1

General Science / Re: Are there aliens made of lava?

« on: 14/01/2019 19:18:23 »

A section of the textbook Life in the Universe: Expectations and Constraints by Dirk Schulz-Makuch and Louis N. Irwin does go into this subject matter. Here's a quote from chapter 6:

Feinberg and Shapiro (1980) suggested that the existence of lavobes, organisms that could exist in lava flows, and magmobes, organisms that could exploit thermal gradients or chemical energy sources within the molten rock. These organisms could make use of the chemical complexity of silicate rocks in which aluminum could replace silicon in the tetrahedrons and cation exchange reactions could occur in interlayer sites between the tetrahedral and octahedral sheets. For this to occur, silicates would have to be in the form of sheets, such as the clay minerals smectite and montmorillonite. Information could be represented as irregularities in the crystal lattice of minerals. A particularly intriguing example is the clay mineral amesite, which has a helical structure. Information could be encoded by substitution of silicon with aluminum.

It goes on later to say:

However, given the environmental conditions of Earth's crust and its composition (46% oxygen, 28% silicon) with abundant silicate melts, Earth should be more favorable than most other planets and moons in our Solar System for such a form of life. Yet no fossilized remnants or structures consistent with such an organism have been found, even though outcrops of igneous and volcanic rocks are abundant. Thus, the existence of such organisms seems very unlikely.

2

New Theories / Re: All opinions for and against something are equally valid

« on: 13/01/2019 06:21:26 »

All opinions for and against something are equally valid

So if I'm of the opinion that this statement is nonsense, then that opinion is equally valid to your opinion that it is true. That means you can't really say that all opinions are equally valid with any certainty, because that opinion in itself is disputable.

3

New Theories / Re: Axiomatic set theory ZFC is inconsistent thus mathematics ends in contradiction

« on: 11/01/2019 23:51:12 »

The meaninglessness of mathematics

If mathematics is meaningless, then why not donate all of your money to charity? If math is meaningless, then so is the amount of money you have.

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is there a detectable direction in which the universe is expanding?

« on: 19/12/2018 22:12:12 »

It's expanding in all directions at once.

5

Just Chat! / Re: Can I be in 2 places at the same time?

« on: 01/12/2018 22:24:58 »

Thanks, I read information about the sun somewhere online, maybe this article, it sounded logical so I believed it

Please do be careful when you read what Thebox has to say. He is a strong denier of mainstream science. To say that his beliefs are eccentric would be an understatement.

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Could a star orbit a planet?

« on: 24/11/2018 19:13:16 »

Under natural formation scenarios, massive planets tend to accumulate large amounts of hydrogen. This, in turn, means that any sufficiently massive object formed with a large hydrogen content would be capable of performing thermonuclear fusion in its core. That would put an upper limit on planet mass.

However, this might change in the distant future. Once most of the hydrogen in the universe had been burned into heavier elements by stars, then the formation of super-massive planets with very little hydrogen content may be possible. In that scenario, you certainly could have planets that are heavier than some currently existing stars.

In the case of a planet composed entirely out of iron and heavier elements, it would have no thermonuclear-based upper limit on its mass because those elements cannot release energy by fusing. The mass could keep increasing until it collapses into a white dwarf. If the mass exceeds about 1.4 solar masses, it would collapse into a neutron star.

This brings up another question I have regarding Binary Solar Systems:
If one star within a binary solar system should die and ( if both stars had their own planets revolving), would it be possible for the remaining planets of the dead star to be incorporated into the system of the remaining star, should that star be close enough to attract these planets into it's gravitational pull? Therefore adding new planets into the now singular System?

That depends on what you mean by "die". If you are talking about a star going supernova, that most certainly could disrupt the orbits of the planets around it. Maybe under the right circumstances that could push a planet or two on a favorable course to have them captured by the other star. It's probably not a particularly likely event, though.

7

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How much force does a torch or flashlight beam apply to a dust particle?

« on: 11/11/2018 01:02:12 »

The pressure is going to fall off the further away from the light you are, so I'll assume a best case scenario where we are looking at the pressure the light is producing right at the face of the flashlight.

The equation for calculating radiation pressure is P = I_f/c, where:

P is pressure in pascals
I_f is the irradiance in watts per square meter
c is the speed of light in meters per second

If I have a 5 watt flashlight with a lens radius of 2.5 centimeters (0.025 meters, 0.0019634954 square meters), then the irradiance will be about 2,546.48 watts per square meter. This assumes that 100% of those watts are going into the creation of electromagnetic radiation, which we know it wouldn't be. The actual efficiency might run anywhere from 10% to 90% depending on the kind of bulb used.

So now we put the relevant numbers into the equation:

P = 2,546.48 watts per square meter/299,792,458 meters per second
P = 0.00000849414 pascals (newtons per square meter)

Multiply that number by a value from 0.1 to 0.9 depending on how efficient the lightbulb is to get a better estimate.

EDIT: According to Engineering Toolbox, household dust particles range in size from 0.05 to 100 microns across. For the sake of convenience, I'll assume they are spherical, resulting in cross-sectional areas of 0.0019634954 square microns (1.9634954 x 10^-15 square meters) and 7,853.98163397 square microns (7.85398163397 x 10^-8 square meters) respectively. Now to calculate the force on these particles:

F = 0.00000849414 newtons per square meter x 1.9634954 x 10^-15 square meters
F = 1.6678205 x 10^-20 newtons

F = 0.00000849414 newtons per square meter x 7.85398163397 x 10^-8 square meters
F = 6.671282 x 10^-13 newtons

To find the acceleration that the light imparts on these particles, their mass will need to be known. If I assume that they are made of organic matter, then a density similar to water might not be far off the mark (if it is, we can modify this later). A sphere 0.05 microns across has a volume of 6.54 x 10^-5 cubic microns (6.54 x 10^-23 cubic meters). A sphere 100 microns across has a volume of 5.24 x 10[/sup]5[/sup] cubic microns (5.24 x 10^-13 cubic meters). The density of water is 1,000 kilograms per cubic meter, so:

m = 6.54 x 10^-23 cubic meters x 1,000 kilograms per cubic meter
m = 6.54 x 10^-20 kilograms

m = 5.24 x 10^-13 cubic meters x 1,000 kilograms per cubic meters
m = 5.24 x 10^-10 kilograms

Now for the acceleration:

A = F/m
A = 1.6678205 x 10^-20 newtons / 6.54 x 10^-20 kilograms
A = 0.255 meters per second squared (for 100% efficient light)
A = 0.23 meters per second squared (for 90% efficient light)
A = 0.0255 meters per second squared for (for 10% efficient light)

A = F/m
A = 6.671282 x 10^-13 newtons / 5.24 x 10^-10 kilograms
A = 0.00127 meters per second squared (for 100% efficient light)
A = 0.00114 meters per second squared (for 90% efficient light)
A = 0.000127 meters per second squared (for 10% efficient light)

8

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does true randomness exist?

« on: 01/11/2018 23:22:14 »

I think Bell's inequality has something to say about this, but for the life of me I can't understand it.

9

New Theories / Re: Light is just waves of density in space

« on: 25/10/2018 21:29:14 »

A large volume of space is an oxymoron.

More like a tautology than an oxymoron, I'd say.

Michio Kaku did mention in his book Hyperspace that there was some scientist who came up with a theory rather similar to this, except the proposition was that light was a vibration propagating through a fifth dimension of space. Apparently, it was pretty good, at least mathematically-speaking, at unifying gravity with electromagnetism. It turned out to be insufficient when the nuclear forces were taken into account, unfortunately.

10

New Theories / Re: Can scientific beliefs be compared to religous dogma?

« on: 23/10/2018 14:44:12 »

Here is a link to the Roodenburg stuff.

Who is Roodenburg? Is he a physicist?

Galileo was indeed silenced by the authority of the church, but his works was in fact scientifically denounced by the authority of geocentrism.

Of that I have no doubt. That tends to be the case with any new idea in science that proposes to revolutionize the way we fundamentally think about the Universe. Speaking of which, do you know of any cases where an older theory was replaced by a newer theory, one that then became accepted by the scientific world at large for nearly a century, but then later it was discovered that the older theory was in fact the correct one? I'm not aware of any such cases. If I'm wrong on that, please do correct me. It most certainly would be beyond bizarre to think that the major scientific organizations of the world with their instruments and mathematical expertise came to conclude that relativity was correct if the older, non-relativistic aether theory was the one actually supported by the measurements.

The scientific method is intrinsically flawed.

Then you might as well declare that all scientific ideas, aether included, as being compromised.

Have a look at an analysis for a hallmark scientific experiment that involved relativity, and let me know if you still think the peer review process is not compromised:

The cognitive paradox fallacy in cosmic inflation on accelerated expansion of space

Firstly, I don't see what that has to do with peer review. Secondly, there wouldn't be any time dilation for objects in an expanding space because they aren't actually moving.

11

The Environment / Re: Which Animals Thrive in Low-to-No-Oxygen Environments?

« on: 07/10/2018 04:51:37 »

Some loriciferans can live their entire lives in anoxic conditions: https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100406/full/464825b.html

The crucian carp can survive anoxic conditions for at least 140 days: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucian_carp#Physiology

12

Chemistry / Re: Vacuum? Negative pressure? Boiling Points?!

« on: 02/10/2018 21:44:57 »

If you know how good of a vacuum the pump can pull, you can use a phase diagram to determine what the boiling point of water will be at that pressure: http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_phase_diagram.html

The lowest you can make the boiling point of water would be 0.01 degrees Celsius at a pressure of 0.006 atmospheres. Below that pressure, you can no longer have liquid water. Instead, ice sublimes directly into water vapor.

13

Chemistry / Re: Why NO₂- ion got the negative charge?

« on: 16/09/2018 17:38:47 »

In order to have the octet of each atom filled, an extra electron is required. Here is a website that shows the structure of the nitrite ion. Count the number of valence electrons that each atom contributes: https://chemfiesta.org/2015/09/18/resonance-structures/

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What do explosions look like in space?

« on: 15/09/2018 22:51:59 »

Nuclear weapons tests have been performed in space. The explosion is indeed spherical.

15

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Are there different types of gravity?

« on: 07/09/2018 20:59:16 »

So far as we can tell, all gravity is the same. The equations that describe a ball falling towards the Earth are equally valid for the orbits of the planets. They are, in fact, the exact same thing. The planets actually are falling into the Sun, but they keep missing it:

16

Chemistry / Re: How to find the equivalent weight?

« on: 05/09/2018 05:39:48 »

So, which compounds take part in oxidation-reduction reactions?

Any compound can take part in an oxidation-reduction reaction as long as the result of the reaction is a change of the oxidation state of the atoms present. In order to know if an oxidation state has been changed, you need to be able to count how many electrons "belong" to particular atoms. If an atom gains electrons, then it has been reduced. If it loses electrons, it has been oxidized. For example, take the following reaction:

2Ca + O₂ → 2CaO

In this reaction, the two calcium atoms and the two oxygen atoms start out with an oxidation state of zero because they are neutral. After the reaction, the calcium atoms have lost electrons to the oxygen atoms, forming Ca²⁺ and O^2-. Since the calcium atoms lost electrons, they were oxidized. Since the oxygen atoms gained electrons, they were reduced.

and what's the name of this reaction?

It's an acid-base reaction. An acid is a substance that donates protons whereas a base is a substance that accepts protons. More specifically, that is the definition of a "Bronsted acid" or a "Bronsted base".

17

Chemistry / Re: If I break H2SO4, what should I get?

« on: 03/09/2018 03:39:26 »

If I break H2SO4, we get 2H⁺ and SO₄²⁻. Is it possible to write the same form in a different way such as 2H⁺ to H⁺⁺ and SO₄²⁻ to 2SO₄⁻? Do they mean the same thing?

I'm afraid not. The number in front of the chemical symbol is a statement of how many moles of the substance there are. In order to keep the equation balanced, the total number of moles of each atom much remain constant. Changing the charge is also not equivalent. H⁺ means that the hydrogen atom has a net charge of +1. Changing that to H⁺⁺ or H²⁺ would mean that you are increasing the net charge on the ion from +1 to +2, so that it is no longer the same kind of ion. In fact, hydrogen cannot have a charge greater than +1, since it is a bare nucleus and as such has no more electrons that it can lose.

18

Chemistry / Re: How to find n-factor for 'So₂' and 'So₃'?

« on: 30/08/2018 22:06:26 »

SO₂ and SO₃ can both react with water to form the acids H₂SO₃ and H₂SO₄. Perhaps this is what was meant by the question? Here is a link explaining the n-factor: https://www.askiitians.com/iit-jee-chemistry/physical-chemistry/stoichiometry-and-redox-reactions/n-factor-calculation.aspx

19

Chemistry / Re: How is sodium chloride - NaCl - and electrically neutral compound?

« on: 30/08/2018 00:43:25 »

The overall piece of sodium chloride is neutral, but each sodium and chlorine atom within it is charged. It's just that the number of positive charges is equal to the number of negative charges.

20

New Theories / Re: On what theory was the Chinese calendar of the tides of 1100 formed

« on: 28/08/2018 14:36:26 »

In Wikipedia, the formula for the force of gravity in all languages is one, and the formula for the height of the tides, in all languages, is different.
What do you say to this.
https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Прилив_и_отлив

Because, as has been pointed out before, the tides are affected by many different things. Gravitational forces are only one part of it.