1
That CAN'T be true! / Re: Measurement / Observation in QM investigated
« on: Yesterday at 22:40:06 »Take a hint already.Another one bites the dust. Aint that the pitts?
Oh snap! I get it....
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.
Oh snap! I get it....
2
That CAN'T be true! / Re: Conspiracy theory: How do the oceans ignore centrifugal force?
« on: Yesterday at 16:54:38 »I don't believe you ! Please provide evidence of a rocket propulsion in a test vacuum?
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rocket+in+vacuum take your pick
better yet, you can build some of these setups at home and give it a go!
I dare you to test your ideas experimentally.
3
Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Re: Can wind weather limestone?
« on: Yesterday at 03:59:02 »
Without carrying abrasives, just fast moving air is not going to weather rock very quickly. But it will be a non-zero rate. What is wind but moving air molecules? And moving air molecules can certainly impart enough kinetic energy to break rocks up. I can imagine that a very powerful and focused stream of forced air could cause erosion on a timescale observable by impatient people.
(can we count sound and shockwaves as well?)
(can we count sound and shockwaves as well?)
4
The Environment / Re: Are average wind speeds increasing with climate change?
« on: Yesterday at 03:52:48 »Yes they are, during the recent cesation in global warming, the media suddenly decided to use the phrase global weirding to explain away the lack of warming. All forgotten like a rewrite from the ministry if information.
Recent cessation in global warming??? The five hottest years on record (the last 140 years) were all in the last six years!
Just because the trend is not perfectly monotonic does not mean that the trend is reversing. Quite the opposite, it appears to be accelerating.
"Global weirding" and "climate change" are more accurate when thinking about local effects. The data very strongly indicate that overall temperatures across the globe are averaging slightly higher, hence the term "global warming" But because this has led to changes in ocean currents and jet streams and available moisture and many other factors beyond simply adding up all of the thermal energy in the world, some areas occasionally experience record-breaking (compared to the last few centuries) cold, draught, flooding, heat, winds, tides, etc. etc.
People get confused when record breaking chills are ascribed to global warming, but when one considers how many factors go into determining what the whether is at any given point in time and space, one can start to appreciate how tweaking the system will result in all sorts of wacky localized effects.
https://www.noaa.gov/news/2019-was-2nd-hottest-year-on-record-for-earth-say-noaa-nasa
5
Chemistry / Re: Why is a sponge cake made using equal proportions of ingredients?
« on: 20/02/2020 18:23:56 »Chris: AFAIK these reactions are the effect of heating the individual components and would occur anyway even in the absence of any of the other ingredients. OK, really dry flour won't hydrolyse by itself, but vegan cakes just substitute vegetable protein and water instead of the handy mixture provided by chickens - lousy flavour (not enough sulfur, I think) but same texture.
Maillard reaction temperature threshold is 140C - that won't happen unless you bake the cake. And it's the proteins in the egg and flour reacting with the sugar you add...
My understanding is that the Maillard reaction occurs well below 140 °C (just much too slowly to be useful in baking). Isn't it essentially the same process that happens in vivo (at 37 °C) to produce Advanced Glycation End products (AGEs) associated with various pathologies (especially in diabetics, with chronic high blood sugar)
Actually, I looked it up to be sure, and I am correct: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3248017/
6
That CAN'T be true! / Re: Conspiracy theory: How do the oceans ignore centrifugal force?
« on: 20/02/2020 16:23:31 »
PS: I'm done trying to teach those who have no desire to learn. I've got better things to do.
But be warned: if you become abusive or start posting nonsense in the main sections, or open more than one account, one of the mods will ban you
But be warned: if you become abusive or start posting nonsense in the main sections, or open more than one account, one of the mods will ban you
7
That CAN'T be true! / Re: Conspiracy theory: How do the oceans ignore centrifugal force?
« on: 20/02/2020 16:21:33 »You will never have encountered somebody with my scientific vigor before ! If you do decide to ban me , I'll consider that a victory as you've not been able to provide scientific argument to convince all the readers .LOL you've done nothing ban-worthy yet. That was just a warning. We don't ban as a method of censorship. You are most welcome to air your ignorance in the "That CAN'T be True" section.
And yes, I see your scientific knowledge is lacking (vigor, yes, knowledge, not so much)
You clearly don't know anything about even the simplest Newtonian mechanics. (forget relativity until you can distinguish between force and acceleration)
Rockets don't have to push off of an atmosphere or any such thing.
Rockets/satellites etc. only experience free fall when they are in orbit (earth's gravity is almost as strong in LEO as on the ground, the experience of microgravity is due to orbiting being a special type of falling.
The astronauts brought oxygen with them to breath, surely they also brought oxidizer for their fuel to burn. (my recollection is that they used hydrazine/N,N-dimethyl hydrazine fuel and N2O4 oxidizer (both are liquids, and will spontaneously combust when brought into contact with each other, generating hot gasses, which can then be directed by . the thruster to push the module)
N2O4 (liquid) + 2 N2H4 (liquid) > 3 N2 (gas) + 4 H2O (gas)
8
That CAN'T be true! / Re: Conspiracy theory: How do the oceans ignore centrifugal force?
« on: 20/02/2020 15:30:13 »
There may be some with less knowledge than you, but if they are willing to learn new information, we allow (and encourage) them to ask questions, posit hypotheses, and discuss in the general forum.
Those who direct their energies towards spreading conspiracy theories, and are unwilling to engage in scientific pursuit of knowledge are relegated to the "New Theories" and "That CAN'T be True" sections, so as not to pollute the threads for those who wish to discuss actual science, technology, and such.
And, finally, trolls will find that the mods here are not infinitely patient. I mostly ban spammers, but I've banned my fair share of flat-earthers, moon-landing deniers, homeopaths, and other science deniers when they became abusive or too bothersome to other members.
Those who direct their energies towards spreading conspiracy theories, and are unwilling to engage in scientific pursuit of knowledge are relegated to the "New Theories" and "That CAN'T be True" sections, so as not to pollute the threads for those who wish to discuss actual science, technology, and such.
And, finally, trolls will find that the mods here are not infinitely patient. I mostly ban spammers, but I've banned my fair share of flat-earthers, moon-landing deniers, homeopaths, and other science deniers when they became abusive or too bothersome to other members.
9
The Environment / Re: Seabed methane bubbling to the surface and odour, shipping and photosynthesis?
« on: 20/02/2020 13:54:14 »Gas from the seabed would carry a smell wouldn't it?
It might smell like the sea...
And CO2 in the upper atmosphere, does it reflect or retain heat?
Both carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) will mostly lead to heat retention when in the upper atmosphere. Both will slow the transit of infrared radiation (IR), and this applies to IR going away from the Earth as well as IR going to the Earth. But, most of the energy that the Earth receives from the sun is not IR, but visible light (which is unaffected), while most of the energy radiated by the earth is IR. Thus the net effect of slowing the passage of IR through the atmosphere leads to an increase in the temp of the earth.
10
That CAN'T be true! / Re: Conspiracy theory: How do the oceans ignore centrifugal force?
« on: 19/02/2020 18:01:27 »A few questions about gravity vs centrifugal force:
Why doesn't the moon fly away from the earth (it's going around 1000 km per second!)
Why don't Jupiter's moon fly away? (this one, you can observe for yourself with a relatively cheap telescope)
Why don't rocks fly off the surface of mars (we can watch mars from here--so we know how big it is, and how fast it's rotating, and we have robots on the surface taking pictures, so we know it's covered in loose stones.)
Why doesn't the earth (or any of our planets) fly away from the sun?
Inertia of course is the answer to all your questions but the difference is , water has very little inertia . If it didn't flirt off the planet , there is still no reason why it wouldn't all bulge at the equator as water mixes with water . The only difference being an increase in volume .
No, inertia isn't the answer.
Get a lazy susan (or similar device), place objects on it, and give a spin. See what the relationship is between mass and how easily they fly off. (best to compare objects that are similarly slippery--obviously a wet piece of ice will move more easily than a piece of putty. I recommend using balls so that they can roll in basically the same way, rather than comparing how different materials and shapes slide)
11
That CAN'T be true! / Re: Conspiracy theory: How do the oceans ignore centrifugal force?
« on: 19/02/2020 17:54:48 »This is more mildly more entertaining than the flat earth conspiracies, but essentially the same.Is science hiding a bigger earth and what science shows us is just the north face of a much larger spherical rock ?Quote from: kryptidYou've got to be kidding me...
Not at all ! Would you know ?
Bare in mind knowing would take the highest level of security clearance !
Why not the earth we are shown is actually only a crater full of water on a much bigger rock ?
I am not kidding like other members do with their questions !
*sigh*
Look. With your eyes. There are ways of measuring the curvature of the earth. No scientists or governments or wizards or whatever can keep you from observing the truth with your own eyes. (and if you think we can... why trust anything? you may as well consider yourself a brain in a jar)
Take long exposure pictures of the stars at night, and you'll see them precessing around a point. Drive (or fly) north (or south) a few hundred miles, and take another picture... the angle of the point above the horizon will depend more on your latitude than any other factor (assuming the horizon is flat). And you can calculate the radius of the earth based on how many miles you travelled, and how many degrees the point has moved by (this will be best if you can get many data points).
See here:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69392.0
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=73016.0 (starting with reply 19)
12
That CAN'T be true! / Re: Conspiracy theory: How do the oceans ignore centrifugal force?
« on: 19/02/2020 17:38:36 »
A few questions about gravity vs centrifugal force:
Why doesn't the moon fly away from the earth (it's going around 1000 km per second!)
Why don't Jupiter's moon fly away? (this one, you can observe for yourself with a relatively cheap telescope)
Why don't rocks fly off the surface of mars (we can watch mars from here--so we know how big it is, and how fast it's rotating, and we have robots on the surface taking pictures, so we know it's covered in loose stones.)
Why doesn't the earth (or any of our planets) fly away from the sun?
Why doesn't the moon fly away from the earth (it's going around 1000 km per second!)
Why don't Jupiter's moon fly away? (this one, you can observe for yourself with a relatively cheap telescope)
Why don't rocks fly off the surface of mars (we can watch mars from here--so we know how big it is, and how fast it's rotating, and we have robots on the surface taking pictures, so we know it's covered in loose stones.)
Why doesn't the earth (or any of our planets) fly away from the sun?
13
That CAN'T be true! / Re: Conspiracy theory: How do the oceans ignore centrifugal force?
« on: 19/02/2020 17:16:13 »
Starlight, are you honestly pursuing truth or have you convinced yourself of something, and are now trying to convince the rest of us?
If it is the first, please give full consideration to the information, experiments (thought and real), and equations provided by other forum members.
If it is the second, please start a new thread in the "New Theories" section, which can be found here: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=18.0
Thank you.
If it is the first, please give full consideration to the information, experiments (thought and real), and equations provided by other forum members.
If it is the second, please start a new thread in the "New Theories" section, which can be found here: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=18.0
Thank you.
14
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How can you generate electricity from two solutions of different pH?
« on: 19/02/2020 14:55:25 »It doesn't matter if it's not very efficient as it can be used to power something small like a pH sensor.
It doesn't power the pH sensor (my electronic pH meters require batteries or a power cord). The sensor works by "feeling" the difference in potential.
OK but how exactly? What are the available methods?
We already said that you need to learn more of the fundamentals before you can understand how this can work. And there is no way you're going to get people to provide a list of available methods.
15
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How can you generate electricity from two solutions of different pH?
« on: 18/02/2020 21:44:12 »A pH=1 equals to +342mV and a pH=5 equals to +114mV. So you cannot produce energy from that?
No where in this thread is anybody claiming that energy cannot be harvested from a pH gradient (obviously it can!)
The general thrust of the answer is yeah, but not enough to be useful.
It is technically possible for me to heat my house by burning the lint that accumulates in my belly button each day. It just won't be able to heat my house very much.
16
The Environment / Re: Seabed methane bubbling to the surface and odour, shipping and photosynthesis?
« on: 18/02/2020 21:19:37 »
methane doesn't have an odor (we add sulfur-containing compounds to natural gas so we can smell it)
it wouldn't accumulate at the surface (as bored chemist points out, methane is considerably lighter than air), and even if it did, is unlikely to interfere with marine photosynthesis (it i isn't going to prevent water or carbon dioxide or light from getting to the chloroplasts)
methane IS a potent greenhouse gas, and this is one of the more concerning vicious cycles associated with climate change: warmer temperatures means lower stability of methane clathrates, means more methane released, means warmer temperatures...
it wouldn't accumulate at the surface (as bored chemist points out, methane is considerably lighter than air), and even if it did, is unlikely to interfere with marine photosynthesis (it i isn't going to prevent water or carbon dioxide or light from getting to the chloroplasts)
methane IS a potent greenhouse gas, and this is one of the more concerning vicious cycles associated with climate change: warmer temperatures means lower stability of methane clathrates, means more methane released, means warmer temperatures...
17
Chemistry / Re: Why do transition metals and ligands have opposite electron properties?
« on: 18/02/2020 15:39:01 »
Elemental chlorine is much more electronegative than metals like calcium. To the extent that chlorine will violently remove electrons from calcium... but a significant amount of that heat released is not just from the electrons transfer, but also . because there is an electrostatic attractive between the positive calcium ions and negative chloride ions. When the ions come together, heat is released, and it takes a LOT of heat to separate them.
Transition metals are a little more electronegative than alkali or alkaline earth metals. Titanium, for instance, is a few spots over from calcium, but it's just enough that titanium won't actually form a discrete Ti4+ ion when reacted with chlorine, instead, they share those electrons covalently. TiCl4 is not a salt, it is a small, nonpolar molecule, and as such is a liquid with a low boiling point (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium_tetrachloride).
Ligand-transition metal interactions are typically essentially covalent in nature, but highly polarized (many are susceptible to ionization). You can think of the Cl as having lone pairs that are so strongly attracted to a Ti4+ center that the Cl actually donates both electrons needed for the bond.
The same goes for other good ligands, like phosphines, amines, thioesters, carbenes, even carbon monoxide is an excellent ligand (the bonding for that one is much more complex!) These neutral compounds have lone pairs that are attracted to the (partially) positive metal center.
The ligand rarely "gives" the electron entirely to the metal (although that is known to happen in some cases, especially when light is involved, though this is transient) Instead you can think of it as either: the ligand is very polar and aligns the partially negative end as close as possible to the positive metal center, or you can think of it as there are orbitals on the metal and the ligand that mix, and if the metal's contribution has no electrons, and the ligand contribute two, then there will be a bond order of 1 between them.
Transition metals are a little more electronegative than alkali or alkaline earth metals. Titanium, for instance, is a few spots over from calcium, but it's just enough that titanium won't actually form a discrete Ti4+ ion when reacted with chlorine, instead, they share those electrons covalently. TiCl4 is not a salt, it is a small, nonpolar molecule, and as such is a liquid with a low boiling point (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium_tetrachloride).
Ligand-transition metal interactions are typically essentially covalent in nature, but highly polarized (many are susceptible to ionization). You can think of the Cl as having lone pairs that are so strongly attracted to a Ti4+ center that the Cl actually donates both electrons needed for the bond.
The same goes for other good ligands, like phosphines, amines, thioesters, carbenes, even carbon monoxide is an excellent ligand (the bonding for that one is much more complex!) These neutral compounds have lone pairs that are attracted to the (partially) positive metal center.
The ligand rarely "gives" the electron entirely to the metal (although that is known to happen in some cases, especially when light is involved, though this is transient) Instead you can think of it as either: the ligand is very polar and aligns the partially negative end as close as possible to the positive metal center, or you can think of it as there are orbitals on the metal and the ligand that mix, and if the metal's contribution has no electrons, and the ligand contribute two, then there will be a bond order of 1 between them.
18
Technology / MOVED: Why do transition metals and ligands have opposite electron properties?
« on: 18/02/2020 15:26:11 »
This topic is better suited to the Chemistry sub-forum, and has been moved there.
Find it here: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78659.0
Find it here: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78659.0
19
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How do metallic and icy asteroids form?
« on: 18/02/2020 06:42:28 »Were these ices and metals just particles or were they sizeable chunks?
yes.
The various elements are produced by the nucleosynthesis mentioned earlier.
If the concentration of matter is high enough, and the temperature is low enough, the atoms (some may be ionized) can condense together to form molecules and nanoparticles, which can then aggregate or grow. The stability of these particles will be governed essentially by chemistry. Think of it as a grand-scale chemical vapor deposition. Or like how snow forms. Nucleation and growth.
If the conditions are right, specific substances may be favored. For example, once a particle is formed, it could be fairly highly selective for specific atoms to add on. The wrong atom type bounces off back into space more often than the right atom, and if the wrong atom does happen to attach, it is more likely to leave than the right atom (I am imagining a chemical equilibrium of sorts). In this way, especially if there is a locally high concentration of the right type of atoms compared to the wrong, we can imagine a mixture of elements condensing into particles of specific composition, as dictated by thermodynamics and the available matter.
Not too long ago, we observed the collision of two neutron stars, and researchers determined that about 10 earth masses of gold was produced from the collision. Now, it was sprayed over a fairly wide region of space, but gold also has a very high affinity for itself. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some gold grains and nuggets floating about!
20
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How microwave superheats water?
« on: 18/02/2020 05:33:34 »
The uploader might simply be mistaken. That doesn't look like superheated water to me. It could be that there was a significant amount of gas dissolved in the water--heating reduces the solubility of the gas, but off-gassing can be fairly slow without nucleation sites (think diet coke vs diet coke and mentos).
Sometimes I see a similar effect when adding the teabag to a cup of freshly heated water (it's not quite to boiling temp--usually 7080°C).
Sometimes I see a similar effect when adding the teabag to a cup of freshly heated water (it's not quite to boiling temp--usually 7080°C).