1
New Theories / Re: Origin of magnetic force
« on: Yesterday at 12:05:27 »I seem to have CoVidGet well soon.
The following users thanked this post: Eternal Student
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
New Theories / Re: Can we draw a geometrical representation of gravity?
« on: 01/07/2022 15:37:34 »
Can we draw a geometrical representation of gravity?
Yes.
↓
Yes.
↓
The following users thanked this post: Alex Dullius Siqueira
3
New Theories / Re: How Many Numbers Exist?
« on: 01/07/2022 09:59:31 »https://twitter.com/pickover/status/1541962088926560256?t=ml0TBOGlhgCZIKDaLXserg&s=03Apparently, the complex numbers have the same cardinality as the reals and I'm tempted to assume that the hypercomplex ones do too.
There are many hypercomplex numbers known by modern math. Do they have the same size as real number?
https://quizlet.com/explanations/questions/show-that-c-the-set-of-complex-numbers-has-the-same-cardinality-as-r-the-set-of-real-numbers-cf3e343a-9b5b-4f78-8a0c-0dcfe9ee5b15
The following users thanked this post: hamdani yusuf
4
General Science / Re: How much of me is original?
« on: 30/06/2022 18:30:24 »(not teeth - they all fell out and were replaced when you were a child!)The replacements may have already been in place, but it's probably beside the point.
I'm not saying this is an accurate mechanism to answer the question but it does give some indication.
In a typical year you can expect to eat something like 1000 Kg of food. That's about 7 times your weight.
The stuff food is made from isn't very different from the stuff you are made from.
So each year your body takes in 7 times its mass in "stuff".
If that were properly mixed then only 1/7 of you would be still there at the end of the first year.
So it's 1 in 49 after 2 years and by the time you are 65 it's pretty close to bugger all.
Obviously some bits are better mixed than others.
The chip in my front tooth that I have been carrying round since school is still there- more like 45 years than 65, but the point remains.
Most of that stuff is pretty much fixed. Skeletal bone is turned over much faster than that, but still pretty slowly.
My skeleton is something like 10Kg
It contains something like 1400 grams of Calcium
"The calcium content of bone at maturity is approximately 1,200 g in women and 1,400 g in men"
from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK56060/
and it turns over about 0.5 grams per day
https://www.medscape.com/answers/241893-20078/how-much-calcium-turnover-occurs-normally-each-day
so that's about 180 grams per year or (very roughly) the whole lot gets rebuilt every 7 or 8 years.
Some bits deep in the middle might date back to when I was a teenager.
At best, very little of it will be original.
"At full-term birth, the human infant has accrued about 26 to 30 g of calcium, most of which is in the skeleton."
Just a thought; if we are what we eat, why are we not "new and improved"?
The following users thanked this post: Harri
5
New Theories / Re: Molecular chain that would end all life? Causality Firewall of life/ CFL?
« on: 30/06/2022 13:43:51 »
If the hydrogen bond between water molecules suddenly disappeared all life (as we know it) would die.
Also the oceans here would boil.
But, on a scale bigger than planets, the weird properties of water probably don't matter much.
This has nothing to do with causality or firewalls.
It's a fantasy.
Also the oceans here would boil.
But, on a scale bigger than planets, the weird properties of water probably don't matter much.
This has nothing to do with causality or firewalls.
It's a fantasy.
The following users thanked this post: Alex Dullius Siqueira
6
Technology / Re: What Question Could You Ask To Determine Sentience Of An AI ?
« on: 28/06/2022 18:32:05 »7
New Theories / Re: Can conscious thought act on matter?
« on: 28/06/2022 09:35:50 »
" Can conscious thought act on matter?"
If it didn't, we wouldn't know it existed (other than our own).
If it didn't, we wouldn't know it existed (other than our own).
The following users thanked this post: Alex Dullius Siqueira
8
Physiology & Medicine / Re: The crucial ingredients of CBD:
« on: 21/06/2022 17:36:21 »
I'm just waiting for the spam advertising.
The following users thanked this post: SeanB
9
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is there a net heat exchange between water and ice at 0 degree C?
« on: 16/06/2022 21:06:14 »I'm going to say no, not reliably or meaningfully.Others may differ
http://users.mrl.illinois.edu/cahill/intel08.pdf
But if you asked about a nanometre cubed, it would be tricky.
The following users thanked this post: hamdani yusuf
10
Technology / Re: What Is The Benefit Of Cryogenically Treating Cables ?
« on: 16/06/2022 13:53:48 »You have to get copper down to 35K before it becomes superconductingI'm fairly sure that copper doesn't superconduct even at much lower temperatures than that.
The following users thanked this post: evan_au
11
That CAN'T be true! / Re: hydrinos!
« on: 10/06/2022 21:39:07 »Randall mills claims he can lower the ground state 1s electron of a hydrogen atom to a lower level producing energy in the processMaybe.
But he hasn't shown anyone else that he can do it, not has he shown anyone else how to do it.
So his claim looks a lot like saying there are fairies at the bottom of the garden.
The following users thanked this post: paul cotter
12
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is there a net heat exchange between water and ice at 0 degree C?
« on: 08/06/2022 21:39:20 »
It's not how well tested the laws of thermodynamics are that matters here.
Again, it's Galileo dropping things off a tower.
He did not need to do the experiment.
He knew that the light thing and the heavy thing had to fall at the same speed- because he had considered what would happen if you tied a heavy ball to a light ball and dropped both.
The combined "thing" consisting of the two balls would obviously weigh more than the constituents.
So, if Aristotle had been right, the combination would fall faster than the heavy ball.
And the light ball would fall more slowly.
But how could the combined thing fall faster then the heavy ball when the light ball was trying to fall slower?
It's impossible.
Galileo knew that.
He only did the experiment for the benefit of the local dignitaries who were not clever enough to understand the logic.
Now we are looking at the laws of thermodynamics, rather than falling objects.
But, like Galileo, we have the advantage of a deep understanding.
We have known for a hundred years or so that momentum, angular momentum and energy are conserved.
We don't rely on experiments to know this.
We have a mathematical proof.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
And yet, we still have hamdani yusuf saying that, because he can't do a proper experiment, he doesn't believe it.
He refuses to learn, or even accept the science.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
He is even less well informed that those local busybodies for whom Galilei had to climb the tower and drop stuff.
Again, it's Galileo dropping things off a tower.
He did not need to do the experiment.
He knew that the light thing and the heavy thing had to fall at the same speed- because he had considered what would happen if you tied a heavy ball to a light ball and dropped both.
The combined "thing" consisting of the two balls would obviously weigh more than the constituents.
So, if Aristotle had been right, the combination would fall faster than the heavy ball.
And the light ball would fall more slowly.
But how could the combined thing fall faster then the heavy ball when the light ball was trying to fall slower?
It's impossible.
Galileo knew that.
He only did the experiment for the benefit of the local dignitaries who were not clever enough to understand the logic.
Now we are looking at the laws of thermodynamics, rather than falling objects.
But, like Galileo, we have the advantage of a deep understanding.
We have known for a hundred years or so that momentum, angular momentum and energy are conserved.
We don't rely on experiments to know this.
We have a mathematical proof.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
And yet, we still have hamdani yusuf saying that, because he can't do a proper experiment, he doesn't believe it.
He refuses to learn, or even accept the science.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
He is even less well informed that those local busybodies for whom Galilei had to climb the tower and drop stuff.
The following users thanked this post: paul cotter
13
Chemistry / Re: Why is Armstrong's mixture so sensitive?
« on: 07/06/2022 18:46:34 »
I read that part of the reason why mixtures of sulphur and chlorates are so unstable is something like this:
the sulphur is attacked, even at room temperature, by oxygen.
That produces sulphur dioxide and that, together with water in the air is acidic.
That acid reacts with the chlorate releasing oxides of chlorine.
Those react with the sulphur to produce more acid(s).
The reaction is "autocatalytic".
The heat generated also speeds up all of the reactions.
I suspect something similar happens with phosphorus.
the sulphur is attacked, even at room temperature, by oxygen.
That produces sulphur dioxide and that, together with water in the air is acidic.
That acid reacts with the chlorate releasing oxides of chlorine.
Those react with the sulphur to produce more acid(s).
The reaction is "autocatalytic".
The heat generated also speeds up all of the reactions.
I suspect something similar happens with phosphorus.
The following users thanked this post: paul cotter
14
Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Do Spiders Cooperate ?
« on: 28/05/2022 17:23:27 »
Do Spiders Cooperate ?
They mate.
They mate.
The following users thanked this post: neilep
15
General Science / Re: Are Black Holes The Blackest Things Ever ?
« on: 27/05/2022 15:55:29 »They're not perfectly black, but they're blacker than a place in space with no stars in it.Why is the one in the middle winking at us?
The black sheep don't quite win, but close.
The following users thanked this post: neilep
16
Chemistry / Re: How can I find the optimum ΔH and ΔS for passive T control?
« on: 27/05/2022 09:00:21 »
While it's true that ΔS ≈ ΔH / 300 is pretty much the criterion for optimal regulation at 300K, it is just restating the requirement that the melting point is near 300.
And tables of melting points are easier to find than tables of ΔS
It's also worth thinking about the "units".
As Alan didn't notice, ΔH is typically given per mole or per unit mass.
On a practical basis you might want to look at the value per cubic metre.
And then you need to look at ΔH per £.
And tables of melting points are easier to find than tables of ΔS
It's also worth thinking about the "units".
As Alan didn't notice, ΔH is typically given per mole or per unit mass.
On a practical basis you might want to look at the value per cubic metre.
And then you need to look at ΔH per £.
The following users thanked this post: chiralSPO
17
Chemistry / Re: What colour is paint before the colour is added?
« on: 18/05/2022 18:32:01 »
It seems unlikely that the OP is going to return to a decade-old post.
Just in case they do- until you add the pigment, you don't have paint. So the question makes no sense.
Just in case they do- until you add the pigment, you don't have paint. So the question makes no sense.
The following users thanked this post: SeanB
18
Chemistry / Re: How well understood is the Chemistry of the trans-uranic elements?
« on: 17/05/2022 21:38:22 »
For a given definition of "industrial", Californium (98) also has uses- as a neutron source.
Perhaps more relevantly, the colours of some of its compounds have been observed.
Perhaps more relevantly, the colours of some of its compounds have been observed.
The following users thanked this post: Eternal Student
19
Chemistry / Re: How well understood is the Chemistry of the trans-uranic elements?
« on: 16/05/2022 21:29:28 »adding a handful of singly (or doubly) positively charged ligands at a radius of 150 picometersHow would you get them to stay (either near to your centre atom or even to each other)?
Essentially, in order to change the rate of a nuclear reaction you have to change the energies involved by an amount comparable with the decay energy.
And the problem is that chemical energies- like ligands are about a million times smaller than typical nuclear energies.
The following users thanked this post: Eternal Student
20
Chemistry / Re: Another light scattering question; colour of an alien sky?
« on: 16/05/2022 10:21:44 »
Blue- unless it's cloudy.
The following users thanked this post: Brown1anPantal0ons