Differences with some English words

  • Thread starter Thread starter shahrzad1994
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    English
AI Thread Summary
Mega cities, global cities, and metropolitan cities differ primarily in their scale, influence, and functions. Mega cities are defined by their large populations, typically exceeding 10 million residents, while global cities serve as key nodes in the global economy, impacting international finance and culture. Metropolitan cities encompass urban areas with significant economic, political, and cultural importance, but may not reach the population thresholds of mega cities. The discussion also highlights the usefulness of Google Search for quick information retrieval, although some participants express a desire for more nuanced discussion beyond simple searches. Overall, the conversation revolves around understanding these urban classifications and their implications.
shahrzad1994
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
What are the differences between
Mega city
Global city
And Metropolitian city ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There is this really wonderful facility on the Internet called "Google Search". You should check it out. It will give you answers to these very quickly.
 
phinds said:
There is this really wonderful facility on the Internet called "Google Search". You should check it out. It will give you answers to these very quickly.
You know I think I know google search !
I want to ask it here for some other resons!
 
Then for what reasons?
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top