studiot

Not at all, your post #53 contained no reference to my post 54. Indeed it could not have done since it preceded it.. Yet my post 54 did indeed contain the comment that "the truth of (1) does not establish the truth of (3)", though in much more gentle and friendly words. Indeed it was the first statement made in my post##54

Curiously enough, length has no meaning without time, on account of simultaneity

Firstly you don't 'solve' chemical equations, you balance them. This is because a chemical equation is not really an equation in the mathematical sense at all but a description of what happens in a chemical reaction or process. For this reason modern chemists prefer to employ an arrow not an equation sign. You would not write reactants = products would you? Far better to write Reactants [math] \mapsto [/math] Products. Secondly in my opinion it is far better to use proper balanced equations from the start and not get into bad habits that can lead to errors later. Skeleton equations are not properly balanced. For example Mg + O2 [math] \mapsto [/math] MgO is a skeleton equation 2Mg + O2 [math] \mapsto [/math] 2MgO is the properly balanced equation. Does this help?

OK so it is still work you are going to claim as your own. However we also want to encourage interest in science and engineering so I will start some help in this way. In engineering we very often use what is known as 'black box theory'. That is we draw a box around something and do not worry what goes on inside, just consider the inputs and outputs. So for our wastewater plant in the black box, can you fill in the words represented by question marks and then think about the following questions. The water enters the plant in one state and leaves in another. What other inputs or outputs might there be and what does that have to do with the states of the water? This will lead to the answer to your first question about turbidity. Can you list the different groups (of people) who are interested in what goes into or out of the plant (or both) and what there interests might be. This will lead to the answer to your other three questions.

I have to own up to a bo-bo in my post3, in missing out a delta. The correct relativistic formula is [math]\sqrt {\Delta {x^2} + \Delta {y^2} + \Delta {z^2} + {{\left( {ic\Delta t} \right)}^2}} [/math] I'm surprised no hawkeyes noticed this.

sigh, once again this is such unnecessary hard work. Your post#53 contained 3 statements and I commented on two of them in my post#54, which can easily be seen to come directly after yours. There was no misrepresentation only misunderstanding on your part. Nor were there any missing intervening posts, simply because there were no intervening posts. You statements were 1) A claim to have disproved someone else's statement. 2) A quote of the allegedly fallacious statement 3) An alternative statement of your own. I did not comment of (2) at all. I did not comment on the veracity or falsity of either (1) or (3) I did say that it follows from simple logical reasoning the truth of (1) does not establish the truth of (3) I did, however, offer some encouraging words about (3), which were irrelevant to the logical connection (or lack of it) noted above.

First why do you object to there being more than one way to do things? What would it be like if there was only one road in and out of Calcutta? Surely many roads are better? Moving the discussion back to mechanics, in statics there is an equivalent distinction in methods of calculation of the mechanics of structures. There are direct Newtonian Force-Displacement methods and Energy methods such as Castigliano's and Maxwell's theorems and the theorems of virtual work. I can assure you that structural engineers are all too pleased to have alternative methods at their disposal for calculation, from which they can choose the easist one for the task in hand. You say you understand Lagrangian mechanics, so what are the differences? Lagrangian mechanics is an energy method. As such it involves scalars, rather than the vectors in the Newtonian equations of motion. Scalars are the same in all coordinate systems. Newtonian methods are differential equations, which are local in nature and refer to points close by. Lagrangian equations of motion are integral equations and global in nature. They refer to the entire trajectory. They are suitable to enter directly into Hamilton's Principle or the Principle of Least Action. Further they feed directly into and connect more modern and advanced mechanics, that of symmetry (Noether's theorem), Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. The derivation of the Schrodinger Equation is a particularly simple via this route.

Here's what actually happened To which I commented You also followed with a bald statement of your version of fact without justification or 'proof', exactly as I noted There, see - no proof. So the situation is exactly as I noted You may have disproved what someone else said, but it does not make what you said automatically correct. As the actress said to the Bishop "Don't get smart with me, young man"

Is this homework/coursework?

Gosh Mig, the last time I suggested a look at Kaluza and Klein it fell on deaf ears.

Hey you should explain determinism to those embroiled in the blockhead, sorry block universe threads. +1 Or perhaps that is bad advice as it might get you embroiled as well.

I think we have enough to be going on with. Many of the points you make carry some weight, but there is much more to the story. I suggest you postpone extended discussion of turning effects to another thread, it does not belong here. Start another if you wish. I will be out for a few hours now and able carry on in more detail then.

Do you understand that because there is no other black in the CMY palette, true black is added and represented by the letter K to distinguish it from blue?

OK so let us accept that English is not your first language and put down any misunderstandings to that. Actually I think your written English is pretty good. But it is possible you may have more difficulty understanding English written by others. So this could be a double benefit (slang double whammy) for you to improve you understanding of both English and Science here. To answer your questions and progress the discussion. Not really. My words very clearly state that defining energy as force times distance is not a good idea because there are situations when you multiply force times distance and do not obtain an energy. I then asked if you know of such a situation. I also asked what else you might obtain that is not energy. To save time I will tell you that moment (the americans like to call it torque) is defined as force times distance. I hope you know the difference between moment and energy. I also asked you the following question This is important because Force is (always) a vector and 'distance' in this case is also a vector. Since there are two possible and different ways of multiplying two vectors together, Multiplying force and 'distance' will get you two different answers and two different quantities. Energy is the scalar (or dot) product of the two vectors. Moment is the vector product of the same two vectors. I will stop here for the time being until you can confirm that you have understood what I have said so far.

Careful, that implies there is an 'absolute' space and time to compare the stretch against. Getting past that to me is the core of most peoples' difficulty.

No it's just too long to read. Offer your idea a point at a time and you may then build up a bank of agreed points to develop into a full blown argument.

memammal please don't follow Tim's example and start sprinkling every post with links to other threads with the admonition that '....has already posted it here', which will lead to a long if not endless chain of links. Most of us will not even follow to the first one. So please say what you want to say in the thread in your usual quite succinct style. I look forward to your promised thoughts on my last post in this fashion.

Thank you for finally answering the second question in my first post#19. You have yet to answer my first question there. in reply to studiot, on 26 Oct 2016 - 5:41 PM, said: Of course I did and repeated it a couple of times. Is this not true? How can it possibly be a definition of energy? It was clearly a reason to not use this definition but employ the one that I actually stated. Are you being funny or what? You have not yet answered my question attached to that statement now thrice repeated.

Development of axiomatic systems was no asked for and is really another discussion. However the MLT basis actually covers this topic as well. But it all involves starting from the beginning.

The problem with this statement is that you have not shown how it leads to an 'absolutely inertial state' (or even defined such a state) As far as I can see all you have presented (in a rather roundabout way) is the (correct) statement that every body is at rest in its own frame of reference. What is most definitely incorrect is the statement: ' In the absolute inertial state, the status of earth's motion is unique and invariable.' Even the ancient Greeks knew this be untrue (Give me a fulcrum and a lever long enough and I will move the world) Neither is the claim that something invariable is linear. In euclidian geometry the following is invariant and non linear [math]\sqrt {\Delta {x^2} + \Delta {y^2} + \Delta {z^2}} [/math] and in relativistic spacetime the invariant is [math]\sqrt {\Delta {x^2} + \Delta {y^2} + \Delta {z^2} + {{\left( {ict} \right)}^2}} [/math]

The maximum thermal efficiency of a diesel engine is 56% so more than half the power is wasted. I don't call that without expenditure of high power.

So you didn't understand and asked for clarification since it offered all that you asked for? Or did you just carry on demanding an answer to conform to your terms, telling others that they are wrong? Again if you don't understand the difference between an identity and an equality, why don't you ask? You can use an equation to define energy, and I did supply one, along with a conventional explanation. But in this case words are better. Now that you have got into the habit of replying, perhaps we can carry on the conversation towards understanding? What exactly did you not understand about my definition? What did you make of my comment against the 'force times distance' argument? (note srinam correctly offered force times displacement) You have introduced some vector notation, do you understand that one of the properties of energy is that it is a scalar?

Any first year philosopher should be able to discern that just because you can disprove someone else's statement, it doesn't make yours correct.

Very high pressure without expenditure of very high power. Sounds very witchy to me, almost like magic.

A test soon? You need to sort out some basic concepts before you tackle more difficult things like bonding in graphite and graphene, diamond and other forms of carbon. First and foremost electrons have a negative charge not a positive one. So a mini test to help do you know what these are Atom Molecule Ion Electron Proton Neutron Whether you have an ionic system (almost always liquid or gas) you have no current until you impress (apply) a voltage. The same is true of a metallic system. Do you know what an ionic (ionised) gas is called ? This will give you a start in the right direction.