studiot

You can't. You have to convert to a consistent set of units. You will also have to address the fact that pressure was given to you in yet other units and convert that as well. Perhaps this question is really an exercise in unit conversion? I strongly recommend using the MKS units which are universally accepted in Science (even in the USA). How about attempting my question concerning Boyle's Law? Ask if the sentence is too long. We can return to the pressure part when we have decided what we want to calculate.

You need to add the velocities relativistically, not linearly. See here https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=relativistic+addition+of+velocities&hl=en-GB&gbv=2&oq=relativistic+addition+of+velocities&gs_l=heirloom-serp.3..0l5j0i22i30l5.613172.621609.0.626531.35.26.0.9.9.0.203.2825.13j12j1.26.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-serp..0.35.3090.b6Y_aF-YHdQ

g is the acceleration due to gravity, not grams. Look here and see if you can find and explanation of my formula that you like. [math]P = \rho gh[/math] https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-GB&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=pressure+in+a+column+of+fluid&gbv=2&oq=pressure+in+a+column+of+fluid&gs_l=heirloom-hp.3..0j0i22i30l2.1078.6594.0.7172.29.25.0.4.4.0.234.3016.4j18j2.24.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..1.28.3186.-a2Ow7pf89U Where P is the pressure, rho is the density (it is a greek letter rho), g is the acceleration due to gravity and h is the depth. What does Boyle's law tell you about the ratio of the gas volume at 100 feet depth to the gas volume at the surface compared to the ratio of the pressures at these points?

So you are looking for first principles. Have you seen the equation for the pressure in a column of fluid? P = density x g x height of column

Since you have posted this in Chemistry, I take it this is a Chemistry question. Yes the number of protons determines the actual element concerned - a matter of Physics. But from the Chemist's point of view, the organisation of the 'table' into (horizontal ) octets or periods is much more interesting. This is because the chemical properties are largely determined by the electrons, not the protons and we observe recurring groups of properties. For example the first (vertical) group in the table is known as the alkali metals (Lithium, Sodium, Potassium etc) and the second (vertical) group the alkaline earths. Elements from the same group take aprt in very similar chemical reactions and can often substitute for each other. https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-GB&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=table+of+elements&gbv=2&oq=table+of+el&gs_l=heirloom-hp.1.0.0l10.1469.4422.0.6328.11.10.0.1.1.0.204.1391.1j7j2.10.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..0.11.1422.86Z3aUlIaKE

You can, of course, construct a marked straight edge, using a compass and an unmarked one. But that would be against the spirit of the game.

First where does it say in your question to use PV = nRT? Have you heard of Boyle's Law? https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-GB&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=boyles+law&gbv=2&oq=boyles+law&gs_l=heirloom-hp.3..0i10l10.1109.3797.0.4047.10.10.0.0.0.0.297.1439.2j7j1.10.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..0.10.1439.pgJ9APDpU9M I am not sure you need the densities at all, unless you want to calculate the increase in pressure with depth from first principles. https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-GB&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=pressure+increases+with+depth&gbv=2&oq=pressure+increase&gs_l=heirloom-hp.1.2.0l10.1485.4485.0.8422.17.13.0.4.4.0.219.1391.2j7j1.10.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..3.14.1516.aGzLh9kyPPY Ask for more help if you need it.

What a rude response to all those who put their own time and effort into replying to you. Since you are already such an expert that you can dismiss my observation in so cavalier a manner I take it you are aware that we do not even know if the Second Law applies to the universe as a whole or not and why. This conundrum was known to the architects of Thermodynamics and has been pondered and debated in a much more civilized manner than your post for more than a century. There are two issues. 1) The Second Law applies to closed systems; we do not know if the universe is closed or not. 2) We do not know if the universe is finite or infinite. If it is infinite how can its (already infinite) entropy increase?

Now that St George is dealing with the trolls, I will have some time to look at this in more detail this evening. Meanwhile your expression (it is not an equation) has an incorrect number of brackets. Perhaps that is why your do my homework for me program is showing an error. Can you start by assigning a tension to each string and developing the equations of motion (you do realise that equilibrium cannot be used in this question?)

Hello Jmanm, I suggest you are boggling your mind by falling into the classic trap of extrapolating to much and too far from too little data. That is what going from local effects to the ends of time and the universe amounts to. Try to condense your question into one short paragraph and you will get a sensible answer.

Well thank you for all that. It makes it absolutely clear that not only do you you actually know more than you let on, you are misusing that knowledge for reasons of your own. Knowing this enables me to waste no more of my time on your machinations. Don't feed the trolls.

You will be better understood if you use standard language. For example If two numbers m and n, when multiplied together, yield the number N then m and n are said to be factors of N so long as m and n are not equal to N or 1. (Some people extend this to say that N is prime if the only two 'factors' of N are N and 1) There are no numbers m, or n that satisfy this for [math]N = \infty [/math] I think you mean something else and I was trying to help you find whatever it is.

So you are not going to answer my question?

Since I didn't ask that why should I care? I will repeat my question one more time. What do you understand a factor of infinity to mean, since you introduced the term and it appears contrary to common mathematical usage to me?

Well if that contains an answer to one of my questions, I don't see it. I would remind your obligations under of the rules of this forum to answer questions, fairly put, about details of your hypotheses.

This is said apropos of what ?

I don't recall the exact words so this is the substance of what I said, but may not be all. I observed that your two statements remind me of the solutions to common differential equations of physics which often have competing solutions, one of which grows indefinitely and the other dies away. The trick is balancing this competition. The second part was about your understanding of 'infinity'. Please expand on what you mean by factors of infinity. Mathematically infinity has no factors. Do you understand what a singularity is and what a removable singularity is, or what poles and zeros are in mathematical analysis?

I would If I could find it. I was hoping that your memory of that that other thread was better than mine. I have no interest in Dr P and we should, in any case, not be discussing hearsay. My points were of a mathematical nature, concerning your statements on infinity comparing them to similar processes in the solutions to common physical equations.

If you have finished dancing with strange, how about responding to my post#36?

You posted this stuff in another recent thread, I can't now find - it may have been locked. I asked you about it there but received no reply.

I disagree. Mrs Thatcher was originally a professional chemist, before she was a successful politician. Given her political direction about other subjects, no one was more shocked than I about her hard line on CFC propellants in aerosols. Her extremely strong backing to reduction and phasing out has lead to great progress restoring the upper atmosphere.

I'm glad my short post#28 gave you pause for thought. Unfortunately your response was so disappointing I didn't feel like continuing the conversation. Having reviewed the thread I do ,however, feel that you are right in saying that no satisfactory answer to your original question has been provided so perhaps I will try once more. I asked if you knew the difference between electric and magnetic (and EM) fields and it is clear you do not so here is an answer to that. Electric fields (ie the field lines) start and terminate on electric charges or extend out to infinity. They never form loops. Magnetic fields always form loops, they have no beginning or end. The field lines always pass from one pole to the other outside the magnet and return through the body of the magnet to form the complete loop All material magnets have two poles. If you divide a magnet you get two magnets, each with two poles. Material charges have one polarity. They charges are indivisible. I will not mention EM fields yet because we need to introduce another notion for this. It is this notion that pertains to your original question. Do you wish to continue?

Do we get many politicians here? I avoid the politics section. Far better for there to be a compulsory science and thinking course (Edward De Bono anyone?) for prospective members of SF.

A good idea Tim, but a better example would be the Force - Extension graph for a spring. This definitely has different physical quantities on each axis. Force - ma give you force on both axes Or I suppose you could simply drop the m.

Do you have any idea of the difference between an electric field, a magnetic field and an electromagnetic field? Do you have any idea how a neutron would interact with any of these fields, if at all?