The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
I thought this was interesting. I've always had my doubts about tylenol except for fevers.

http://time.com/3031862/tylenol-and-panadol-prove-no-better-than-placebo-at-helping-back-pain/

The article also makes me wonder about what they consider part of the placebo effect as well. Having worked in a medical setting, I know a lot of patients often feel obligated to say something worked "okay" that they feel "a little better" when they actually don't, because they don't want to seem whiny, negative, or disappoint the doctor who hasn't actually helped them.

And while placebos help as a control for improvement regardless of what was taken, that improvement is not necessarily part of "the placebo effect" ie people's expectations actually changing the outcome, but may occur for other physiological reasons.
22
New Theories / Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
« Last post by jeffreyH on Today at 11:37:36 »
Before proceeding further it would be useful to consider a thought experiment. When considering planetary motion we encounter the elliptical orbit as found by Kepler and later explained by Newton. From the relationship that equal areas of the orbit based at one focal point are equal for equal time periods we can imagine a scenario with planets. Consider a planet tipped on its side so that both poles align with the path of the orbit. The planet is then spinning around the orbital path as it moves. If we imagine a point on the spinning equator that we follow as it describes a path centered on the orbital path we see that frequency of the wave increases with distance from the focal point. We can then show that we have a redshift described nearer the object and a blue shift described as the planet moves further away. Light does not behave this way as shown by the receding galaxies indicating an expansion of the universe. The model being described here will eventually explain this.

NOTE: This thought experiment disregards the time component of the wave in case anyone was going to object. That was on purpose and will be explained later.
23
When we put matter into liquid nitrogen, atom's orbital/shell/wave should crash like a glass doom under high pressure,
Forget it. The interaction between proton and electron in an atom has nothing to do with thermal excitement.
Anyone made you believe it, has studied physics on comics...

--
lightarrow
24
New Theories / Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
« Last post by jeffreyH on Today at 10:06:26 »
Before trying to link the gravitational field to Lambert's Cosine Law I need to take a detour. This starts with the unit sphere and the unit circle. Using the unit sphere and circle shows some interesting relationships and can be scaled up. This can then be used to describe both subatomic and macroscopic domains.

The diameter of the unit circle is 2*pi. To determine the angle of an arc around the circle whose arc length is equal to the radius we can use (1/2*pi)*360 which can be simplified to 7/44*360. This proportionality will become important when viewing interactions at differing scales and relates to wave frequency, length contraction and time dilation effects. The angle we have determined can be converted to radians to use in calculations.

It is interesting to note that the period of sin x is 2*pi. This can be utilized by considering forward motion and angular rotation as it relates to the unit sphere. The relationship between these two properties can describe the evolution of a wave and can be related directly to the gravitational field. When used it can be shown to show the underlying mechanism of the Pauli Exclusion Principle and the difference in energy levels required between electrons.

There are 3 directions of motion under consideration within this model. One motion is forward direction and is considered to be aligned with the poles of the sphere. The two other directions are angular. The first is around the equator and the second follows a longitudinal path intersecting both poles. The maximum unit of motion in unit time in the polar direction is equal to the unit sphere radius. The maximum unit of motion of the angular paths is 7/44*360 as stated above. If viewed at the Planck scale the angular components cannot reach this speed or none of us would be here. Therefore we can deduce that this dampening in angular momentum must be due to gravity which is what the current physical theories state.

If we follow this line of thinking through to its conclusion we can show that when considering the universe as a whole system light might get infinitesimally near to c but will never actually reach it as long as any gravitational field remains. I will demonstrate the reasons for this conclusion as I proceed.

NOTE: In case this limit on light speed seems absurd consider that if even light cannot reach its own maximum speed then certainly nothing else will. Also all mass is affected in the same proportional way as the photon within an equivalent field and the speed of any one component of the system is relative to everything else. One other consequence of this model may be the discarding of Lorentz transformations and the use of frames of reference. I say may because I have yet to properly determine this.
25
Physiology & Medicine / Using Expired Lutein?
« Last post by Jimbee on Today at 05:50:13 »
Macular degeneration runs in my family. Both my father and my grandfather had it. So when I heard taking the supplement Lutein could help prevent it, I immediately wanted to get on board.

The only thing is, Lutein wasn't in the vitamin/mineral dietary supplement I was already taking. So I went to a nearby pharmacy, and I bought two bottles. There are about 30 gel tablets in each bottle. So I thought I'd be set for a while.

The only thing is, upon closer examination of the bottles, I discovered they expired in August of 2013--almost a year ago, exactly.

Returning the bottles would be kind of a hassle. So, is it safe to take expired Lutein? I really need to know.

 :) :) :)
26
Quote from: jccc
Pete, even I calculated the force correct, how to convert it into voltage?
I just told you how to do that. The value that you're looking for is the V in the first equation I gave. Just do the arithmetic out.

Quote from: jccc
If we connect car battery to two metal plates distance 1 meter, the voltage in between is 12 V, now we move the plates distance to 2 meter, how many V it will be?
V is independent of how far apart the plates are. All that will change is the strength of the electric field in-between the plates.

Quote from: jccc
When we move more electrons from one plate to another, is the voltage between them increase?
Yes.

Quote from: jccc
So maybe move 10% electrons produce 10,000 V, 30% produce 1,000,000 v something like that?
The relationship between charge and potential is given by Q = CV where C is the capacitance of the geometry of the conductors.
27
Quote from: jccc
Pete, I don't get the part two positive nucleus able to impact into one but opposite charges not able to impact into one.
I don't know what you mean by "impact." Please explain.

The proton and electron are opposite charges and they form a hydrogen atom. The electron and positron are opposite charges and form positronium.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positronium

Two positive charges also have the strong force acting on them in order to bind them together. Without the strong force nuclei with more the one proton couldn't exist.

Quote from: jccc
You talk about electron capture, capture by attraction force right? Why is nucleus only capture electrons half way and put them at radius?
What do you mean by "put them at radius"? Electron capture is the following process

cc4eadd7c2cf0fbaa6cddb455a2ab5e0.gif

where n is a neutron and 66698fb025b35665217b25df186b0e93.gif is an electron neutrino.

Quote from: jccc
When we put matter into liquid nitrogen, atom's orbital/shell/wave should crash like a glass doom under high pressure, that never happened as I know.
Now we're getting into quantum chemistry. A field I haven't thought about since I was a sophomore in college so many decades ago. Also you're using terms which I don't know what they mean such as crash like a glass doom.
28
Quote from: jccc
In fusion reaction, two atoms impact so hard, even two nucleus crashed into one, how come electron escaped from the crash?
Who said that it did? If it did then the atom would become ionized and if it did loose an electron do to such an energetic impact knocking it out, the atom would soon capture another electron and have a full set of electrons again.

Quote from: jccc
Let's say somehow QM is correct, atoms are stable due to some mystery laws.
Those "mystery laws" are called the postulates of quantum mechanics.

Quote from: jccc
When we putting pressure on matter, to a point, atoms/orbital/shell/wave will crash. But this never happened.
Since when? Atoms due combine to form molecules you know.

Pete, I don't get the part two positive nucleus able to impact into one but opposite charges not able to impact into one.

You talk about electron capture, capture by attraction force right? Why is nucleus only capture electrons half way and put them at radius? If I captured something tasty, it will be ate in a second.

When we put matter into liquid nitrogen, atom's orbital/shell/wave should crash like a glass doom under high pressure, that never happened as I know.

How do you think?
29
evan_au

Yes, I know sulfur hexafloride isn't the safest thing ever, but neither is helium believe it or not.  It is advised not to breath in either. But that's besides the point.

I want to know evan, do you think that this sort of "magic";) is better then cheap card tricks, magicians glue and invisible string? With magic like this you might as well be a dang wizard.  At least that's my opinion...

What's yours?


Also If your interested in this sort of thing I have many more tricks ;D I could reveal more if you want.  I am also seeking out new tricks too.  If you know of some obscure science that could be used for magic, please let me know.
30
I don't know how to convert static force into voltage, but proton and electron at atom radius distance should produce very high voltage, maybe millions ev.

If that is correct, should any discharge happen?
Would you like to try the calculation yourself or do you want me to do it for you? The electrostatic potential due to a point charge Q which is located at the origin is given by

987dbb4a5d5f6ec1aaf9dd619ff7595c.gif

where 0d510809d2f7f78280c066efe210395c.gif is Coulomb's constant and has the value cb163cfd299f50e3ef771fa06a6d99de.gif. r is the lowest value in the Bohr model of the atom and has the value f2a34903c65346b6469288d426f6e0bb.gif where e = charge of the electron and me is the proper mass of the electron.

It's a bit of juggling of constants that I'd rather not bother with. Time for you to do some work my friend. :)

Pete, even I calculated the force correct, how to convert it into voltage?

If we connect car battery to two metal plates distance 1 meter, the voltage in between is 12 V, now we move the plates distance to 2 meter, how many V it will be? 

When we move more electrons from one plate to another, is the voltage between them increase?

So maybe move 10% electrons produce 10,000 V, 30% produce 1,000,000 v something like that?

 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
SMF 2.0 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines