosen.

I was under the impression that vector products of vectors was peculiar to 3D and for 4D you had to go to quaternions or the equivalent tensors

Now that's what I call a proper answer from someone who knows (a lot) more than I do about the subject and its details. Thanks Mordred +1

Isn't the underlined part a contradiction in terms? I don't see a contradiction. I'm speaking of the equilibrium of the internal structure of the object. Yes, of course, in the moving frame the observed equilibrium will be different (and in fact the same as that of the object when it was at rest in the original frame). I mean the forces which hold the atoms together in an object. I think you misunderstand both my comments and mechanics. Forces are forces whether they are internal or4 externally applied. A rigid body maintains its shape, not because the forces are internal, but because every particle of that body is subject to the same accelerating force. But it may be that no particle of that body is in equilibrium. Fast forward to Einstein. I asked if when you refer to forces you are referring to Newtonian or four- forces. Why does in make any difference if they are internal? To obtain a vector equation to balance (make equal to zero) all the vectors must be of the same type. So they must be all Newtonian vectors or Minkowskian vectors.

Perhaps the train guard will hammer it home for you.

Electrons are not electrically neutral because they have a negative charge. Protons have a positive charge equal but opposite sign to that on the electron. So the charges balance out in an atom to make the atom electrically neutral, since all atoms have the same number of electrons and protons. Take one electron away or add one and there is a net charge (positive or negative respectively). This object is not electrically neutral and is now called an ion not an atom. You posted this in chemistry so I started a chemists answer. An electricians answer would be simpler. I don't know where you are coming from on this so help me out to help you. In particular you didn't say if you know what osmosis is. Have a look at this short thread and tell me if you understand my explanation and if the explanation is too easy or what? Sorry I can't do diagrams at the moment, that would make it much easier.

And you carefully avoided my comments. It's not a question of belief or agnosticism. Nor is it a question of proof, but I did offer evidence. This is the Philosophy section, which cleaves to a wider remit, in particular rational analysis of a subject. This is what I am doing since I do not consider the original issue a binary one but, like most things, appears on a sliding scale with grey areas. So back to my comment "why can you not define a term by that which it is not?" A great many things (probably more than half) are defined this way in mathematics for instance.

Isn't the underlined part a contradiction in terms? In fact isn't equilibrium another one of those characteristics that depend on the observer in einstinian relativity? And when you refer to 'forces', do you mean Newtonian forces or four-forces?

Thank you for the support. So you think the boundary points should be excluded. Fair enough, but what about my last point which covered this case? Just because we don't know what it is / can't define it doesn't prevent it being there. We don't know what is at the core of Jupiter, but we can say that it is within the planet's outer boundary. So I am defining nothing as 'that which is within the boundary between nothing and something' Even then it performs a function. Since 'many a true word is spoken in jest' I am reminded of an old joke. An apprentice was being quizzed on a building site by an old Clerk of Works. "What is the purpose of the mortar between the bricks?" The apprentice immediately answered "That's easy. There mortar is there to stick the bricks together" "Not exactly" came the reply, "The mortar is there to hold the bricks apart" So I tell you. "Nothing is there to hold the somethings apart"

How can you have brought up questions? There wasn't a single question or question mark in your previous post. The moderator was not complaining about this statement "dude isn't science bringing up questions and trying to answer them? I'm simply trying to have to have a discussion" That is exactly what is wanted here. The moderator was complaining about your method of discussion, (but really very gently) because it is against the rules of this forum. If you wanted to ask your questions related to something previously started here, the forum correct way is to start your own thread perhaps referring to this one like so: XXXXX said in thread YYYY........................ However is this an alternative view/explanation/........................ You will find plenty of examples of such spin off threads here. go well

To further help you, When a surface acts like a mirror the reflection is said to be specular The opposite is called a diffuse reflection. https://www.google.co.uk/search?biw=1024&bih=506&q=specular+and+diffuse+reflection&oq=specular+and+diffuse&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0l4.14531.22139.0.24698.24.23.0.0.0.0.558.4581.0j8j6j1j1j2.18.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..8.16.3409...0i13k1j0i7i30k1j0i8i10i30k1j0i67k1.5EBd8fQU5xg

What about the problem of the boundary? There must be a boundary between that which is nothing and that which is something. Boundary points have a foot in both camps since one side faces nothing and the other faces something. So are you including boundary points in 'something' or in 'nothing'? Even if you include them in something, then they define or enclose nothing as that which is within the boundary. Yes DrP +1