studiot

The equations governing speaker motion and their coils and driver currents are not simple electrical equations. There is a mechanical equation to take into account as well.

I presume you are referring to the iodine content? As a matter of interest sea salt was quite a bit more expensive than mined salt when I was a child, but they are roughly equally priced in my local supermarket today.

These extensions go way beyond the original kinetic theory of solids, liquids and gases to extend to 'gas like' entities such as the 'electron gas' in solids, particles in disperse systems and much much more.

That is an unusual goal and you have't said why particularly organic chemistry (you presumably know what that is), but I see you have an interest in nutrition so I am going to suggest a good all round chemistry book from an unusual angle that might suit you. You can dip into this at very elementary level or take it up to quite detailed level in organic chemistry. Chemistry for the Health Sciences Sackheim and Lehman Macmillan Sackheim is also responsible for 'Chemistry for Biology Students'.

There is no such thing as an 'electromagnetic field' where there is one single field of combined electric and magnetic quantities. Electric and magnetic fields are different. Magnetic field line have no ends, they can only form complete loops. Electric field lines start at a charge and either go on to infinity or end on another charge. However electric and magnetic fields can interact to form what we call and electromagnetic field. This is really two fields intimately tangled up with each other.

The short answer is I don't know, but there is not such thing as an 'energy vortex'. Energy is not a sort of fluid that can possess a rotating structure like a vortex. That property is reserved for particles en masse.

Welcome and go well in your future. But please remember this. Astronomy/Cosmology and related disciplines have seen many changes of theories over the last century and will doubtless see many more over the next. At your stage by all means take an interest in the subject, but be prepared to find much to unlearn in 10 to 20 years time. Meanwhile you should put some effort into learning the basics (and more) of the Physical Sciences that have been tried and tested over hundreds or even thousands of years and will still be true many year into the future. I know they are less glamorous but they are also essential.

There is no such force as centrifugal force. It is an imaginary force introduced as a mathematical device to transform a dynamic situation into a static one, to make the maths more convenient. There is an acceleration called centripetal acceleration. This is provided as a real force by some agent eg gravity or tension as a real force. (Netwon's Second Law) Forces do not affect heat energy directly.

The sun emits all sorts of energetic particles, some guided by its magnetic field. I am not an astronomer, perhaps one here will link to an energy emissions map.

What makes you think it is isotropic?

Are you not able to reclaim the cost of your action in the US, if you win? I don't think this is usually the case in the UK.

@sidharath I do not feel insulted by anything you have said to me, so if you wish to continue working through SHM I am happy to do so, continuing from my post#18, until we find which one of the various wrinkles about SHM has tripped you up.

This is an imprecise statement, so would you please clarify the ambiguity in what you actually mean. By comparison take the measurement of length by a ruler. The actual length being measured and the lengths marked on the ruler are static and require no motion in order for these lengths to exist or to offer side by side comparison. So in this sense no motion is required to measure length. In particular length does not depend upon motion. However in order to place the ruler alongside the measureand, motion of the ruler is required. In order to view the comparison, motion of the observation photons is required. In order to write down the reading on the scale, motion is required of the pen over the paper. In order for a living measurer to make this measurement, she must breath, requiring motion. So please explain at what level you are making this statement with regard to the measurement of time. This should save a great deal of 'He said - She said' argument.

Tensor mathematics contains a deal of notation designed to achieve compactness in writing. There is also Einstein's own summation notation, dropping the sigma symbol and leaving the reader to understand (guess?) when a sum is meant and when it is not. Unfortunately it takes years to become familiar and comfortable with the notations and, when it comes down to it, they don't reduce the calculative effort one iota. As every engineer knows, the fancy compact notations in the textbooks do not mean that when you want to actually calculate a result you can shortcut. You still have to perform the full calculations kin each direction (dimension).

This very recent book contains an interesting history and discussion of the various versions of General Relativity, including the introduction, retirement and resurgence of the cosmological constant. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Perfect-Theory-Century-Geniuses-Relativity/dp/1408703106/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1407610640&sr=1-5&keywords=general+relativity

What makes you think they are not independent?

So long as you put more effort into understanding what we already have and know than into wishful thinking and guesswork you will continue to make progress. Perhaps one day all that knowledge will enable you to make what we call 'inspired guesswork' and actually discover something new.

It is a really counterproductive idea to keep introducing extra words that have a particular, well defined, meaning in Science. No, pressure, vapour pressure which is a particular form of pressure are connected with humidity by definitions they are not 'like' or the same. Note that the term humidity itself comes in more than one form. Please also look at my edit to my last post, where I commented on your making up another bogus science term.

Not always, Liquids exert a vapour pressure, into volume above their surface. This may or may not be not enclosed (contained). Evaporation will continue if the pressure in this space is less than the saturated vapour pressure of the liquid. Energy and pressure are different quantities. There is no such entity as 'energy pressure'

Only certain types of energy are associated with motion of molecules, and in this case also pressure, which is not a form of energy. Some other forms of energy are also associated with motion of other entities.

Since no one seems to have taken this statement up I offer that it is really a variation of Paul Ehrenfest's Paradox, which has been explained, in terms of relativity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox

Your equation says what x equals. So what does y equal? That is what I mean by rearrange your equation, find what y equals.

Yeah, maybe, but if I was a rock face I would still endure. Incidentally we are lead to the necessity of time in our analysis of our sensory input data about our surroundings.

Why do you want to do this? I ask because there is a recognised allied technique called audio signature analysis. This works in one of two ways. Structures and machines naturally produce vibratory signals that can be picked up with a microphone and analysed for fault conditions. It is said that a good mechanic can tell what is wrong with your car by listening. Additionally response to imposed signals can be tested in the same way.

Can't see why you can't experience duration without motion. I am doing it right now by just sitting in my chair.