studiot

That's court-of-law evidence, not scientific proof positive.

Fair comment, although I have seen trees naturally growing horizontally. But I was not properly specific. How can you prove that the tree came to its state by falling and not by some other mechanism?

Well my in my opinion MSC entry post was what I understand the words on topic to mean, but you have been here a great deal longer than I have so I assume you have a better understanding of the local forum meanin. By that definition I observe that there are a very large proportion of threads that veer off topic.

Is religion, once again, not taking a thread off topic, by the new strict definition? As to the topic Surely only unsound trees fall over? Or if you prefer If you did not witness the fall, how can you prove the tree did not naturally grow that way?

1) Photons are not airborne particles. 2) I could not find the word smell anywhere on the Wikipedia page, obtained by typing in "airborne particles".

That presupposes such well agreed science exists. But suppose I speculated on something where there is no agreed science? For instance suppose I had speculated about possible lifeforms in the deep oceans, before the recent discovery that such life not only exists but derives energy from unusual sources. Or suppose I had speculated about magnetic reversals before these were observed. In both cases agreed science would have 'proved' me wrong. Contrariwise suppose I had speculated the the Earth physically flips to its other stable gyroscopic state. Here 'agreed science' supports my mechanical argument, but we know of no observational evidence to support it.

So this would imply that we can never contradict the OP or say he is wrong.

What do you have in your basement? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/propertynews/10879282/Londons-trail-of-buried-diggers.html

With the greatest respect swansont, This is a discussion forum and MSC actually has a valid point for discussion, made in his entry in post#88. Surely it is valid to put to the OP the point that there is a mistake, misconception, or similar, in one of his terms and offer a more appropriate one? Perhaps MSC is wrong, perhaps he is right, but he is suggesting that there is a continuum, called the grid, and that matter is not the continuum but merely a feature of it. If the OP agrees and updates his speculation (or proves different) then surely this will be a resounding success since this thread, as individual, and the forum as a whole, will achieve its object. I also note that MSC has overegged the pudding in his usual florid style in later posts, but not in his original. This may be a better spin off discussion.

I believe the process is called inhibition, but hopefully someone with more knowledge will step in if we keep this in the limelight. The maths of the kinetics can be found in Biochenmistry for medical students by Apps, Cohen and Steel. The kinase reaction appears to follow the Michaelis equation and they give the constants for this.

Impressive answer, Janus. +1

I understand what you are saying Mike, but I prefer the word 'pattern' (in the artistic/arrangement sense not the protoype sense) to 'disturbance', since the latter implies there is a 'correct' form or flow of the field lines.

'Hear' 'Hear' from the benches. ZVBXRPL I have already asked for an explanation of what you mean by continuum (post#94)?

Yes this is correct, but it is worth emphasising that the terms apply only to heat energy. @colleted - Welcome So if you have heard of the Law of Conservation of Energy (also called the First Law of Thermodynamics) please note that there are other forms of energy where the transfer may be in another direction.

I use Avast (pro) and have never had an access problem using this protection. Within the last year Avast has warned when Science Forums had an attack/infection and the good Captain was quick to rectify it. So Avast protected me (and this forum) well. I note we seem to get a lot of cyrillic interlopers these days, carrying spam and or infections. We should all be vigilant and report them soonest. The price of freedom etc etc..................

Back on topic. Perhaps this thread could be converted to a poll type thread. Although I personally don't like poll threads and generally do not participate I can see the worth in this case. I have said before that I find the quote function more of a hindrance than a help. In particular I find, all too often, that if I quote a large body of text including some particular point I hope to discuss, the reply to my point is not about my point but something else so the exchange is a waste of both parties' efforts.

Hang in there Mike, +1, let us see if the OP will consider this a true discussion (shooting the breeze) and modify his ideas according to comments or if this is just another 'I know best' squabble. We do not yet have a defininition or even a vague idea what is meant by the OP's use of the word 'continuum' yet. This is crucial as to whether grids or other constructs are admissable.

Actually ,many a true word is said in jest, and there are indeed degrees in hairdressing available in the UK. Bias? I think you will find these figures bear me out and provide age related reasons for the upsurge. http://www.habia.org/c/1910/industry-statistics Podiatry is an even better career, for much the same reasons.

Well I hadn't noticed hairdressers being short of work yet and new salons are springing up all over the place. So I suggest more Hairdressing degrees and fewer Physics degrees.

I'm sorry I'm not a biochemist, so I don't have knowledge of your specific enzyme catalysts and reactions. I know some enzymes work by catalytic action ,but are all enzymes merely catalysts? If so why do we need glands to constantly replenish them? Can you say for definite that your reactions ever reach equilibrium? Many don't as the products are constantly removed, for example the catalysed breakdown in a car exhaust. Would your reactions not be similar? Edit, looking in Biochemistry by Lubert Stryer I see your particular example is one of a feedback regulated catalysis. Stryer has a whole chapter (chapter 8) on reaction kinetics and enzyme catalysis.

The point is that although the catalyst does not change the equilibrium position, it does speed up chemical reactions because they are not in equilibrium. That is the reactants are not at their equilibrium concentrations so there is an overall reaction, not a balance of forward and reverse reactions.

I don't like the word 'model' as it implies to me a simplified copy of something that already exists. The correct English term is probably 'pattern' for your meaning. I also think that you need to consider your question in context. That is you need to set your universities in context as there are many differences. The European system is quite different from the British one for a whole variety of historic reasons. In Britain there are state funded universites, private universities (Buckingham), military educational establishments with the status of a university (Shrivenham, Cranfield), and universites that enjoy some state funding but could and have recently threatened to leave the state system and go private (Oxford and Cambridge) The US one is different again. Returning to the context, there are the following issues to compare 1) Who sets the academic standards? This is very different in Europe, Britain and the US 2) What are the alternatives? 3) What is the educational background of the general student population? 4) What happens with courses that are integrated with another establishment eg Medicine? and probably other major issues I've missed from the list.

Fine particles move sideways, more along the beach. Heavier particles move more up the beach. http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/clips/zhp4d2p

Actually I didn't say that, you did. Further I have displayed your exact words stating this several times. As to trying to understand, You made a specific statement I asked, again several times, for further information, in order to understand it. Instead of providing that information you simply repeat your statement and then berate me. Would you do the same if you said "I have an apple" and I said "Really, what colour is it, red, green or yellow, or some combination?"

Well I am trying to understand but you are offering no explanation, merely repetition. Repetition does not make truth.