studiot

You first need to decide whether you are looking at this clasically or via special relativity. You have talked of mass, acceleration and velocity in a classical manner but asked if there is a relativistic mass increase. Please don't mix analysis methods. Edit have you looked at my answer to your other new thread?

Hello. Yes No In mechanical science we recognise three basic dimensions ( Mass, Length, Time) and can express all other mechanical quantities in terms of these three. When considering heat we need to add another dimension and temperature is usually chosen. When considering electromagnetism we again need one more and current is now chosen. (charge was once but that has changed to current). Certain other less common areas of science (such as light) need some further dimensions. So your first observation is right mass is a fundamental dimension (*symbol M) and can be expressed in kilogramme units or many othere for example pounds, grammes, atomic mass units (AMU) etc. Energy however is not one of the fundamental big three so it is not a dimension, although its units are joules or BTU or whatever. For quantities such as speed and energy which are not dimensions in themselves we talk of the dimensions of that quantity. So speed is distance divided by time and has dimensions of length over time or LT-1 Energy can also be expressed in terms of ML&T. This expression is more complicated and equal to dimensions of energy = ML2T-2 Please note that the dimensions of speed and energy do not change, whatever units you measure in. Dimensions are useful in seeing that certain quantities have the same dimensions (and are therefore the same) For instance Energy = (ML2T-2) = Work = force times distance = (MLT) x (L) = Power times time = (ML2T-3) x (T) Here is a long list of dimensions and units. http://www.ebyte.it/library/educards/sidimensions/SiDimensionsByCategory.html

I wonder if these answers aren't a little harsh to a beginner. After all we build walls from bricks or blocks and expect the wall to have much the same properties as the individual brick. In fact we also create wallsized bricks out of concrete. So it is not an unreasonable hypothesis, although totally wrong. So concentrating on the technical reason why it is wrong. The hypothesis is wrong because atoms are not like bricks and brick walls where all the parts are the same so an assembly is effectively a larger brick. Atoms are made of several different parts, like trees or motor cars. An assembly of leaves or wheels will never look like a tree or a motor car, walk like a tree or motor car or quack like a tree or motor car. If we assemble a quantity of one of the parts of an atom, say electrons, we indeed have an assembly the behaves much as an individual electron, on in some sense more so. We call this assembly an electric current and in many analyses in physics we treat the electron as a very small electric current. Please realise that this is a very superficial treatment, glossing over many things. But I hope your enthusiasm for thinking is not dampened and I have offered a palatable explanation of why you are misguided.

This is your thread so how about you doing some work? Can you offer any parts of the ocean that is both near to industry and distant from 'rich life' ? For centuries we have been shitting waste away down long pipes into the ocean floor and forgetting it. The worst results of such folly culminated in several Polio outbreaks and severe mercury poisoning of fish in the Pacific. We actually pump water into offshore oilfields as the oil and gas is extracted. This has the effect of filling empty pores allowing more complete extraction and helping prevent collapse of the ocean floor strata.

Solving this out logically will be good practice for you sorting symptoms as a future doctor. You have two different devices that give occasional or regular trouble connecting on a cable to this router. First suspects are therefore cable and the router. Have you a friend with a router you can plug your laptop and cable into to see if it works properly on another network? Many laptops these days have a light adjacent to the ethernet connector that can indicate the quality of the connection, by flickering, remaining steady or change colour. The same goes for the router. How many ethernet sockets has the router? Is the problem the same in all of them? Is you laptop Windows or linux? If Windows have you looked at Network Connections and disconnected the wifi there? What does the LAN connection tell you? No one should be using 10baseT ethernet these days. Cat 5 or Cat 6 are both fine for 100baseT. Don't know the make and model of your router but the French Invensys has the device recognition capability. This is called MAC address filtering https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/ff521761.aspx

Has your router got device recognition security on the lan? You may also need to turn the wifi off on your laptop before trying to connect via a cable.

Good questions, have you any good answers? Some thoughts. Where would you obtain the power for these superpumps? How would you separate the unwanted gases from the 99% rest of the atmosphere, or would you pump that as well? The worst two greenhouse gases are methane and water vapour, what would you do about these? The ocean can (and already does) actually take a large quantity of carbon dioxide without change of pH due to the so called bicarbonate buffer. Moreover since carbon dioxide is denser than air it, gravity naturally pulls it down when the stuff already in intimate contact with the free water surface dissolves. How would you pull down the lighter offending gases that remain in the higher atmosphere? If acidification does occur (as seems to be the case in some places) then it will destroy the very organisms that naturally remove the carbon dioxide and lock it safely away in limestone. So upsetting a working natural balance could have serious unwanted side effects. Dissolving other gases could render the water toxic to a much wider variety of species.

Science is vast so it depends upon what interests you and what resources you have available, including where you live. Geology - rock, fossil and mineral hunting. Metereology - That's weather science not astronomy. Sending up your own balloon can be fun and the telemetry can be an electronics project as well (you say you have built a computer) Microscopy - These days super enlarging electronic stills and video cameras can be output to computer cheaply enough for an amateur scientist.

Out of interest for comparison here are some sealed perspex boxes with a few geological samples. These are obtainable, complete with sample and labeling, for under £1.00 each in the UK.

This is the best post I've seen you make. +1 for encouragement.

I didn't supply a reference, but the book I drew from is http://www-astro.physics.ox.ac.uk/~pgf/Pedro_Ferreira/The_Perfect_Theory.html Please note this is a great source of understanding and further reading but it is not technical enough for your purposes.

As you know I am a muddy boots, dirty hands technologist. As such I have always felt GR to be inferring too much from too little. So I was suprised to learn that over the years there have been several theories of general relativity, with different terms and constants in the equations changing as new material has arisen. So I recommend you be very aware of which version you incorporate material from.

Well this is the first time I have seen this thread and I am looking forward to reading all the posts carefully. It is a long time since I was motivated to get my boots out of the mud and read detailed thoughts about cosmology. +1 There is much to consider here and the quantity accounts for why we don't see posts from you more often but this caught my eye Several of your bullet points boil down to saying that we can observe effects in the material universe that require another generalised axis, dimension or formalised degree of freedom to explain and write equations for. I agree with this completely and have made this point before, although my example (nuclear disintegration/radioactivity) does not require continuity but relates the phenomena directly to the counting numbers.

Indeed that is the whole point of relativity of simultaneity.

Another consequence of measuring in one frame at a time is that you do not need light or time to measure distance. Further you cannot establish primary units of both distance and time with the same light measurement. You can derive one if you have the other and since distance is easier to measure independently it is often preferred to establish a distance standard by other means and use light to measure time.

Very succinctly put. I like it and must remember this. +1 Doesn't he do just that with his train and lightning example? I'm almost sure he notes that you can compare the length of the train and platform (and lightning marks on the train platform) when the train is standing still next to the platform.

The first modern generation (VLSI integrated circuit) digital computers of any note were 4 bit. These were used by the professionals of the day to start and they still are used for simple computer control circuits such as for washing machines etc. So 4 bit might be a better place to start. 8 bit chips brought in the age of the desktop computer and eventually the PC. Also at this time the multilayer model came in. So you have a hardware layer a functional block layer a machine code or program layer a higher level code layer a an applications layer a user layer and so on. You need to become familiar with the term bus, where several individual connections are treated as one (parallel bus, serial bus, data bus, memory bus, control bus etc). Most people think of a microprocessor as a single chip. In fact 'it' is often several chips carefully matched to provide the required functionality of input/processing/output. Collectively, these are called a chipset. Chipsets contain all the necessary gates and other logic stuff to achieve the requirements, ready configured. So although it may be desireable to learn low level digital logic it is not essential. You simulator will have several chipsets available if it is any good. A computer is only useful if you can get it to run ie do something. For this you will need to study low level programming or machine code and assembler language or better since some modern chips come with a form of BASIC built in. So what part of of the multilayer diagram are you most interested in?

To emphasise this, please note this is an unspoken assumption inherent in Einstinian relativity.

Thank you for the correction, Sensei. I really should have said non polar solvents which I listed (which all happen to be organic). That is why listed them first. I don't recall listing acetic acid or any organic polar soubstance, any more than I recall the questioner listing zinc, a fairly reactive metal. Neodymium is also a reactive metal so any cleaning method is going to remove some metal: the objective must be to minimise this. My remarks are adressed to today's question only, in post#6.

I would try in this order. The organic solvents can't damage the metal itself. Petroleum? Petroleum-ether? Acetone? Cellulose paint thinner. Jenolite (phosphoric acid metal surface cleaner? Brasso metal polish? Silvo metal polish? Note this thread is ten years old.

Well this thread is worth something after all. +1

That's because it's powered by snake oil. Six cents a bottle, two bottles for 10 cents.

Are you sure you have this the right way round? It seems to be that for both strain hardening and elastic hysteresis https://www.google.co.uk/#q=strain+hardening https://www.google.co.uk/#q=elastic+hysteresis

swansont, +1 for stamina

If John Cuthber didn't have high blood pressure before reading this nonsense, he will after. So save his BP and please go and learn some basic physical chemistry. Electrons are negatively charged so do not make anything positive. Since you objective seems to be scrubbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere ( a laudable aim) , why go to all this complicated trouble? Carbon dioxide dissolves readily enough in water and can be easily removed by precipitation as calcium carbonate. Very small marine creatures do this on a grand scale all the time, that is how chalk and limestone is formed.