1

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What is the cosmic microwave background?

« on: 08/10/2019 16:50:24 »

The fact that we're 'seeing' this radiation is proof that it's moving through space, right? It isn't just loitering around in our vicinity with nothing better to do. So the radiation we saw last week must now be gone forever. It sounds like this radiation must have been tavelling past us and 'disappearing forever' for the last umpteen billion years. why is it STIIL travelling past us in a way that we can register with instruments?

It's true that the radiation is constantly on the move. However, that radiation is travelling in all directions at very nearly the same rate. As many photons of this radiation are entering any given cubic meter of space as are leaving it. So there is always radiation present to measure.

2

New Theories / Re: What exactly is gravity

« on: 28/09/2019 20:44:14 »

In case if it is a gas giant, it is spread in a wide area and more particles are exposed to energy, resulting in curvature.  Though energy is weak particles gets into its grip.

So what you're saying is that it depends on the density of the planet, is that right?

3

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is it possible for the laws of physics to change in time?

« on: 26/09/2019 21:47:44 »

Albert Einstein for example may have found it a 'big deal' and decided to hide the truth to protect societal interests. I wonder, what may those interests have been?

Maybe you should find some actually evidence for that conspiracy first.

Some recent sources show that the Big Bang theory may be incorrect:

Big Bang theory wrong? Star older than Universe discovered - threat of ‘scientific crisis’

Quote
The Big Bang theory has been thrown into question after scientists discovered a star which appears to be older than the Universe itself – and it could lead to a “scientific crisis”.

Source: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1162808/big-bang-theory-how-old-is-universe-physics-news-astronomy-space-2019 [nofollow]

Big Bang theory wrong: Black hole found that's so big and old it makes Big Bang impossible

Quote
Astronomers have spotted a black hole that is as old as the universe itself, putting a huge question mark over the Big Bang theory.

Source: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/889405/black-hole-big-bang-theory-wrong-big-bounce-universe-space [nofollow]

Firstly, Express is a sensationalist website. Everything there should be taken with a large grain of salt.

Secondly, there is no problem with that star's age. The uncertainty of its age is large enough to be consistent with the Big Bang. The black hole thing has also been addressed using a "direct collapse" model (as opposed to the idea that it formed from a collapsing star that then consumed matter to become larger).

When the Universe is to be considered infinite, how likely would those ideas remain?

Just as likely as they are now. Evolution is separate from the Big Bang. Evolution was already widely-accepted when the eternal, steady state model of the Universe was also accepted. Neither requires the other.

4

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: What would happen if we combine human DNA with dinosaur DNA?

« on: 16/09/2019 18:22:30 »

You wouldn't become some kind of dinosaur hybrid. The DNA would be treated as a foreign substance, instigating an immune reaction. This person injected himself with foreign DNA and only experienced "minor inflammation": https://www.livescience.com/64388-boy-encoded-and-injected-dna-bible-quran.html

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: The Moon from Earth 4 billion years ago?

« on: 15/09/2019 17:45:16 »

This page goes into details about this very question: https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2018/07/11/what-did-the-moon-look-like-from-earth-4-billion-years-ago/#3cba74001151

These illustrations give visual comparisons of the Moon's appearance in the sky in the distant past: https://www.lpi.usra.edu/exploration/training/illustrations/earthMoon/

This calculator can tell you how long it took for the Moon to complete an orbit long ago: http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/astronomy/planet_orbit

At a distance of 15,000 kilometers, the Moon would have taken a bit over 5 hours to complete an orbit. At 20,000 kilometers, it's about 7.8 hours.

Given that most gases are colorless, Rayleigh scattering would have probably made the sky of the ancient Moon blue. It would have been darker than the Earth's sky, since it was a much thinner atmosphere (about 1% the pressure of Earth): http://www.astronomy.com/news/2017/10/moon-atmosphere

6

General Science / Re: Science Fact or Fiction: The Online Version Part I

« on: 11/09/2019 05:34:23 »

Is the earth the densest planet I always thought tha Mercury was.

Mercury: 5.427 g/cc
Earth: 5.514 g/cc

7

Chemistry / Re: (CONFUSED) Water fuelled car engine possible?

« on: 11/08/2019 17:33:29 »

You can get net energy by reacting chemicals like lithium or fluorine with water, but it wouldn't be worth the trouble. Unlike an air-breathing engine, you'd have to carry those extra chemicals in the car and you wouldn't get nearly as much range as you would burning gasoline. Then there is the hazardous nature of lithium and fluorine to consider...

8

Chemistry / Re: What is the proton number in NH3 and NH4+?

« on: 24/07/2019 16:45:34 »

Could you explain this point in an easy way please 'each proton just has to be its own nucleus, ie a H+ ion.'?

The atom is bonded to a positive hydrogen ion.

9

Chemistry / Re: What is the proton number in NH3 and NH4+?

« on: 23/07/2019 22:24:29 »

Like I said in another of your threads, the number of protons in a given element never changes. Nitrogen always has 7 protons, regardless of what molecule it is in or what its electric charge is. The number of protons is what defines the element. If the number of protons was different, it would no longer be nitrogen.

10

Chemistry / Re: What is the proton numbers of carbon in CH3+?

« on: 23/07/2019 07:57:33 »

Carbon always has six protons. It wouldn't be carbon otherwise.

Now, how many electrons does carbon have in this state 5 or 6? and what is the hybridization state of carbon here SP^3 or SP^2?

If it has a +1 charge, then it has one fewer electron than normal, which would be 5. The methyl cation is isoelectronic with a single borane unit (BH₃), which has sp² hybridization.

11

Chemistry / Re: In this reaction How many electrons carbon anion has?

« on: 23/07/2019 06:37:14 »

Where do the carbon get the extra electron for the negetive charge?

Presumably by taking it from some other atom before it became involved in the reaction that this thread is about.

12

Chemistry / Re: What is the proton numbers of carbon in CH3+?

« on: 23/07/2019 06:33:15 »

Carbon always has six protons. It wouldn't be carbon otherwise.

The positive charge would be due to the carbon losing an electron somehow.

13

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Will all moving objects with mass generate gravitational waves?

« on: 14/06/2019 14:15:36 »

Yes, even small objects can release gravitational radiation when they accelerate (so long as they have a gravitational quadrupole moment, that is): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrupole#Gravitational_quadrupole

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How many gamma rays per second would 15 million degree celsius object emit?

« on: 07/05/2019 21:55:30 »

For 15 million C, all the outer electrons are ripped off and it becomes a plasma; room-temperature emissivity of a solid metal does not apply.

I figured so. Any idea if the emissivity of such plasma has ever been measured?

15

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How many gamma rays per second would 15 million degree celsius object emit?

« on: 07/05/2019 14:20:27 »

Is the above calculation of number of X ray photons emitted per second correct?

The problem is that not all of the photons emitted are X-ray photons. There will also be a significant number of photons emitted in the ultraviolet, visible, infrared and microwave frequencies. Given that the spread of those photons follow something of a bell curve, you might need calculus in order to find out exactly what percentage of those photons fall in the X-ray frequencies. I am awful at calculus, unfortunately, and thus cannot help there.

16

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How many gamma rays per second would 15 million degree celsius object emit?

« on: 07/05/2019 00:21:58 »

To calculate the power radiated by a black body with a known temperature, emissivity and surface area, you can use the following equation:

P = AεσT⁴, where

"P" is the resulting power in watts
"A" is the surface area of the black body in square meters
"ε" is the emissivity of the material that the black body is composed of (a number between 0 and 1)
"σ" is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, which is 5.670373 x 10^-8 W m^-2 K^-4, and
"T" is the temperature of the black body in kelvins

Let's consider a sphere of anodized aluminum (which has an emissivity of 0.9) that has a radius of 0.05 meters and a temperature of 900 kelvins. Using the equation A = 4πr², we determine that a sphere with a radius of 0.05 meters has a surface area of 0.031 square meters:

P = AεσT⁴
P = (0.031)(0.9)(5.670373 x 10^-8)(900⁴)
P = (0.031)(0.9)(5.670373 x 10^-8)(656,100,000,000)
P = (0.0279)((5.670373 x 10^-8)(656,100,000,000)
P = (0.000000001582034067)(656,100,000,000)
P = 1,037.97 watts

If you want to know the peak wavelength of the radiation emitted by a black body, you can use this equation:

λ_max = b/T, where

"λ_max" is the peak wavelength in meters
"b" is Wien's displacement constant, which is 2.8977729 x 10⁻³ m K, and
"T" is the temperature in kelvins

So to find the peak wavelength that the aluminum sphere emits at, we enter the values into the equation:

λ_max = b/T
λ_max = (2.8977729 x 10⁻³)/(900)
λ_max = 3.2197477 x 10^-6 meters (or 3.2197477 micrometers, which is in the infrared)

17

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Does science think we are all stupid as they create more lies ?

« on: 14/04/2019 07:40:25 »

Your friend will count at a slower frequency than you and the sound wave emitted will also have a slower frequency than your faster frequency .

Then that doesn't line up with the way that the time dilation experiment was set up. In their experiment, the frequency of the cesium atom aboard the airplane would be measured by people aboard the same airplane as unchanged from the textbook value of a cesium atom's frequency. Same thing for those people measuring the frequency of their cesium atom on the ground. If you took a slow-counting person on the airplane, the other people on the plane would be able to measure that the person was counting slow. The fast-counting person on the ground would likewise be measured by the people on the ground as counting fast. So it's a faulty analogy that cannot replicate the scenario of the actual experiment.

18

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Does science think we are all stupid as they create more lies ?

« on: 13/04/2019 22:07:46 »

The stationary clock at the naval base if I need to be a bit more precise .

Relative to that clock, yes, the frequency will change.

19

Chemistry / Re: Is there an easy way to make oxalic acid at home without nitric acid?

« on: 09/04/2019 07:33:06 »

Page 499 of this old chemistry book states that oxalic acid can be acquired by mixing sawdust with potassium hydroxide: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t3tt4gz1p;view=1up;seq=527

20

New Theories / Re: 5d interwoven model and tensor force .

« on: 07/04/2019 15:29:40 »

I don't do make believe .

Says the guy who thought a deviantART picture was proof of aliens.