studiot

Yes you were on the right track apart from then -1.

Why ever not?

Can you show that your algorithm reproduces either the Strapp experiment (with probability) or the Hardy experiment (without probability) ?

It sort of reminds of the the heyday of the oil industry when visiting Arab dignitaries would buy a roller ( + driver) to taxi them from Harrods to Heathrow and then hand the keys to the driver "It's yours" as they departed.

The trouble with 'homework help' is that it does not tell us what subject the question is in or at what level. So is this geography, politics, an English essay, general science or what, and at what level? Help us to help you.

The Moon's relationship to the Earth is not stable. American measurements of the last thre decades or so show that it is receding at 33 mm per year. https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Moon&Display=FAQ#q17

The mechanism proposed in post#349 does not explain why the crust enters compression when the core shrinks, unless the crust started the cycle in compression, which was not stated.

I really don't know what this thread is about, but would like to pitch in with a couple of observations, apologies if they are irrelevant. Firstly it doesn't matter much to us how much the Sun puts out since most of that flows the other way. What matters to us is how much we receive. And that bring me to my second point that picks up on some of your comments. What we do receive is very unevenly distributed over the planet's surface. Significant natural processes occur transporting huge quantities energy about the surface of the planet. Most of this transport is actually carried by mass in the two fluid environments. Understanding and allowing for this transport is vital to any discussion of climate and climate trends, but is sadly all too often forgotten or ignored in discussions.

OK, my post showed how to get your first highlighted (in yellow) questions ie the negative delta H double double star and T in the denominator. It's to late to assemble the rest of the derivation tonight, I will see what i can post tomorrow, if no one else does it first. It would be very helpful if you would label your notation, since everyone has a different notation for this. Particularly with the rate and equilibrium constants. I assume you have realised I can't do double daggers and have used double stars instead. Edit, Do you realise you have incorrectly multiplied equation 1 through by -1 to form equation 2 incorrectly? [math]\Delta H - T\Delta S = - RT\ln (K)[/math] [math] - \Delta H + T\Delta S = + RT\ln (K)[/math]

Actually the real moneyspinner business is providing diggers for placement in London basements.

I think the news article (there were several if you Google) states not that it can't be done but that its costs more to lift the digger out than to buy a new one.

You need an equation for K** (which is dimensionless or in moles) in terms of K, which is the rate constant in moles/sec. that is you need to multiply by sec-1 The equation you require is K = K**(kT/h) Note also that equation1 is a statement of the difference between the free energy of the activated complex and the reactants [math]\Delta {G^{**}} = \Delta {H^{**}} - T\Delta {S^{**}} = - RT\ln ({K^{**}})[/math] If you take the exponential of each side you end up with the product of two exponentials [math]K = \frac{{kT}}{h}{e^{ - \frac{{\Delta {G^{**}}}}{{RT}}}}[/math] [math] = \frac{{kT}}{h}{e^{\frac{{\Delta {S^{**}}}}{R}}}{e^{ - \frac{{\Delta {H^{**}}}}{{RT}}}}[/math]

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)?