Aether Definition in Alchemy and Science

There are two related science definitions for the term aether, as well as other non-scientific meanings. (1) Aether was the fifth element in alchemical chemistry  and early physics. It was the name given to the material that was believed to fill the universe beyond the terrestrial sphere. The belief in aether as an element was held by medieval alchemists, Greeks, Buddhists, Hindus, the Japanese, and the Tibetan Bon. Ancient Babylonians believed the fifth element to be the sky. The fifth element in the Chinese Wu-Xing was metal rather than aether.(2) Aether was also considered the medium that carried light waves in space by 18th and 19th Century scientists. Luminiferous ether was proposed in order to explain the capacity of light to propagate through apparently empty space. The Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) led scientists to realize there was no aether and that light was self-propagating. Key Takeaways: Aether Definition in Science While there are several definitions of aether, only two pertain to science.The first is that aether was believed to be the substance that filled invisible space. In early history, this substance was believed to be an element.The second definition was that luminiferous aether was the medium through which light traveled. The Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887 demonstrated light did not require a medium for propagation.In modern physics, aether is most often connoted with a vacuum or three-dimensional space devoid of matter. Michelson-Morley Experiment and Aether The MMX experiment was performed at what is now Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio in 1887 by Albert A. Michelson and Edward Morley. The experiment used an interferometer to compare the speed of light in perpendicular directions. The point of the experiment was to determine the relative motion of matter through the aether wind or luminiferous aether. It was believed light required a medium in order to move, similar to the way sound waves require a medium (e.g., water or air) to propagate. Since it was known light could travel in a vacuum, it was believed the vacuum must be filled with a substance called aether. Since the Earth would revolve around the Sun through the aether, there would be a relative motion between the Earth and the aether (the aether wind). Thus, the speed of light would be affected by whether the light was moving in the direction of the Earths orbit or perpendicular to it. The negative results were published in the same year and followed up with exp eriments of increased sensitivity. The MMX experiment led to the development of the theory of special relativity, which does not rely on any aether for the propagation of electromagnetic radiation. The Michelson-Morley experiment is considered to be the most famous failed experiment. (3) The word aether or ether may be used to describe apparently empty space. In Homeric Greek, the word aether refers to the clear sky or pure air. It was believed to be the pure essence breathed by gods, while man required air to breathe. In the modern usage, aether simply refers to invisible space (e.g., I lost my email to the aether.) Alternate Spellings: Æther, ether, luminous aether, luminiferous aether, aether wind, light-bearing ether Commonly Confused With: Aether is not the same thing as the chemical substance, ether, which is the name given to a class of compounds containing an ether group. An ether group consists of an oxygen atom connected to two aryl groups or alkyl groups. Aether Symbol in Alchemy Unlike many alchemical elements, aether does not have a commonly accepted symbol. Most often, it was represented by a simple circle. Sources Born, Max (1964). Einsteins Theory of Relativity. Dover Publications. ISBN 978-0-486-60769-6.Duursma, Egbert (Ed.) (2015). Etherons as Predicted by Ioan-Iovitz Popescu in 1982. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. ISBN 978-1511906371.Kostro, L. (1992). An outline of the history of Einsteins relativistic ether concept. in Jean Eisenstaedt; Anne J. Kox (eds.), Studies in the History of General Relativity, 3. Boston-Basel-Berlin: Birkhà ¤user, pp. 260–280. ISBN 978-0-8176-3479-7.Schaffner, Kenneth F. (1972). Nineteenth-Century Aether Theories. Oxford: Pergamon Press. ISBN 978-0-08-015674-3.Whittaker, Edmund Taylor (1910). A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity (1st ed.). Dublin: Longman, Green and Co.

The Is Losing Her Mind - 1518 Words

Megan was losing her mind. The fact that she had discovered the existence of a whole world that hid right before her eyes shied in comparison to what actually occupied her every thought. Mark. Mark was killed and eaten. And she had shared food and bed with an animal of the same kind that killed her boyfriend. Her fiancà ©!!!! He was going to be her fiancà ©. Now, he’s probably somewhere howling at the moon as Sam Cowell had suggested. Let him. She cried herself to sleep. This time Cookie came to her aid, but she was little comfort in front of this. Aidan didn’t try to call her once. She had dialed his number countless times, often right before bed, only to hang up before the first ring. That night, Megan woke in the middle of the night to the†¦show more content†¦Her room was empty as well. Then, Aidan noticed a few blood drops on the living room floor and he saw that the balcony door was open, although it was quite chilly outside. His worst nightmare just came true. He knew exactly where to look for Megan. â€Å"I’m just hoping I’m not too late† thought Aidan and rushed to a small place he knew very well right outside the city. Aidan knew better than to rush into a vampire lair unassisted, but there was no time for carefully laid out plans now. He was preparing for this raid for the two weeks he has been away from Megan, and he knew the entries and exists. That’s all he needs now to get inland get her out safely, anything else is to be dealt with later. Aidan got to the big warehouse situated deep into that deserted neighborhood in 20 minutes. Although the building is quite big, it’s impossible to spot anything is going on inside. Vampires made sure their lair remains hidden from everyone, but always in plain sight, where they could have access to food and play in minutes. Aidan quickly proceeded with the first part of his old plan. He emptied a bag of blood making a noise at a close enough distance from the lair, and waited, hidden. When the door opened, he snuck in, only to be faced with a gang of smiling vampires. â€Å"Hello. We have been expecting you, Doggie,† said one of them. Aidan instinctively growled at the gang, who stood there giggling. Their colleagues who have been sent outside to investigate rejoined them, closing

Case Law of Negligence Based are Keith and Ruth †Free Samples

Question: Whether Ruth can sue Keith under law of negligence? If so, then, can Keith prove the contributory negligence on the part of Ruth and get the compensation to be paid by him reduced? Answer: Relevant Law The caselaw is related to thelaw of negligence and the parties upon which the present caselaw is based are Keith and Ruth. Ruth being an injured is a Plaintiff and Keith being a wrongdoer is the Defendant. Remedy or kind of action that Plaintiff can seek in the provided caselaw is under the law of negligence and the Defendant if proved to be negligent will have to compensate the Plaintiff for the loss suffered by her. However, the Defendant can get the compensation to be paid by him to the Plaintiff be reduced if he can prove that the Plaintiff was also negligent and had contributed to her injury under the defence of contributory negligence on the part of injured. Law of negligence A person can be held liable under the law of negligence if he performs his duty carelessly and in turn causes injury to the plaintiff who suffers injuries due to carelessness of the performer of act, that is, the defendant. The leading case of (Donoghue v Stevenson , 1932)is the famous case which has contributed in the development of the law of negligence. The leading case submits that in order to be held negligent, the defendant must owe duty of care to his neighbour and must carry out the act diligently. But, the defendant was found to be breaching the duty of care that is established upon him and due to the breach of duty of care an injury is caused to his neighbour, that is, the plaintiff.(Francis, Peter, Mark, 2007) zhus, the three important ingredients to hold the defendant liable under the law of negligence that must be satisfied are: Duty of care Duty of care means the care which the defendant should take while performing his acts as he should perform his acts in such a manner so that they do not cause any harm to any person in any manner. The person is said to have duty of care if his acts are likely to injure any plaintiff, that is, neighbour (Natcraft Pty Ltd Anor v Det Norske Veritas Anor , 2002).(Allan, (2007). ) However, duty of care can only be casted upon the defendant if there are two elements which are present, that is: Reasonable forseeability - Duty of care upon the defendant can only be for such acts that are reasonably foreseeable in nature and can cause injury to the plaintiff. In case the injury which is caused is not foreseeable by a normal prudent person in the like circumstances, then, the defendant cannot be said to be negligent(Rogers v Whitaker, 1992). In case the act of the wrongdoer is reasonably foreseeable which may cause injury to the injured, then, he should take proper precautions while performing the act.(Jrgen Wolfgang, 2006) Neighbourhood - The concept of neighbourhood was developed for the first time in the leading case of (Donoghue v Stevenson , 1932). The principle of neighbour means that anybody who is n closeness or in proximity to the defendant in such a manner so that there is presence of apprehension that that plaintiff might gets injured by the acts of the defendant, then, the plaintiff is considered to be the neighbour of the defendant(Albrighton v Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, 1980). It implies that anybody who can get injured by the act of the person performing the act is neighbour as per the law of negligence. But a person is termed to be neighbour only when a prudent person can assess that the act of the doer can cause injury to that neighbour or injured. In case a prudent person in like situation cannot think that injury can be caused by the act of the doer then the doer is not liable under this law as there is no proximity amid the injured and the wrongdoer. (Cameron, Ian, Malcolm, 2007) Compliance of the principle of neighbourhood and reasonable foreseeability make a defendant to carry out his actions with all due care and precautions. Breach of duty of care When a wrongdoer is under duty not to act in such a manner so that any injury is inflicted upon his neighbour, however, when he still performs his actions which do not comply with the duty of care that is imposed upon him, then, he is said to have breached the duty of care obligated upon him. When the wrongdoer does not take proper care and caution while performing his acts then in such case he is said to have violated the duty of care burdened upon him (Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee, 1957). Even if the wrongdoer takes precautions but if they are not adequate and up to the level of acre that is expected from him, then, he is said to have breached the duty of care. The level of care is different in different situations and the wrongdoer must take proper care depending upon the situation and circumstances.(Kim, Bonnie, Sheryl, 2014) Damages The last step to prove negligence on the part of wrongdoer is when the wrongdoer is proved to be obligated with duty of care and it is also proved that he had breached the duty of care obligated upon him, then it is also necessary to prove that the injury must have sustained injury due to breach of duty of care on the part of the wrongdoer. In case no injury is inflicted upon the plaintiff by the acts of the wrongdoer, rather, the injury is sustained because of some reason other than the breach of duty of care on the part of wrongdoer, then, in such cases the wrongdoer cannot be held liable under the law of negligence (Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd or "Wagon Mound (No. 1), , 1961). The wrongdoer is liable only when the proximity is proved between the act of the wrongdoer and the injury sustained by the injured. There must be remoteness amid the injury and the breach of duty of care. In case the event which caused the injury to the injured is reasonably foreseeable, it is then only the wrongdoer can be held liable under the law of negligence. In case the damage caused is too remote and cannot be assessed by a common person then the injured cannot claim any claim under the law of negligence. (Andy Douglas, 2013) Also, causation must be proved before imposing any kind of liability under the law of negligence. There must be direct link amid the injury is caused and the breach of duty of care. The cause of the injury must be the breach of duty of care on the part of the defendant. When all the ingredients of negligence, that is, duty of care, breach of duty of care and injury is cased due to breach of duty of care, then only an injured can claim under law of negligence from the wrongdoer and in case any one of the element is missing from the chain, then, the wrongdoer cannot be held liable under the law of negligence(Mount Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey, 1971). Defence The wrongdoer can protect himself if he can prove that the injury sustained by the injured had been caused to him not only because of his negligence but the injured has also contributed to his own injury(Joslyn v Berryman, 2003). In case the injury to the injured is caused to the injured by the fault of wrongdoer along with his own fault then it is said contributory negligence on the part of the injured. In such case the wrongdoer takes the defence of contributory negligence on the part of injured and if it is proved by the wrongdoer that the injured was also negligent along with the wrongdoer then the liability of the wrongdoer is apportioned accordingly.(Douglas, 2016) The law is now applied. Application of law As per facts, Keith being a home handyman advertises in Buderim Bugle as a qualified carpenter but he had no trade qualifications regarding same. Ruth works as a teachers aide at local school. Ruth appoints Keith to replace a rotting timber tread at her back stairs. Keith replaces tread but in repairing the same he uses piece of left over untreated chipboard instead of the hardwood. Few weeks later after heavy rain tread swells and collapses overnight. Ruth unaware of the collapse walks down the stairs to feed her caged birds. She took a large number of dishes for birds and cleaning equipment subsequent to collapse of the tread. Due to Ruth carrying things her vision was obscure and she did not notice the missing tread and fell down dislocating her knee. Ruth recovered after two months but did not returned to her job and resigned and decided that she will stay at home for 12 months In the instant case, Keith did not did his job properly as he had to replace the rotting timber tread with good quality hardwood, but, he used left over untreated chipboard which was not right to do as the repairs were to be carried on stairs and stairs are meant to be perfect and meant to be used regularly and they should be proper as to sustain weight of the person. Keith was very well aware of the fact that the stairs meant to be perfect and had obligated duty of care to repair them properly as rightly held in (Donoghue v Stevenson , 1932) But, by repairing them with rotten timber he breached the duty of care. He put the user of the stairs in danger as he had not taken due care while repairing the stairs with the level of care and the standard of care to be taken by him. This breach of duty of care resulted in injury to Ruth. The act of injury to anybody using the stairs was reasonably foreseeable by Keith as a prudent person in like situation have assessed. In the instant case all the ingredients of negligence are satisfied. There was duty of care on Keith to protect his neighbor, that is, Ruth thus by repairing the same with bad quality of wood, the was breached causing harm to Ruth. There is clear proximity between the act of Keith and the injury caused to Ruth so Keith is negligent in the instant case. However Keith can diminish his liability by taking plea of contributory negligence, as he can state that Ruth while she was injured was carrying many feeding dishes and cleaning equipment which obscured her vision and she did not noticed the missing tread and fell down and injured herself. The plea of contributory negligence taken by Keith can help Keith in minimizing his liability and by availing the precedent of (Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd or "Wagon Mound (No. 1), , 1961) Moreover Ruth did not joined work for 12 months but was well after two months. So Keith will be liable after applying contributory negligence but only for two months loss of pay and injury (that too proportionately as there is contributory negligence on part of Ruth) as she was well after two months and chose not to work for 12 months. Conclusion Thus it is crystal clear from the facts that Keith was obligated and was under duty of care to repair the stairs properly but he breached his duty and thus caused injury to Ruth. So in all Keith is negligent but he can reduce his liability by taking defence of contributory negligence. To conclude, Keith can be sued by Ruth under law of negligence and Ruth will get damages as there is negligence on the part of Keith. Bibliography Albrighton v Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (1980). Allan, B. ((2007). ). Rediscovering the Law of Negligence. . Bloomsbury Publishing. Andy, G., Douglas, F. (2013). Business Law 2014. Pearson Higher Education AU. Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957). Cameron, S., Ian, K., Malcolm, P. (2007). The Australian Medico-legal Handbook. Elsevier Australia. Donoghue v Stevenson (1932). Douglas, H. (2016). The Law of Intervening Causation. . Routledge. Francis, T., Peter, C., Mark, L. (2007). The Law of Torts in Australia. Oxford University Press. Joslyn v Berryman (2003). Jrgen, B., Wolfgang, W. (2006). Third-Party Liability of Classification Societies: A Comparative Perspective. Springer Science Business Media. Kim, A., Bonnie, B., Sheryl, L. (2014). Ethics and Law for Australian Nurses. . Cambridge University Press. Mount Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey (1971). Natcraft Pty Ltd Anor v Det Norske Veritas Anor (2002). oslyn v Berryman (2003). Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd or "Wagon Mound (No. 1), (1961). Rogers v Whitaker (1992).

Rhetorical Technique Essay Sample free essay sample

Logos. Ethos. and Pathos represent the three rhetorical techniques. which conveying balance to a paper by act uponing the audience’s response to logic. moralss. and emotion. Logos consists of the facts and illustrations that back up an statement. supplying a supportive anchor to a paper. Ethos pertains to the moralss of a paper. by mentioning the credibleness of the writer. therefore converting the readers to be more open-minded to the new thoughts presented. Pathos uses emotion to assist the writer relate to the audience and force the point farther. King wrote â€Å"The Letter from Birmingham Jail† in contrast to the Clergymen’s â€Å"A Call for Unity. † and used all three rhetorical techniques: Son. ethos. and poignancy. Although all techniques provided the indispensable edifice blocks for a all-around essay. yet the usage of Son was most effectual for it added ground. and exemplified a intent that appealed to the Clergymen in a manner that showed author ization. We will write a custom essay sample on Rhetorical Technique Essay Sample or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page cognition. and regard. In 1963 the eight white Clergymans from Birmingham addressed the tribunals as being fair in their missive â€Å"A Call for Unity† . They stated that King’s presentations as prematurely. and utmost. furthermore that the dissenters themselves would â€Å"incite hatred and violence† ( 1 ) . The Clergymen so praised the constabulary who kept the peace. and urged the occupants of Birmingham to defy the protestors and withdraw support. ( Clergymen 1 ) Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. responded to the Clergymen with the â€Å"Letter from Birmingham Jail. † in which he stated that the organisations and the unfairness of the south brought him to the metropolis of Birmingham. King addressed that the protestors were treated unjustly by the tribunals and metropolis leaders ( King 1 ) . He acknowledged the fact that he put clocking into position ( King 2 ) . Then King references his letdown with the â€Å"white moderates† ( King 4 ) . King was surprised that the reverends had called him an extremist. saying that he was merely endeavoring to make peace for both sides. King besides expressed his letdown t he reverends and the church saying that he was excessively optimistic. King addressed that the constabulary were moving non-violently in the public oculus but had a concealed docket to continue segregation ( King 7-8 ) . Last. King declares his hope for a hereafter that will acknowledge the good in these protests in the South. King incites authorization from the start of his statement to turn out to the Clergymen that he an equal. King provinces that the ground he is in Birmingham is because he and his co-workers were invited to compensate the unfairness inflicted by the tribunals ( King 1 ) . King addresses the Clergymen’s inquiry really early on in his missive with a straight-forward. simple reply to get down his missive with a strong point of position. King shows that he merely meant to assist the organisations that he is tied to. turn outing that he had a ground to be in Birmingham. Stating that he was invited shows that the community was in demand of alteration and that they were tired of the corrupt southern justness system. King’s cognition of the Torahs and the justness system grounds that the Birmingham constabularies were unprecedented when flexing the jurisprudence to convict the dissenters. King writes about how he was arrested without a license for protesting publically. even though he remained peaceable. and states that un-lawful apprehensions are illegal. King knew that a license is required for a non-immediate apprehension in Alabama ; he proves merely how unfair and corrupted the justness system in Birmingham was at the clip. While the Clergymen praised the constabulary for maintaining the peace in Birmingham. King addresses how this was from the position of a white adult male in the South. King used logical logical thinking with the facts of the jurisprudence to turn out that the constabulary were non how the Clergymen described. King respectfully besides corrected the Clergymen in his counter statement. while explicating it logically. maintaining it simple and to the point as a manner of easing the Clergymen into seeing his position on the protests in Birmingham. King addressed the unfairness of the metropolis leaders when they wouldn’t take part in â€Å"good religion negotiation† ( 35 ) . The Civil Rights Movement tried to make out to the community. but the leaders were non unfastened to their thoughts. un-like how the eight white Clergymen wrote they would be. By disregarding the offers from the Civil Rights Movement forced the organisations to protest publically to acquire their attending. The protests were peaceable and controlled. but dialogue would hold been faster and far more organized contradicting what the Clergymen stated. Even though the Clergymen did non compose a documented response to King. it’s assumed that they better understood the protestors and their cause. if the Clergymen still didn’t back up the motion. they didn’t act against it. The state was affected by this powerful missive on a greater graduated table as 1000000s of people read the words of Martin Luther King Jr. specifying the Civil Rights Movement in a manner that made it an undeniable force. King’s missive was the start of the Civil Rights Movement that contributed to the terminal of segregation. Work Cited: A Group of Clergymen. â€Å"Call for Unity. † Letter to Martin Luther King Jr. 12 April 1963. TeachingAmericanHistory. org. 18 August 2008. Web. 4 Martin Luther King Jr. â€Å"Letter from Birmingham Jail. † Letter to A Group of Clergyman. 16 April 1968. African Studies Center. University of Pennsylvania. 17 January 2008. Web. 4