1

General Science / Re: Does All Of Mathematics Come Down To Simple Arithmetic?

« on: Yesterday at 12:27:34 »

One herd of sheep + one herd of sheep is one herd of sheep.
It seems adding sets just complicates things.
:-)

Also, if someone is selling you 20% alcohol as vodka... I hope it's cheap.
Mind you, if you drink it by the pint...

It seems the answer to "Does All Of Mathematics Come Down To Simple Arithmetic?" is that it does if you let Alan define it.

2

General Science / Re: Does All Of Mathematics Come Down To Simple Arithmetic?

« on: 13/10/2024 15:40:04 »

Is that a matter of proof or definition?

Ug has one sheep, then he gets another sheep.

Og says "instead of saying you have one and another one, why don't we give the new set of sheep a new property, like 'two'? We could even invent names to characterise sets with more sheep, and if everyone used the same words, we could discuss who had the most sheep without performing lots of one-to-one correlations"

That's an example of 1+1=2. It's not proof.
How do you know it always works?
Here's a counter-example.
One drink (vodka) + 1 drink (orange juice) = 1 drink (screwdriver).

I don't think Mr Ug would recognise the proof. I certainly don't but...


one and one is two.jpg (57.87 kB . 815x342 - viewed 36 times)

3

Just Chat! / Re: What's gone wrong with the world?

« on: 13/10/2024 14:51:14 »

Xenon sinks. And if the temperature is above dewpoint, H2O rises. The situation is complicated by the numerous temporary polymers of water at low temperatures, which slows down the diffusion of water through the atmosphere as the "effective molecular weight" depends on concentration and temperature. But if you wait long enough, you end up with a dry planet like Mars where only the CO2 is retained by gravity.

Unless your planet is big, like Jupiter or cold like Europa.

4

Just Chat! / Re: What's gone wrong with the world?

« on: 13/10/2024 14:42:28 »

f you were to slowly release hydrogen into a sealed room my guess is that it would slowly diffuse to reach an even concentration throughout the room.

Not quite.

Let's start by thinking about the air. The pressure falls with altitude (the effect inside a room is tiny, and usually swamped by temperature variations etc).
The rate of change with altitude is called the lapse rate and it is dependent on things like local gravity, temperature and the molecular weight of the air.
And, if you had a room full of hydrogen, the pressure at the ceiling would be less than that at the floor.
And, again, the lapse rate would depend on the molecular weight etc.
So it would be different from that for air. (But still tiny)

The interesting thing is that the hydrogen does not "know about" the air.
So, at equilibrium, the concentrations of the gases settle down so as if the other gas is not there  (I'm pretending that "air" is just one gas for simplicity.)
And because the lapse rates are slightly different, the concentrations (i.e. pressures) change with height in different ways.
So the ratio of the gases change with height.
(I'd not like to have to measure the effect)

5

Just Chat! / Re: What's gone wrong with the world?

« on: 13/10/2024 14:29:48 »

Ten minutes ago I heard a statement from a meteorologist, on BBC, that "dry air is very dense". That is a sweeping generality that may or may not be correct, depending on circumstance.

The molecular weight of water (18) is quite a bit less than that of oxygen (32) or nitrogen (28).
So, all other things being equal, dry air is denser than wet air.
The use of "very" is pushing it.

6

Chemistry / Re: Dexpan alternative question

« on: 13/10/2024 14:25:52 »

I wouldn't have found it, because I wouldn't have known what to search for...

non explosive demolition

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=non+explosive+demolition

7

Chemistry / Re: Dexpan alternative question

« on: 10/10/2024 19:34:51 »

Is there some reason you couldn't find this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-explosive_demolition_agents

8

General Science / Re: Does All Of Mathematics Come Down To Simple Arithmetic?

« on: 10/10/2024 19:23:51 »

The proof that 1+1=2 can not be simple arithmetic, because that would be circular reasoning.

9

New Theories / Re: How do we measure the energy of a photon?

« on: 04/10/2024 09:52:04 »

Lithium inherits Helium inherits Hydrogen etc. etc...

Taking this further, Og inherits Ts inherits Lv .... inherits Lithium inherits Helium inherits Hydrogen. ie. Og is a type of Hydrogen atom.

In computer science, if Class A inherits Class B, then I can reference Class A without any knowledge of Class B yet still interact with Property X of Class B. So, in Class Og I can reference the Inherited Hydrogen atom (at the base of a 118-occurrence inheritance chain) as Proton (0).

At best this is counting the angels on the head of a pin.

10

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Is There Any Safe Amount Of Smoking?

« on: 02/10/2024 19:19:41 »

Sure, 1 cigarette a day wouldn't hurt you.

Unless it does.
As I explained, it's a statistical thing.

11

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Could we eat wood?

« on: 02/10/2024 19:17:05 »

On my planet the reactive oxides of nitrogen in a nuclear winter will be short-lived because they will be reduced by organic stuff in smoke.
The N2O might survive for a while, but I don't think it will achieve a lot.

12

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Could we eat wood?

« on: 02/10/2024 13:20:02 »

Wood has a nitrogen content of about 0.1% or less.
Proteins are about 14% nitrogen.
So wood is about 1% protein.
But, if the fungus "eats" the wood, oxidises the cellulose and lignin for energy and keeps hold of the nitrogen then it can accumulate enough nitrogen to make its proteins from.
And, in principle, we can eat that protein.
Mushrooms are about 3% protein.
That's not bad.
But by the simple expedient of feeding the mushrooms to pigs, we can get bacon (36% protein)
The question is how much effort is that compared to growing beans?
OK, in a nuclear winter, that's not easy.
But, if we still have a society, we can still burn oil, run the generators and run the grow lights.

We know how to do that so it might be the easy option.

How about taking teh wood, treating it with dilute acid, neutralising it with chalk and then fermenting it to alcohol and distilling that off.
The nitrogen is left behind.
Add slaked lime  and redistill it and you will get ammonia.
You can react that with acid and feed that "fixed nitrogen" to ruminants like cattle and sheep (which can probably digest sawdust- though I doubt they would be happy or healthy).
The best thing to do is not vote for people like Putin, or those who praise/ admire him.

It's all fun and games until the energy runs out. Everything else can be recycled.

13

New Theories / Re: what is temperature?

« on: 30/09/2024 10:32:16 »

You might not think they are well enough defined.
But, as I said, the rest of us do.

You are the one who said that the temperature wasn't well defined.

Temperature isn't well defined. The state of the system is well defined.

This is not meant to be difficult.
You really should stop wasting time here and go and learn some physics.

14

General Science / Re: Is There A Pattern In The Number Pi?

« on: 29/09/2024 12:14:08 »

It's generally believed (but not proven) that pi is a "normal" number in the technical sense that there are equal numbers of 1s 2s 3s etc in the decimal expansion of it.
That rules out numbers of the sort you constructed which has a lot more 0s than 1s and none of any other digit.
Other patterns might be  possible.
Good luck finding one.

15

New Theories / Re: what is temperature?

« on: 29/09/2024 12:08:03 »

Previously, you concluded that energy of thermal neutrons at room temperature is the same as electrons because you thought that equipartition theory is still valid in this case. You thought that its validity is a consequence of the conservation of energy.

The type of error that you have made here is comparable with assuming that, since all poodles are dogs, all dogs must be poodles.

What makes you think that equipartition theory is still valid to conclude that energy of thermal neutrons at room temperature is the same as electrons?

It's still, as I said,  the conservation of energy.

Ultraviolet catastrophe is a scenario already accounting for average.

But, as I said,  not for quantisation.

But you don't know which way, for they are not well defined.

You might not think they are well enough defined.
But, as I said, the rest of us do.

Why do you keep repeating teh same questions after that have been answered?
Do you have a learning disability?

16

New Theories / Re: what is temperature?

« on: 27/09/2024 12:10:21 »

Previously, you concluded that energy of thermal neutrons at room temperature is the same as electrons because you thought that equipartition theory is still valid in this case. You thought that its validity is a consequence of the conservation of energy.

The type of error that you have made here is comparable with assuming that, since all poodles are dogs, all dogs must be poodles.

17

New Theories / Re: what is temperature?

« on: 27/09/2024 12:08:39 »

Does it imply that we can't predict where the energy will naturally flow?

No.

How do you predict where the energy will naturally flow between two objects if their temperatures are not well defined?

It generally flows towards equipartition.

18

New Theories / Re: what is temperature?

« on: 27/09/2024 12:07:34 »

Ultraviolet catastrophe.

Was resolved by the quantisation of  em radiation- which is implicit in the use of the word "photons".

Which implies that the em radiation is not equally partitioned.

I think you may have failed to spot the word "average" in the definition.

19

Technology / Re: After reading this, would you let AI drive your car?

« on: 26/09/2024 16:06:58 »

The great thing about human drivers is a strong  selfpreservation instinct

This is less comforting if you are a pedestrian...
It's one of the things that will be hard to sell about an AI car.

Salesman to buyer "And here's where you sign to say that you accept that, in some circumstances the AI will kill you if that's what's required to save a group of people".

(Also; the AI can not reliably distinguish between a group of people and a bunch of ducks and some litter or whatever.)

20

New Theories / Re: what is temperature?

« on: 26/09/2024 11:52:35 »

conservation of energy can still apply even when equipartition theorem doesn't hold.

Nobody suggested otherwise.

Ultraviolet catastrophe.

Was resolved by the quantisation of  em radiation- which is implicit in the use of the word "photons".

Does it imply that we can't predict where the energy will naturally flow?

No.


Do you not recognise that this sort of exchange is a very inefficient way of you learning science- especially when you fail to pay attention to important things like equipartition?