studiot

So here are some points to consider. There are two groups of red sandstones in Devon. The Old Red Sandstone dating from the Devonian period 400 - 350 MYBP and The New Red Sandstone dating from the Permian / triassic 280 - 200 MYBP They are quite different in character and origin. Sediments range in size from pebbles through grains to fine particles. They get this way through mechanical abrasion and also through grading during transport. The pebbles and grains are usually harder minerals like quarz and feldspar, The fine materials comprise clay minerals, other softer minerals like mica, calcareous material and even organic material. Material of aqueous origin usually has a large mix, wind tends to make all the grains the same size and blow away the dust. The deposited rocks become conglomerates, sandstones, mudstones or siltstones according to the particle sizes. So sandstones are in the middle. So when the mix is being deposited if there is a large percentage of fine material a Matrix is formed with grains and or pebbles included in it. The matrix cements itself together by chemical action (the clay minerals are quite active) and this matrix holds the larger particles, grains and pebbles. Mudstones, siltstones, chalk, limestones and so on are formed in this way. If there is only a small percentage of fine material a Matrix does not form and the grains are first deposited loose. Over time solutions containing cementing minerals work their way between the grains forming the looser sandstones. These minerals are calcite, heamatite (the red in red sandstone), feldspar and some quartzite.

So what is the title of your course?

Since I know nothing about the biological science behind this I am posting the equations here for the benefit of those that perhaps do. It is customary to identify all the variables given symbols I do not know what they are. In particular R and T need defining. [math]{Q_{10}} = \frac{{R_2^{\frac{{10}}{{{T_2} - {T_1}}}}}}{{R{}_1}}[/math] [math]R = \frac{{{{9.5}^{1.41}}}}{{21.5}}[/math] [math]{\log _{\frac{{9.5}}{R}}}\left( {21.5} \right) = 1.41[/math]

Do you mean magnets or magnetic fields? Fields don't have a 'like' and 'unlike'. They are vectors and have a strength and a direction. So they add vectorially. Magnetic vectors in the same direction reinforce, those in the opposite direction weaken the total field where they interact. Magnets have poles that attract or repel, is this what you are really asking about?

1) Practicalities One of the main points made in the original post is the excessive amount of time and effort it take moderating these threads. I see lots of answers here saying that these threads are well controlled so should be allowed to continue. All that these posts are really saying is how hard our mods are working, freely giving their time to do this. But those mods are being squeezed until the pips squeak. We should listen to those squeaks. 2) Wishful Thinking A second commonly expressed hope is that responses here would be able to steer the misguided away from their cherished thoughts. IMHO this is largely wishful thinking; the misguided eventually leave disgruntled, once the mods time has been wasted policing and finally closing their thread, oft going off to report censorship to their contempories. 3)Censorship Banning a subject from the outset and allowing threads to run until they become overheated and then closing them (probably with acrimony) on the opinion of a person or small group of people (nearly) always leads directly to a charge of censorship. This charge may be unfounded and the decision perfectly in accordance with the rules, but the impression taken away is not about the subject matter but about the action. This is why I suggested a mechanically imposed automatic post limit in these threads. No Mod work would be necessary The Poster would have the opportunity to put their point. Responders would have a similar opportunity Tit for tat responding would be curtailed.

The First Law (of Statistics) says Correlation does not imply causation. I think you need to look much more deeply than this.

Not sure I haven't worked it all out, but I was thinking about the relativity of simultaneity and how it is different for for different observers. So points will be included in some observers' set but not in other observers' sets.

You are just playing devil's advocate. Here is a famous (scientific) quote that covers your quibble completely. "Gentleman shall I refuse my dinner because I do not understand the process of digestion?" As I understand the sequence of events Precise measurements of the position of London and New York on the globe were measured in the late 19th century by celestial observations, First the Telegraph and later radio signals provided precise time differences. It was observed that the two continents were separating by a figure a few centimetres per annum. This was very puzzling and disturbing to explain at the time. Around 1910 Wegner came up with his theory of continental drift, and today we have a better one. Is that not the usual pattern of scientific discovery?

How do you know? You Americans thought the Russians weren't going into space but they beat you there. What about the yellow (dark) horse from further east?

Think of lightburst at some arbitrary point in the Universe. Now consider the set of all points illuminated by that lightburst some arbitrary time later. Do the the points included or excluded not depend upon the observer and his velocity relative to the initial point?

Would this imply that the only place in Nature you think mathematics can exist is within a human brain?

I'm glad to hear oceanograhic funding has increased. Some of the Captain Cook's soundings are still on the on charts. However I said space research, not NASA. How much is spent by other organisations, telescopes, satellite coms companies, universities and so on and so forth? Yes some other countries have oceanographic budgets that you appear to count in, thogh Mongolia's is pretty small. Yet you don't want to include the space budgets of other countries. Sure I probably exaggerated for effect, but the usage of and payback from the oceans is vastly greater than that from space.

Sandstones are loosly bound such that when you break a piece the fracture runs through the cement, not the grians of quartz. Metamorphosed sandstone forms quartzite, where the grains fuse together to form large masses of quartz. Breakage of quartzite shears through the quartz particles themselves. UK examples are the Shropshire hills. http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-devils-chair-a-quartzite-tor-on-stiperstones-shropshire-england-uk-25989467.html

I believe I suggested 5 posts per member responding, not a total length. Isn't there a vigorously enforced policy of not opening another thread on a closed subject?

Is Mars any better? From what I can understand $50 million is a lot of money in oceanographic research $50 billion is a drop in the ocean of space research.

Care to elaborate ?

I have just been listening to a programme about burying carbon in the american Midwest or central China. Why not the bottom of the sea? This is, after all, where Nature buries it. We have the International Space Station, and projected missions to Mars, but ocean bottom stations are still only available in Hollywood Scifi movies. I have spent the last half century hearing about how much treasure is to be had at the bottom of the sea, yet we know proportionately more about the Solar system than the depths because we put proportionately more effort into space research than subsea research. Why is theis? Surely the payback would be greater for many centuries to come?

Obviously I'm not being clear. I'm proposing an automatic programmed into the site cutoff with no need for mod intervention. That's why I indicated I don't know if it's practicable here. And if they prefer to spend 150+ posts re-educating you? As I see it it is a question of degree or %. The total input to non scientific threads should be limited to a small percentage of the total in some way. This is, after all, primarily a scientific site. Everyone should be able to put their opinions on say suppression of women in certain societies. But once or twice is enough. But not to the detriment of the main purpose of this site.

Should be much less if the site can restrict this automatically.

I don't know if it's possible wthin the site's programming but if we simply limited the number of posts in some way? I have noticed that religious and some other contentious subjects rapidly grow to 50 to 200 posts, sucking all the resources, members time as well as policing time, away from real scientific subjects. In many technical disciplines you have a certain number of goes at the exams that's it. If we said say 5 posts per member in the religion and politics sections and if you can't make your point in those, tough? I speak as one has has not made many more than 5 posts in total since I've been here in those non scientific sections.

Fancy books and fancy formulae? Why do you think folks study numerical techniques? What are the uses of integration and differentiation? Here is an everyday simple example. The construction of a concrete ground slab for a new building involves digging out ground for the slab to a depth of 0.5, along with a ring beam under the entire perimeter of the 30m x 30m slab. The ringbeam is an extra 1.0m deep below the underside of the slab, 1.2m wide at the top and 0.5 m wide at the bottom in trapezoidal section. How much earth has to be removed and replaced with concrete. This is an exercise in numerical integration that involves two of the three principle uses of integration.

Rather than continuing this squabble here is something on topic to ponder. Consider the set of all humans who are alive (or dead if you prefer). Now at present all (known humans) are concentrated on one planet so the relativity of simultaneity is not an issue. But Consider a set of transientobjects such that they have substantial relative velocity. What is in the set depends upon the time at which you enumerate the set, if the set has physical reality (even as a non material thing) But this conflicts with relativity of simultaneity. Some observers will include some objects, but others will exclude them since the observe the objects to have run their course at the moment of counting. My head hurts.

16 volts and 1.2 amps implies 20 watts. For a small pair of computer speakers? This would be most unusual. So please ohdearme check the rating befopre we proceed further and confirm that the adapter isn't really 6 volts.

Lucid explanation, John. +1 But hydraulics is still a poor to defective analogy for electrics.

Sorry I can't help further with your cupric hydroxide reaction, but I believe your search may be enhanced if you use the term polyhydric alcohol.