studiot

Thanks, Sensei for the suggestions. Ever the practical man I see. I fear that would be rather inaccurate, however. Don't forget that plants produce often at least as much material below ground as above. I would also need to add in the weights of heavy crops such as potatoes and apples. Grass, too, though not weighty is cut many times a year. I was really hopong that someone from the life sciences would respond with some average figures I could plug in.

If your interest is genuine, why do you not answer comments directly affecting your original post and keep introducing extraneous material? Both of these practices are against forum rules. The question What is motion ? is a much better question than your original one.

I was wondering how much CO2 my garden removes from the atmosphere and how to develop a calculator for this purpose for other gardens. First thoughts are to do it by ground area and to separate the ground area into zones of different plant size (height) thus: Zone 1 - Grass and low plants less than 0.5 m high Zone 2 - Plants 0.5 to 3.0 m high eg shrub borders , hedges tall vegetables etc Zone 3 - Small trees and other plants 3m to 6m high Zone 4 - Trees taller than 6m high I would welcome comments on whether these are sensible divisions and any steers on how to obtain average CO2 reductions for them.

I remember they had this programme when I was there http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/chemistry/pg-taught/

Perhaps now would be a good time to start? We'd all like to help you know.

Yes it is one route to general relativity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Hilbert_action

Was that before or after you became a novice at theoretical physics? A good example of 'the troll theorem', if you ask me.

Similarities indeed. But what about the relativistic triangle inequality for time and distance?

Since you so peremptorily dismiss the words of the first man to experimentally prove Einstinian relativity in favour of your own offerings, there is nothing more to be said.

Really, Strange, why waste a good troll?

So your reaction is one of indifference. Thank you for making that plain.

Tim Have you stopped talking to me? I wondered at your reaction to this quote from another perceptive man, particularly the bit starred in the margin of the second page about the 'orientation'.

I have to say that both ajb and I and perhaps also others took this to mean that you wanted to study mathematical chemistry in a formal course. Do you really mean that you simply want to apply your maths to help your flatmates in some way, as a private project? Hypervalent iodine is right to say that you need some knowledge of chemistry to do this effectively. Note the word apply, Chemists' use of mathematics is applied. I can't imagine your flatmates being interested in the pure mathematics supporting the applications. Further many of the applications spring from the border area between Chemistry and Physics So much so that on of the leading textbooks of the last century was entitled The Mathematics of Physics and Chemistry By Margenau and Murphy. Most of the group theory developed there is for crystal chemistry. Also look at the more modern The Chemistry Maths Book : Steiner I previously mentioned reaction kinetics. Some of this is at the forefront of applied maths and includes (systems of) differential equations not all of which have known solutions and many of which are non linear in character. The emphasis placed on the basic principles that underpin both Physics and Chemistry is different, no more so than in Quantum Mechanics. Physicists tend to concentrate on primary particles - atoms and below. Chemists are more interested in combinations of atoms, called molecules. So a look at high level quantum chemistry takes on quite a different view from high level quantum physics, although the same underlying science is still there. Contemporary Quantum Chemistry : Goodisman Molecular Quantum Mechanics : Atkins and Friedman QM is also bound up with another mathematical area common to maths and physics, spectroscopy. Spectroscopy : Whiffen. Apart from the above books, another area of rapid modern development is the mathematics of electrochemistry Modern Electrochemistry : Bockris and Reddy

Exactly. +1 Rasher Null I gave you a specific answer to your specific question and amplified it with a practical example from real life. The only answer from you was to accuse me of being dismissive.

Sensei +1 since the OP didn't

I'm sorry, what does coding have to do with my tank of water?

Ask your friends to explain chemical kinetics (rates of reactions) to you. Particularly in respect of catalysis and surface chemistry.

Please explain

Depends what you mean by an unsolved problem. There are well established mathematical methods for handling turbulent flow. They are obviously not the same as for laminar flow or there would be no point in making the distinction. We do, however, understand less about the mechanism of turbulent flow than laminar flow. But it is not chaotic (in the mathematical sense), that is something else again. So let's try to narrow the focus of your question down a bit?

A good knowledge of statistics is essential in experimental chemistry, particularly analytical chemistry. 4th year of what?

Whilst I think ajb's comments were a bit harsh, he also asked a good question At what level? There is the Cambridge University Physical Science Tripos - Maths, Chemistry and Physics You might also look at chemical engineering, which includes more maths than pure chemistry

I don't see any connection between information theory and Newtonian Physics. Perhaps you have misunderstood this Information theory is based on the idea that a system (real and physical or artificial and imaginary) can exist in a specific finite number of states. This corresponds to quantum mechanics and statistical mechanics in theoretical physics which have a similar basis. Newtonian physics allows an unlimited number of states'. So for example the short answer is a body doesn't. Consider a tank of water on the top of a hill. Which way will it flow? The answer is any way that you punch a hole in the side. The water will flow out anywhere because it exerts pressure on all sides simultaneously. How does that fit with your information theory?

Anyone can be a smartass. But have you studied Hamilton-Lagrangian mechanics and the principle of least action and the calculus of variations? That is what you need to you to obtain an answer.

Steady state was not mentioned in the OP Yes the outer walls are the same but why should the heat reaching them be identical? Therefore thermal runaway is not precluded

Thanks for reminding me ajb, I was going to say that as well +1 Klaynos Tampitump, your approach now should very much depend upon the sort of questions you are likely to be asked in your calculus exam. Do they want you to show understanding of the underlying principles? Do they want you to be able to extract derivatives and integrals according to particular rules and methods? Do they expect you to apply the knowledge of calculus to anything (eg maxima and minima) ? Anything else? Whilst I am suggesting you apply your main focus to your exam requirements, to help us know where you are coming from can you tell us what you already know pre calculus. Do you for instance know what a function is? What notation are you using?