studiot

I like the guard banging his head hammer on the end of the train example, Janus. +1 I was actually thinking of supersonic aircraft and sonic booms and shock waves.

I am sorry I didn't realise that was a reply to anything I said, all of which is tailored to the OP. I did ask you how arbitrarily large energy could appear in contravention of COE, but you simple reasserted the OP question as fact. I have already outlined the correct way to go about this, with one exception. Your particular misconception is based on the same fallacy that asserts that lead has infinite densite. That is if we take the mass of a lump of lead and take the limit of the mass to volume ratio as the volume goes to zero, we get the (finite) density at a point. Similarly with force and stress or pressure at a point. The equations of inductions are differential equations with the same sort of limiting ratio.

OK so since you have posted this in Chemistry I am going to assume you understand (at least in principle) osmosis. Let me start by offering a correction. The dopant materials are atoms not ions. The point is that the elements selected contain one more or one less outer electron than silicon ie 3 or 5. If such an atom is substituted into a silicon lattice it creates a shortage or excess of one outer electron. So the shortage or excess is controlled by the doping % It is important to realise that such atoms also contain one less or one more proton so the electrical neutrality of the lattice is maintained. Now conduction in lattices occurs by the individual atoms giving up some of their bonding electrons to participate in what amounts to giant molecular orbitals known as metallic bonds. This form of bonding delocalises the bonds allowing the electrons free roaming from one end of the crystal lattice to the other. This is how current flows in metals and semiconductors. If the doped lattice has atoms that add one fewer electron than silicon to this then the material is P type If the doped lattice has atoms that add one more electron than silicon to this then the material is N type But remember that the lattice is electrically neutral. If we then join a piece of P type to a piece of N type we have a chunk of material with mismatched molecular orbitals, with excess electrons in the N material and deficit in the P type. This sets up the electrical equivalent of osmotic pressure, that is the potential barrier across the PN junction. Does this help?

Why should I ? You didn't reply to my post.

Pretty good. Another way to look at it is to think of the difference between glass and water. Glass can have a smooth surface or a textured one (eg for a bathroom). You can get some sort of reflected image from either, but it is static (doesn't move). The water is normally smooth when static, but becomes rough on movement. My first post was also looking ahead for you in this subject.

Whenever a travelling wave encounters a boundary between the region it is travelling in and another region, One, two or all of three things may happen. Absorption of the wave Transmission of the wave from one region to the next Reflection of the wave back into the first region Often one of these predominates - you should look up 'total internal reflection' Add this to swansont's question

I wondered that too, but didn't have full access last night.

Excellent approach. +1 The wave equation is independent of the speed of the source, relative to the medium. That is there is nothing in the wave equation about the speed of the source. This means that once the wave is launched, the source looses all control (ability to influence) the wave. The speed is entirely controlled by the characteristics of the medium. This fact is often overlooked in relativity explanations where it is wrongly stated that the einstinian postulate says that the speed of light wave is independent of both the source and observer. The first was already established fact. The new part of the postulate is that it is also independent of the observer. Remember also that this does not weaken this postulate; it is very strong in that it leads directly to the deduction of the Lorenz transformations etc.

We already have a current thread on this but no one seemed interested. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/108153-oxygen-levels-in-the-triassic/

I see you are new here so welcome. I am responding to both your thread questions since they seem related. A paper on cellular automata? I find that subject very interesting. Your proposal about the universe being a form of CA has been put forward before I see you are interested in AI but the member details page here is now so much wasted space. Are you a programmer ? I ask because technology in general and computing in particular has its own corner of Mathematics these days, which has displaced much of the traditional stuff for its proponents. In particular Discrete Mathematics has come to the fore. You can't, after all, master everything these days. Anyway I wondered how CA would work in a discrete, but non Euclidian, non linear universe? I ask because Einstinian Relativity is non linear ie it views our universe as being non Euclidian and non linear. Back to the question here. Do the Laws pop in and out of where? Do you mean something like the fibre bundles of vectors in modern differential geometry?

No I am legion

But I am not a real man, I am just a plastic facsimile

You made no typo since you made the same error in the thread that was closed and twice in the opening post of this thread. I did however overlook the grammatical error "a atom" An atom has one nucleus.

So did I until I checked with Googiebaby https://www.google.co.uk/search?site=&source=hp&q=einstein's+height+weight&oq=einstein's+height+weight&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i30k1.10332.30473.0.32051.24.24.0.0.0.0.251.4162.2j15j7.24.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.21.3859...0j0i131k1.6g-0Wgdg6qA

I am persuaded that Einstein's inertial mass was 90kg

What do you call someone who cannot tell the difference between singular and plural ?

Thanks for warning us. +1 Punters need to band together.

Nonsense, it is the augean stables that need cleaning of trolls.

This has got to be your most brazen troll yet. What, pray, is an alpha particle?

Careful what you assume. Some of us (myself included) have published research papers to our names.

How ? Did you read my recent comments or am I wasting nmy time on you?

Less of the 'we' please. I agree it is often forgotten or ignored but I am always promoting careful examination of the conditions under which any theory or model holds good.

Thanks. I had considered the Wiki definitive statement a while back but had basically given up on the OP. I did hold back, jut now on a really waspish (but very funny) comment in the Huygens thread. I try to tell myself that maybe the OP is one of these people who has trouble communicating and deserves special consideration.

Well spotted. I particularly like your alternative. +1

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-40740422 Pictures of the biggest bang actually we have observed in the universe plus discussion.