The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1


The solid aluminum oxide is no longer aluminum oxide and is washed away from the aluminum, it is now a liquid and part of a sulphur compound that you can use to deposit aluminum easily. That is what reduction meant the separation of the oxygen from a metal or an oxidizing compound like chlorine from a metal. Which that reaction does. You can make up a whole bunch of rules and definitions however they will quickly turn on themselves.

The history of reduction is the removal of oxygen or chlorine from a metal. Which this reaction does. The oxygen is replaced by the salt of sulfuric acid the sulphate. It was called reduction because it removes massive quantities of oxidized material from metal, or an ore, which is always an oxide of the metal. It often does this in seconds. That is the reason for the term reduction.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

Nonsense.
Apart from a lot of other things, the sulphate part of the molecule doesn't get involved.
The aluminium oxide is neither reduced nor oxidised.
Reduction is fundamentally a transfer of electrons. None takes place here.
2
Definition of an Inertial Observer

I don’t remember who said it, but I have just found this among some notes. 

 “It is important to realize that an “observer” is a huge information-gathering system, not simply one man with binoculars.  In fact, we shall remove the human element entirely from our definition, and say that an inertial observer is simply a coordinate system for spacetime, which makes an observation simply by recording the location (x, y, z) and time (t) of an event.”

I find myself wondering to what extent "recording" is relevant.
3


If you agree there is nothing negative about a particle of electricity, then it should not be labeled with a (-) symbol. That labeling makes as much sense as raise it down and lower it up.

Stubborn egotistical colleges cannot repair their errors. Especially after they insulted a dead mans work by saying he could not have known the direction of electricity, and took a guess about the polarity of electricity. When in fact colleges took a guess or purposely mislabeled electricity. Benjamin Franklin created the test in his basement with a wire from his roof during a lightning storm. Using a pointed and flat electrode which shows the direction of electricity. 

You asked how can you make a computer without understanding electricity? You do not even need electricity to make a computer. First you need to understand the computer then electricity, then make the computer. It looks like neither is understood yet. 

As I mentioned after a few years of kids learning in school and calling the sky purple we would believe the sky was purple. That is what has happened with electricity. The problem is that we did not change up to down and down to up, positive to mean negative and negative to mean positive across the board yet. So perhaps we can just fix the labeling on electricity and move on. Then we can fix chemistry and science. Since we live in a universe built solely out of particles of electricity according to my schooling, I would think we should get that in order before doing anything important. Our computers are barely, reliable. I am not saying that they are not complex, and often fun and useful however they are unnecessarily complex in most cases. Unstable in all cases.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

 
You seem to have given up any attempt at sense.

perhaps you could explain who a tiny trace of permanganate holds together a huge amount of water in a crystal.


4
"Although I have heard some people that know, have shinned a laser to the moon, and when they blocked the laser on earth it instantly shut off on the moon. "

How?
Practically nobody has access to bright enough lasers.
If someone had a laser bright enough to light up the moon so you caould see it from earth, cow come everybody on earth didn't see it change colour.

This site covers the maths for you
http://what-if.xkcd.com/13/


"No one ever questions the speed of light because no one has a light speed meter or an experiment to prove it."

Lots of people know about the speed of light- from the delay on international calls bounced via satellites.
And the SOL was first measured a very long time ago.

So, as usual, your posts are full of vague accusations- but devoid of any evidence.
Why not just stop?
5
Does chronic activation of the microglia by air pollution and particulate matter is harmful (neurotoxic) or beneficial (neurotrophic) to dopaminergic neurons?
6
New Theories / Re: Luminiferous Aether
« Last post by William McC on Today at 19:25:02 »
Been exploring the concept in my head.  Seems to me, many of us argue (within ourselves) about the need for a medium of space. 

Like myself, many suspect there must be a medium for light and/or gravity waves to propagate through space, but we cannot see it.  We can neither prove, nor disprove such quality, it has no tangible quality, other than taking/making up space.

The Michaleson Morely experiment (MME) is the most prominent example of the search for a definitive answer.  But the experiment was limited to being performed at the surface of the earth.

I postulate atomic structure (mass) displace aether.

If that postulation is correct, I conclude that solid mass displace most aether, followed by liquids then gas.  From the core of the earth to the outer most reaches of the atmosphere, it would be something of a sliding scale.

I’ve been struggling to contrive a method to detect it, but I’m coming up blank.

Even if there is such a quality, can we assume it doesn’t interact with mass/matter?

Best I’ve got:  Its everywhere there isn’t atoms, there is aether.  If there is aether around the sun and we’re orbiting the sun within it…  It stands to reason the aether would flow in a similar path around the sun, as the Earth.



That’s explains to me, why MME and others fail to detect any aether quality of space.

"Space" is filled with hydrogen gas. That is how light, and gravity travel, through matter. But technically space is nothing it is a place for matter to exist.

Ambient radiation (particles of electricity) race through spherically shaped balls of or particles of electricity we call hydrogen atoms. All elements are just structures of hydrogen atoms, thus the hydrogen bomb. Each matter and ambient radiation respectfully, cannot exist without the other. There would be no movement of particles of electricity to create ambient radiation if there was no matter. And matter would disperse harmlessly without event, if ambient radiation stopped.

Time is the comparison of moving objects by a living observer who determines how much time has passed.

Matter even Tungsten is 90 percent space. We live in an electrical illusion. Ambient radiation is racing through matter from all directions at all times.

A bomb is just an area too abundant with particles of electricity, it has been proven but paranoid sorts hide it. But it is easily proven if you would like to know. A bomb is spread out dispersed or it would consume the entire universe. The dispersing of the bomb is what some find unpleasant. We live in a good simple universe, all the nonsense they teach you is to keep you from wielding said universe.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
7
I m not a smart guy but I do have imagination. I believe that we will soon be capable to travel on space time “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” .by Albert Einstein 
I think that the humanity is like a piece of metal on a large magnet, where, we are being pull down by gravity. The same way with our planet Earth that it being pull dawn by the gravity of the Sun and the Sun by another superior gravitational force.
When, we get to the point in which we are capable of building and space ship that could create a gravitational force strong enough to push the Earth gravitational force, the same way the earth pushes the Sun we are going to be traveling on space time. (Sun’s gravity +( - ( + Earth gravity)) +( - ( + artificial gravitational force  + mc²)) )…A magnet its capable to create + and - witch it creates a gravitational force in a small scale.

We had the capabilities to go to other solar systems in a couple of years time back in the late sixties and early seventies, but no one was interested. We sent a ship, and it made it.  No one ever questions the speed of light because no one has a light speed meter or an experiment to prove it. Although I have heard some people that know, have shinned a laser to the moon, and when they blocked the laser on earth it instantly shut off on the moon.

There is no such thing as space time, space is nothing, an empty place for matter, and time is the comparison by the observer of moving objects to determine how much time has passed.

Atomic clocks can be effected by multiple harmless almost undetectable rays, to give inaccurate readings while sitting on a test bench.

We have no scientific limitations. We do have the crazy dreams of people that are trying to do the impossible rather than the possible. Which leads them to sit and spew crazy notions as fact. They even write books about those facts, and then sell them to schools. They do not realize that money comes from the printing press. If you want money so badly print it. You cannot get money anywhere else other than the printing press. I have seen people become physically ill for a few moments as they grasp that reality.

Sincerely ,

William McCormick
8
New Theories / Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Last post by timey on Today at 19:10:55 »
Are you asking me the solution to a mathematical question Jeff?  ...Because it would seem a little misconceived to be requiring such from a self stated non mathematician wouldn't it?

In any case what you are asking seems to me to be an oversimplification...  What I wish to achieve is -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe

- matching the blue line to the black line by increasing the rate of the second as energy is added.

The standard second is being used as a means of stating how much energy is being added per second.  As the lines start diverging decrease the length of the second so that the blue line does not diverge.

This concept is stating that adding energy to a situation increases the situations rate of time...

This concept suggests that the adding of both thermal and gravitational energy will increase the rate of time for any situation, and can be observed as such in objects that are subject to increased gravity potential energy, and objects that have been removed from refrigerated/frozen scenarios and exposed to thermal energy.
9
New Theories / Re: Luminiferous Aether
« Last post by Atkhenaken on Today at 17:59:19 »
Been exploring the concept in my head.  Seems to me, many of us argue (within ourselves) about the need for a medium of space. 

Like myself, many suspect there must be a medium for light and/or gravity waves to propagate through space, but we cannot see it.  We can neither prove, nor disprove such quality, it has no tangible quality, other than taking/making up space.

The Michaleson Morely experiment (MME) is the most prominent example of the search for a definitive answer.  But the experiment was limited to being performed at the surface of the earth.

I postulate atomic structure (mass) displace aether.

If that postulation is correct, I conclude that solid mass displace most aether, followed by liquids then gas.  From the core of the earth to the outer most reaches of the atmosphere, it would be something of a sliding scale.

I’ve been struggling to contrive a method to detect it, but I’m coming up blank.

Even if there is such a quality, can we assume it doesn’t interact with mass/matter?

Best I’ve got:  Its everywhere there isn’t atoms, there is aether.  If there is aether around the sun and we’re orbiting the sun within it…  It stands to reason the aether would flow in a similar path around the sun, as the Earth.



That’s explains to me, why MME and others fail to detect any aether quality of space.

You don't need an interferometer to detect aether. Aether is gravity, electricity and all forms of energy. The Earth floats with the aether like a piece of drift wood down a river. Thus, if you are trying to measure its velocity you wont get a big difference. Michaleson and Morley did measure a small difference but it wasn't the same as the Earth's speed around the Sun, so they dismissed it as a NULL RESULT. (a silly mistake of misunderstanding of the true nature of aether) lol!


Note - They were under instructions to find a NULL RESULT. In science you can always manipulate the results by manipulating the expectations! lol!
10


Aluminum oxide is reduced by the hot sulfuric acid, then raw exposed aluminum reduces the sulfuric acid. Back and forth back and forth.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

It doesn't stop being wrong just because you repeat it.

Reduction is the opposite of oxidation. Now to get to the aluminum to oxidize it, you have to reduce the aluminum oxide, so that the acid can get to the pure aluminum and oxidize it. That is the problem in anodizing. Once the aluminum oxide is formed, in most areas it will not allow the acid in to finish off the missed areas. So they use AC current to burn off some of the new anodize coating, and hopefully get to the missed areas. This is somewhat successful.

youtu.be/RLkBzRnICZ4

Here is the reaction, it looks about right to me.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

OK Now I see what it is that you don't understand.
You don't realise that it's possible to remove the oxide by protonation rather than oxidation or reduction (presumably because you didn't read or understand what I told you earlier about oxidation states)

The reaction which dissolves the aluminium oxide is this
Al2O3 +3 H2SO4  --> Al2(SO4)3  + 3  H2O
The aluminium remains in the +3 oxidation state throughout.

So, you are still wrong. The aluminium oxide is not reduced.
It would have been quicker and easier if you had accepted that in the first place and googled a bit af chemistry about oxides and acids

You would have found this sort of thing
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/add_aqa_pre_2011/ions/acidsbasesrev2.shtml

This is the bit you should have looked for.
acid + metal oxide → salt + water

The solid aluminum oxide is no longer aluminum oxide and is washed away from the aluminum, it is now a liquid and part of a sulphur compound that you can use to deposit aluminum easily. That is what reduction meant the separation of the oxygen from a metal or an oxidizing compound like chlorine from a metal. Which that reaction does. You can make up a whole bunch of rules and definitions however they will quickly turn on themselves.

The history of reduction is the removal of oxygen or chlorine from a metal. Which this reaction does. The oxygen is replaced by the salt of sulfuric acid the sulphate. It was called reduction because it removes massive quantities of oxidized material from metal, or an ore, which is always an oxide of the metal. It often does this in seconds. That is the reason for the term reduction.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums