studiot

No, they are confused by the non standard notation. However since that is not the main point of your presentation perhaps we can discuss that instead? I am intrigued by your rectangular boxes, perhaps you would expand on the idea? Why did you chose 90 to add primes to? I tested the idea of adding primes to other numbers besides 90 , for instance 80 and 100 and can see that 90 appears to generate more primes so for instance 90 + 1097 = 1187 - a prime But neither 80 + 1097 = 1177 nor 100 + 1097 = 1197 are prime Since all primes greater than 2 are odd and odd + odd makes non prime even, you need an even number to add your primes to.

I agree that some have jumped on you rather than take this as a genuine effort on your part to learn. Which makes it all the more suprising that you ignore genuine answers from those who didn't jump. I had thought that you could benefit from seeing some of the very simply but far reaching ideas underlying the modern approach to mathematics in general and arithmetic in particular.but I left post#5 as it was to start with.

Symmetry You have four choices (negative ) * (negative) (positive ) * (positive) (positive ) * (negative) (negative ) * (positive) Two outcomes are positve and two are negative. Note that the integers allow another four possible choices (neutral ) * (negative) (negative ) * (neutral) (neutral ) * (positive) (positive ) * (neutral) All of these outcomes are neutral.

I note you adopted my suggestion and corrected your version of Entropy since you last posted this. Thank you for the acknowledgement. http://physicshelpforum.com/showthread.php?p=29829&posted=1#post29829

A further source of possible confusion occurs when chemical reactions take place without any work being done. Some reactions vigourously raise the temperature (heat) of the system, and flashes of light may also be emitted. The energy for this is coming from the TdS term in the Heat Content (also called Enthalpy) of the system. Once the system temperature rises, heat may then be transferred to the surroundings by the three conventional mechanisms.

Picking up some points made in the previous posts, I agree that conduction and convection are easier to understand than radiation, but remember phonon theory only applies to crystalline solids. It is easy to see how agitation of particles can be mechanically transferred to other particles in direct contact. EM Radiation is not, of itself, heat or even composed of material particles that can jostle others. Nevertheless when radiation of any wavelength (frequency) falls onto material objects heating (raising of its temperature) of that object is possible and often occurs.You only have to stand in the sunlight to appreciate that. The Sun is at a very much higher temperature than you are so when the energy in the sunlight warms you (transfers energy to you) we say that heat is transferred by radiation. This is in accord with the comment by Klaynos, but is not the whole story. If you attend radiation therapy then the temperature of your cancer will rise in response to absorbing the radiation, although the temperature of both the source and yourself are pretty much the same. Further the frequencies of these Xrays are much higher than infra red. Energy can even be transferred from a colder to a hotter body by this means, although this does not contravene the laws of thermodynamics. What this shows is that EM radiation can be generated by several different means. EM radiation that is generated by virtue of the temperature of a material body is called thermal radiation and governed by the laws of Stephan and Wien. It is this type that takes part in radiative cooling or heating and energy transferred by this type of radiation is called heat transfer by radiation. EM radiation generated by other means such as a microwave oven or Xrays as above also cause heating in the recipient, but there is no 'loss of heat' by the source so is not called heat transfer. Again this is in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics since they allow other forms of energy input to a system to appear as heat within a system.

Another view is that heat is a measure of motion transferred from onle lot of of particles to another lot of particles.

I'm not sure I follow the importance of L/D ratio Is this length to depth? Please expand a bit.

I'm glad you find this easy, because understanding what 'heat' actually is is key to answering your question. And yes certain types of photons carry (transport or transfer) radiative energy called heat.

OK so going back the the post#259 by Strange that prompted this He has and Where we can see the left hand sides of the equations are identical. We can also see that the last term, a0 do not include an x. So let us put a number to a0 say 7 for instance. Now we have (an expression in a and x) + a0 = 1 or (an expression in a and x) + 7 = 1 Subtract 1 from both sides of the equation (an expression in a and x) + 6 = 0 Which contradicts the original equation How do you explain this? and have I converted a value into a space? Edit you could avoid zero altogether, by rewriting Strange's pair of equations as equal to some other pairs of numbers than 1 and 0

The obvious question your answer to Strange raises is Can you convert a 'space' into a 'value' and vice versa? If your answer is yes, how do you do this?

Hello Dr Doggy, how did you get on with my post 33? I wanted to get this started before I was away, but didn't manage that so made a start at the weekend after my return. Yes Enthalpy is part of the story and intimately realted to heat. The old name for Enthalpy is Heat Content and many Engineering tables still us this. My part 2 would bring in all this.

The instant you mention 'Fields' you introduce the 'action at a distance' dilemma and the influence horizon of the field and its source. How do you explain these? What is the reach of your field?

My thoughts are that following this analogy is similar to theologists following the line that equates biblical 'days' to a billion years in the bibilcal description of creation. If your line of reasoning is elastic enough you can very nearly make anything an analogy for anything else.

Conway, Perhaps I was the only one who understood you were simply modernising Jefferson's actual words. As an aside this is considered perfectly acceptable practice. We do not state the original words of Kirchoff, Newton and many others when stating their Laws. But you did not make a point or ask a question so I have nothing else to respond to. So tell us why you started this thread and what you expect to get out of it. Hopefully that might avoid further silly misunderstandings.

Thank you for bringing this theory to our attention. Perhaps if it was couched in less sensationalist language that accorded with current defintions of specific technical words it would garner greater credence. For example I have no idea what this means simply because all the technical words used clearly have different meanings from currently accepted practice. What is your definition of vector? What is energy momenta? What is a single quanta of energy? What is the meaning of will associated with energy? What is the definition of diverge in this usage? What is the definition of neutralize in this usage?

I found this at the top of the reference readily enough. Personally I regard the Preamble to the American Constitution as one of the masterpieces of political and social thought in English. I don't know much about Jefferson though.

Thermodynamics was originally developed to study the relationships between thermal and mechanical properties, but was later extended to include other properties involving energy. Its laws and methods may be applied anywhere energy is involved. Thermodynamic theory divides a universe into two parts: The ‘system’ and the rest of a universe. I say ‘a universe’, not ‘the universe’, because this includes everything of interest or relevant in a particular thermodynamic discussion, both inside and outside the system., but may exclude other parts of the Universe at large. It displays an identifiable boundary between these two parts. This boundary may be fixed as in a chemical reaction flask. Or it may be part moveable, part fixed as in a piston in a cylinder. Or it may be wholly moveable as in a balloon. Further it may have physical concrete existence as in the above examples or it may be a theoretical surface such as the space surrounding a molecule. Incorrectly/inappropriately specifying the boundary is a common source of difficulty. So when considering the thermodynamics of heating some reagents in a flask or braker to form products, The bunsen burner is part of the rest-of -the-universe (not the system). The flask is the fixed part of the boundary and the liquid surface the moveable part. Finally a particular Thermodynamics discussion deals with a specified ‘Thermodynamic Process’ of interest. This may be a single stage process and may involve the entire system. For example blowing up a balloon. Or there may be several processes in action in different parts of the system. In this situation the system may be broken down into smaller subsystems, each with its own process, and sub boundary. A process may be one-time or cyclic or may even be stasis (=Thermal Equilibrium). Once we have defined the system, its boundary and the process involved, we can study the system properties. There are directly observable variables such as pressure, volume, temperature, number of molecules, phase (solid, liquid, gas, dissolved) etc. We also identify derived or calculable variables such as internal energy, entropy, enthalpy and so on. These variables are calculable using some of the many thermodynamic relations or equations that are known. Some variables may be mathematically treated as constant for a particular system. Examples would be specific heat, density, redox potential, ionisation potential. A complete list of the values of the properties is called the State of the System. We may equally apply this to the rest-of-the-universe and talk of the state of the rest-of-the-universe. Since the above variables are define the state of the system they are called state variables. Yet more variables have a particular and very important role to play. These do not apply directly to either the state of the rest-of-the-universe or to the state of the system but to exchanges between the two. These are hugely important and form the basis underpinning thermodynamic theory. These variables act across the boundary so linking the system to the rest-of-the-universe. Originally they were heat input and work extracted, but now the list has been extended to other forms of energy such as electromagnetic. It is important to realise that heat and work are not state variables, and by themselves cannot define the state of anything. Nor are they properties of the system. On to part 2

Have you ever read Maxwell's original 'hexagonal cell' theory of light? Your propositions sound a bit similar, but obviously brought up to date to include knowledge gained over the subsequent centuy and a half. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Maxwell%27s_equations

Bomb the iraq oil fields? Isn't that what Saddam Hussein did to Kuwait and, at least in part, why we went to war there ?

If you bothered to read my post173 before you grumped this might be a more convivial thread.

What people have been trying to tell you, here and elsewhere, is that mathematics has very specific definitions of (1), (2) and even (3). Using these definitions mathematics can even offer a meaning to (4). So the rest of the world considers these matters of mathematics, not philosophy (5). You seem to have different personal definitions for (1) (2) (3) and most particularly (4), so it is not suprising that your conclusion (5) is not in accordance with the rest of the world. Until you can bridge that gap you will never communicate, for certainty the rest of the world is not going to change to accomodate you.

Yes, but we don't use gamma rays to carry signals. No there is no law concerning this. There is no reason to assume any upper limit, just because we have not yet encountered such waves. We normally take zero (the stationary steady state) as the lower limit for real waves, but negative frequencies may be used in mathematical theory. Negative frequencies again have no lower bound.

The energy lost to sound is negligable in a jackhammer and inherent in the mechanics. Muffler arrangements do exist, but they simply absorb the sound, they do not and cannot prevent it. Having said that some hammers are noisier than others.

Here is my simplified take on the subject, based on the trickle-down model. At one end of the scale the pute mathematician like to generalise. This means she doesn't like to solve specific problems like : solve x+4 = 6, but would rather solve all such problems and say that The solution to equations of the form x+A = B is x = (B-A). Another example would be the general statement that a function f(x) is maximum if f'(x) = 0. Enter the Mathematical Physicist who says Ahah that's interesting so if I have a specific formula such as the power transferred to a load R in an electrical circuit is givne by the equation [math]P = \frac{{{E^2}R}}{{{r^2} + 2rR + {R^2}}}[/math] Where E is the source voltage and r the source resistance And I differentiate and set to zero [math]\frac{{dP}}{{dR}} = 0[/math] This leads to [math]R = r[/math] Which is a formula for a general property of electrical networks derived from an even more general formula in mathematics. Long comes the Engineering mathematician and says. Oh that's interesting I have a need to maximise the power transfer from magnetic pickup heads to an electronic circuit. The value of r for my heads is between 20k ohms and 100k ohms so if I make the input R for my amplifier 47k ohms that will be good. And that is reason, o best beloved, why magnetic pickup inputs on audio amps are (usually) 47k. (Have you ever read Kipling?)