Quite a fantastic time I must say!
BTW,.... as to my last one-liner........as you have so eloquently put it.
If we never recognize our errors, we have no hope of ever learning anything new. Maybe you didn't quite get the message I was trying to send. It may also be true that I was in error to word it the way I did. I shall try to learn from that mistake. It would do us all well to follow this example!
In any case, I appreciate the INTEREST...? you've shown in these one-liners.
« Last post by demografx on Today at 23:30:09 »
Today is also Reptile Awareness Day.
« Last post by thedoc on Today at 23:30:02 »
Ailene Hewitt asked the Naked Scientists:
Is it possible that there is a connection between the ever-increasing use of technological devices is impacting the magnetic energy fields and our problem with bees dying in vast numbers?
What do you think?
« Last post by cheryl j on Today at 23:02:36 »
"The Spiritual Brain , A Neuroscientist's Case For The Existence of The Soul " By Mario Beauregard and Denyse O'Leary
How do you know what I did or didn't download? You said I was wasting your time with silly games, so I did not think you would be interested in my comments.
It seems that Pu238 units run up to 300W (as in the Cassini probe) and indeed to get to kW outputs you need a fission reactor.
« Last post by PmbPhy on Today at 22:44:25 »
Quote from: JohnDuffield
I'm afraid it isn't true. There are vacuum fluctuations in empty space, but these aren't charged particles. They're more like photons, and transient ephemeral weak little photons at that. Have you ever been on a ship? Think of a real photon as an oceanic swell wave that barrels across the sea. Think of vacuum fluctuations as the little ripplets on the surface of the sea.
There you go. Creating your own theories and then claiming that they're right. You're claim, as usual, goes against mainstream physics, i.e. once again you're wrong. Vacuum energy consists of Vacuum polarization, i.e. particle-antiparticle pairs such as electron and positrons. The pairs annihilate each other and that's why they're virtual, they don't exist long enough to be detected. If they were photons then photons can't annihilate each other.
You can learn all about this in The Road to Reality by Roger Penrose, (2004), page 676.
« Last post by demografx on Today at 22:43:16 »
Today is Count Your Buttons Day.
Mary wondered why she was no longer receiving information from the fertility clinic. She was unaware that they had relocated to new premises until the new place sent her their new address and explaining they had run out of womb at the old offices.
Billy's boss had offered him a posting overseas. Bill's wife, Mary, said to him, "you tear us apart and we'll never have a baby.
Suddenly I heard someone call out,
Don_1 female punatomy explained.
« Last post by PmbPhy on Today at 22:38:23 »
Quote from: Roju
I've learnt in school that the energy required to break Ozone O3 into O2 +O is equivalent to a UV-Phtoton with a wavelength of 220-310 nm.
Hi Roju: Welcome to the forum! :)
This is a problem that's best answered by a chemist. However let me say this. Just because it takes a certain amount of energy E_a to cause energy to be released it doesn't mean that the energy released is E_a. For example; think of a high cliff where at the top there is a bowl shaped indentation next to the edge. The particle is initially at rest at the bottom of the bowl. It takes an amount of energy E_a to raise the particle to the edge of the indentation, the energy going into just enough work to raise the particle from the bottom of the bowl to the top edge of the cliff and push it off. The particle then falls off the cliff and falls a very large distance to the ground. When the particle hits the ground a large amount of energy is released.
Now think of the potential well and an electron in the potential well. Let the potential be defined as follows
V(x) = x2 + a, x < R
V(x) = 0, x > R
Let the particle be at rest at x = 0. If we input an amount of energy E_a = R^2 then the electron can transition to V(x) = 0 while releasing the amount of energy E_b = a + R^2 > E_a. Do you see how this works?
If the energy released is less than the energy put in then the potential energy function is different than this.
« Last post by alancalverd on Today at 22:34:17 »
Apologies for screwing up the decimal points earlier! Dinorwig capacity is published as about 6.5 GWh (1.3 GW for 5 hours). UK energy consumption is about 300 GW, so it could run the country for 78 seconds.
« Last post by dlorde on Today at 22:17:46 »
Decoherence isn't an interpretation, it's a central feature.
The man is still alive and kicking : has he been deluded ?
So it would seem.
As you know , there are many interpretations of quantum theory , what makes you then think that the materialist one is the approximately 'correct " one ?
There are many interpretations. It really doesn't matter which is 'correct', what matters is that the the field theory works - and it does, regardless of the presence of consciousness.
TL;DR. Try summarising in your own words.
© 2000–2013 The Naked Scientists®
The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.