studiot

It's not an 'either or' situation. If you want to consider energy you are better off working in terms of forces. Using the curvature tensor is substantially more difficult. This is a very common situation in Science and Technology. There is more than one method of analysis. Lazy people like me choose the easiest to get the job done.

Roger, think of the difference between a freewheel and a fixed hub in a bicycle.

I'm glad to hear you have some ideas of your own, particularly when you are making a point I hadn't though of. +1 ( I must admit I have always cleaved to the notion that CS should really be Computer Engineering or Computer Technology - it is at best an applied science) This is a good topic for you, although posting the actual essay title here would be useful. It encourages you to read widely and broadens your horizons. There will be plenty of time for immersion in the gory details of CS within your course. Good fortune. Talking of reading, perhaps I can offer an idea or two. The growth in computer technology has prompted the deveopment of a new branch of Mathematics - Discrete Mathematics (you will study much of this) and even Concrete Mathematics: A Foundation for Computer Science (note their use of the terminology) Graham, Knuth and Patashnik. Addison Wesley. Another line of enquirey develops what I said about Science being a repository of knowledge. No one would classify that unfortunately famous textbook Physics by REsnick and Halliday as anything other than a Science text. Yet Archimedes theorem is over 2000 years old and only used by engineers today. Hopefully this has planted a seed; it is your job to develop this. Remember that Cs cannot claim patent on information theory so don't rely on that principle alone (although it is a good one). Many Sciences and even other disciplines have an input to information theory. Hope this helps

I don't have much time tonight but note that going from the second equation to the last [math]T = {\left( {\frac{{\partial U}}{{\partial S}}} \right)_{V,N}}[/math] and [math]P = - {\left( {\frac{{\partial U}}{{\partial V}}} \right)_{S,N}}[/math] so the first term is [math]S\frac{\partial }{{\partial \left( {\lambda S} \right)}}U\left( {\lambda S,\lambda V,\lambda N} \right)[/math] This is therefore ST similarly the second term leads to -PV I will try to do more tomorrow.

I would be interested to learn what comment you have about this more detailed article from London South Bank University.. (Where the information you objected to came from.) http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/electrolysis.html

According to post#1 CS is defined as a Science, for the purposes of the homework. Users of homework help often seen to write a confusing account of what they might actually mean.

My calculater says 120% for this +1 The course material may also offer specific routines tailored to a particular machine.

I agree with Trurl, arguing that CS is not a science is not helpful to the OP, particularly in a homework thread, and also with his offered outline plan for the essay. @hipmatt You say you have found lots of articles to say why it is a science, but none to say why it is not. Do you have no ideas of your own or are you just going to copy what others have said ? If so are you going to pass these ideas off as your own or are you going to acknowledge the sources?

+1 to Trurl for bringing focus back to the thread. I particularly liked the bits about Education academics adn the invocation to define Science (though I would use the word explore). Hands up all those who studied Domestic Science at school. How about Agricultural Science? You can get a Phd in that. Is Science only about discovering new things ? Or does it include cataloguing and classifying existing knowledge and practice and establishing relationships between elements of this knowledge?

Either marry the Boss's daughter or befriend his son and get a job as assistant to him. Either way should be sinecure enough for you.

For the same reason you require thicker wire in power circuits in your house than you do for lighting circuits. That doesn't hardly describe you application as I asked ??

Yes seawater is conductive is the simple answer, if you want more detail, you will have to supply more detail of the application. Electrolysis of water starts at about an impressed voltage of 1.24 volts, but external heat from the surroundings is also required for significant action at this level. Electrolysis of the chloride ion does not start until the impressed voltage is above 1.36 volts. If you keep below these values you are pretty safe to use the seawater as a conductor. This limits the available current and very large electrode areas can be required if much current is to be passed, but this is not a problem for low current applications such as measuring resistivity in a seawater fishtank.

Steiner is very good and very clear to help you with the maths you need rather than the detail the mathematicains want you to know. Takes a student through advanced high school maths and chemists through at least two years of chemistry maths at university. General Chemistry - Petrucci Chemistry - Lewis and Evans Both excellent modern reading at your level, both cover all branches of the subject at introductory level Organic, Inorganic, Analytical, environmental and radiochemistry. A fun book is Molecules - Atkins Go well in your studies and come back here with any questions, there are some good to great chemists on this site.

No, as imatfaal says you can't just add the percentages. You need to create a new population with either stomach or a liver complaint, by adding the individual populations of each, just as you have done above. A small correction to the wording here. Hence Total % change in stomach and liver patients within a year is: should be Hence Total % change in stomach or liver patients within a year is: Further you have to make the assumption that none of the 300 stomach aptients are also counted in the 200 liver patients. Otherwise you do not have enough information. That is no patient has both a stomach and a liver complaint.

Of course the interesting thing is that before the PC came along (monochrome version) we had the Compucolor II with graphics, inbuilt drive, and an inbuilt cathode ray tube that was a pig to align properly oh and I nearly forgot , virus immunity. That was built on an 8080 processor.

Lol indeed You youngsters have it so easy these days. When I did my thesis ( A complete hydrographic survey of Plymouth Sound), just after this thread was started, The most common computer commetn was !Runtime Error.in line 35 We did our computing by manually puching a set of cards, putting an elastic band arond them an puttinf them into the 'in' wire basket in the computer dept hatch. Some days later (next day if we were very lucky) the cards would beappear in the 'out', folded in the output printout on that famous 'music paper.. It took me a smester to design and program a least squares analysis of the survey control net.

Don't you think both methods of assessment have their place, along with others that you haven't mentioned? Why does it have to be one or the other in an all or nothing manner? I couldn't make head nor tail of your last paragraph, perhaps because it was so wan besides the bright lights of the first four. Could you please explain what you are trying to say?

Einstein's field equations have been found to have many different solutions. Just to increase the complications the equations themselves developed and changed over half a century. Here is an extract from Eddington : The Mathematical Theory of Relativity that contrasts a solution by De Sitter with Einstein's own. Note the paragraph under the equations that considers rest and motion. A later more bizarre solution was due to Godel (1949) This one allows time travel. The equations themselves are non-linear, so it is not necessarily so that combinations of solutions are also solutions, though this possibility is not ruled out either.

You can be a Dr. with or without a Ph.D. simply by being a medical doctor, anywhere.

Didn't cathode ray tubes go out of date shortly after 2009?

You know you are completely right about one thing and it was a very good question. The model proposed by MigL does indeed require motion in order to develop an apparent force and offers no answer as to why there might be one between objects with zero relative motion. Interestingly Einstein in his paper submitted in 1915 to the Prussian academy says at greater length than this shortened translation: "What we perceive as gravity is nothing more than objects moving in the geometry of spacetime" I was rather concentrating on the geometry of spacetime part, which is in some ways much easier for me. It is good to have separated this into two questions, one about motion and the other about geometry. I am therefore searching for a model to demonstrate the attraction. I would be grateful for help from anyone who knows more about the Einstein Field Eqautions than I do (not difficult). Perhaps MigL has another, better model up his sleeve cigar?

This message post can only be read in the future.

Thank you for telling me that you have been wasting my time.

Careful, you will be telling him about extensive, intensive and don't care properties next. And they are state secrets.

What, no technical questions at all? Well I will ask one then. Under what conditions is angular momentum conserved for a particle proceeding along a straight line as shown in post#99? There is enough information in post#99 to fully answer this. However it is only true in 2 dimensions. So a second question Why is it not true then in a general 3 dimensional case?