Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
General Science / Can 2 or 3 mapp gas produre 2000+ C
« Last post by eric2011 on 15/01/2017 11:47:51 »
Hi[/size]If I take 2 or 3 mapp gas torches and lighr them and between them i put a crucible, will the inside the crucible temperature br motr than 2000 C ?[/color]
Physiology & Medicine / Can I catch a cold from my dog?
« Last post by chris on 14/01/2017 11:45:15 »
A few years ago vet Sarah Caddy wrote a piece exploring whether we trade infections with our pets, dogs in particular.

I thought I'd flag it up here because it's a jolly interesting read, and because we are all afflicted with respiratory bugs at the moment, prompting many people to ask me about this:


I have carried out a multi-year study on ocean pH and have included all the relevant equations from Zeebe and Wolf-Gladrow's book 'CO2 in Seawater: Equilibrium, Isotopes,Kinetics' which contains the solubility product equations for CO2(2-),HCO2(-) and H2CO2 as well as for magnesium carbonate (magnesite) and calcium carbonate(both aragonite and calcite) buffers.  I have included as much relevant chemistry in the analysis as I can including phosphorus and boron , ,sodium,chlorine and fluorine salts.
The pH equations I used are the SWS scale equations from Brookhaven National Lab which were made public by Ernie Lewis and Doug Wallace who are scientists there.
I projected the CO2 parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere into the future, assuming continuing industrial development and population growth and urbanization and deforestation rates remain constant.  I used the Mauna Kea data set for CO2 ppm, and used a Bayesian Markov Monte Carlo simulation to project CO2 into the future.  With these CO2 levels, I was able to calculate the equilibrium year by year at the surface of the ocean and with the diffusion equations I was able to solve them to depth (1000 feet) using temperature and salinity profiles that are publicly available.
This result showed me that the magnesium carbonate buffer would break in the ocean around 2021-2025 over a 2 year period, and both of the following can happen. 

1)  When the buffer breaks,  CO2 will well up from the depths, and the ocean will off-gas CO2 into the atmosphere causing atmospheric heating due to the green house gas, and more extreme weather events with the water cycle worldwide.
2) The ocean pH could drop by as much as 1 pH level to 7.3 from 8.3 worldwide.  This , along with temperature heating in the ocean, could cause the demise of the krill and phytoplankton populations that have already been decimated since 1950 by 40% due to pollution and temperature changes.
If this happens,  the base of the food chain in the ocean could be at serious risk of collapse and with it ,  all life in the ocean.  This would eventually ripple onto land food chains and might cause a collapse over the entire earth of the ecosystem food chain.  This is a serious probability..
I believe both of these effects will happen to greater and lesser degree simultaneously and at different places in the worlds oceans when the ppm reaches 493 ppm approximately around 2021-2025.
I believe a real chemistry experiment needs to be done aswell, just to confirm the simulation is correct, by adding CO2 to seawater at room temperature and pressure in a closed container until the pH changes, and note the concentration of CO2 above the seawater when this happens.  I predict it will be about 493 ppm CO2 for the first pH change when the magnesium carbonate buffer breaks and around 878 ppm CO2 when the second pH catastrophe occurs, and that is when the calcium carbonate buffer breaks in the seawater!

We need to act now with new technology that generates energy without emitting CO2.

I believe an efficient natural gas-solar hybrid engine that emits no CO2 and is very fuel efficient is possible
Please see the following links for more information:
Under Science Forums at,  in Technology section the question :  Can we build an efficient hybrid natural gas-solar engine that emits no CO2?

check out: Can we save the marine life with Ocean Engineering?

Keep in mind that 18 milliLitres of H2O = 18 grams approximately which is one Mol of H2O if it is pure and that is equal to 6.023x10^(23) molecules of H2O. Now imagine the whole Ocean.  According to K. Gubbins of Cornell University even 100 molecules of water is too combinatorially explosive to calculate the quantum wavefunction of, so its impossible to predict what will happen in a LIVING OCEAN in the future!  But it is best to take the side of caution and act now to remove CO2 from the Ocean!
General Science / Is Moist Air Lighter Than Dry Air?
« Last post by theThinker on 14/01/2017 07:26:16 »
It is said that moist air is lighter than dry air. Can anyone refer us to any experiment that was done demonstrating the fact.
General Science / What would the world look like in ultraviolet?
« Last post by Atomic-S on 14/01/2017 02:28:22 »
Supposing we were to wear goggles that rendered all we saw in wavelengths twice the original. (This would effectively give us ultraviolet vision). What would we see?
Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Can animals suffer from OCD?
« Last post by Novaflipps on 13/01/2017 10:54:23 »
Can animals suffer from OCD?
Physiology & Medicine / What is plantar fasciitis?
« Last post by chris on 13/01/2017 08:34:17 »
Who gets plantar fasciitis, why, what is the pathological process and how do we make it better?
New Theories / time is just a mathematical artifact!
« Last post by Yahya A. Sharif on 12/01/2017 17:54:25 »

time is just mathematical artifact to compare natural actions and interactions ,  the "second" is just a " time" in which the clock hand complete one cycle by a constant angular speed , another clock can complete this one cycle in 4 seconds if it's slower.
and what is a day ? the time for the earth to complete one cycle around its axis.
we use a watch because its the simplest action happens  ,which is the constant angular speed, you can see how an action is being used as a reference to describe other actions , time is just the artificial fourth dimension that is needed to make comparison between different actions, actions happen whether you compare  between them or not , actions happen whether there is time or not , and we can compare without time , time can not go infinitely back to the past because simply  actions did not happen infinitely in the past , time is just a mathematical artifact to compare between actions.
think of an object of speed 1 m/s , and another one with 2 m/s , how to compare them without using time ? kinetic energy can be a good tool , energy in general does not depend on time think of petrol contains a mount of energy does this energy have speed ? does time is involved here ? No , yet you can use this kinetic energy to compare between two objects having different constant velocities , and you can use one object with a standard velocity say 1 m/s call it V ( capital v) to compare every action in the universe without using time !!
we can extract time from kinetic energy , distance and mass , yet all these quantities do not depend on time ! that means time is just a mathematical artifact.
you can use V which is a standard speed equals 1 m/s , everything can be manipulated according to this measure unit without involving time , for example 5 m/s means 5V , instead of putting time (t) as an X axis we just put s / v, s is the distance has nothing to do with time , v is a velocity coming from kinetic energy , which all these have nothing to do with time : kinetic energy, mass and distance.
again time can't go back infinitely and it does not appear when there is nothing. that means it is all about the universe it is all about comparing between different physical phenomena
the constant speed can be a good tool for comparison , the earth complete one cycle around its axis , when my watch hand with specific constant  angular velocity ( angular velocity comes from linear velocity with specific length for the watch hand )complete 24 cycles , of course this sounds complicated , and things won't be described like this but they can be described like this , and remember my standard unit which is the constant linear velocity comes from both energy and mass , v=sqr(2E/m),  those are independent from time, E=mc2 for instance and mass has nothing to do with time whatsoever.
New Theories / The theory that nobody ''listens''
« Last post by Thebox on 12/01/2017 05:23:13 »
Hello  it seem's very pointless to me now, to post or discuss new ideas/theories, my reason is that nobody  ''listens'' and replies back with present information not discussing the actual content and mostly ignoring the content.   I can not ''see'' why so many replies involve present information discussed in a new information thread, also  seemingly trying to force discipline and trying to force me to except present information like some form of brainwashing.
The arrogance is ripe.

I understand time, I understand time dilation, however when I propose this information is incorrect and misinterpreted, it is defended without thought and  the discourse I do of the information, is ignored.

So my theory is that nobody listens, the reason is probably because the new information is not profitable.

So I will leave this thread at that and if any of you are willing to listen , please feel free to post in this thread and ask about anything really, baring in mind that light and time and space are my strong topics.

I have just been banned from science for everyone hypography forum because I will not accept the present information, they ignore the truth and continue to live an imaginary reality.  IN fact every science forum on the internet except this one has banned me because I would not accept them trying to force me to accept the information which is really really incorrect.

For a starting topic, I would like to suggest  that XYZt   or better known as space time, is a single reference time frame whole and all things are timed relative to this frame and within the single reference frame of time and space.

Having a value of 0, because when we measure things, size,volume,time or likes, we measure relative to 0.

IN example imagine a mass volume in time and space, the volume of the mass is a volume relative to time and space , i.e 0

The sun is relatively larger than the Earth. But both the Sun and Earth are smaller than space and are sized relative to space.

New Theories / Proton/electron relationship and quantum possibilities
« Last post by mxplxxx on 12/01/2017 01:54:58 »
There are many reasons that suggest the universe may be a type of computer. In this article, I want to deal with one of them; the relationship between an Electron and a Proton. These two particles attract one another but, according to quantum physics, there is no boson (or force mediating) particle involved. Maybe they are not, in fact, attracting each other.

I am a software developer. At the moment I am programming a a hierarchical database that consist of three basic objects, a Node and a Star and an Event. Nodes tie the database together. They have a limited number of states. Stars are the stars of the show They are stateful objects that govern the behavior of systems. A star is completely enclosed by a node. It can be considered the nucleus of the node. Events are objects that mediate state changes between Stars. They are generated by and consumed by Stars. Nodes process events but only to forward them between other Nodes and Stars.

It seems to me that Protons, Electrons and Photons (light particles) correspond very closely to Stars, Nodes and Events. So, an electron encloses a proton (or protons) and mediates the flow of photons between protons. Different electrons would likely handle different protons. Of course, a proton is not an elementary particle and is composed of elementary quarks. Quarks, it seems to me, correspond to the 0/1 bit object in a computer - the basic unit of computing. ( on a slightly different note, a quark can be seen to correspond to a computer class and different types of quark to a computer object - i.e. an instance of a class)

So, it can be seen that a proton and an electron may not attract but rather an electron encloses a proton and mediates the flow of photons between protons. It is very possible that it is the quantum and wave properties of protons and electrons that "glue" them together rather than some kind of attraction. 

ps I see a neutron in this scheme of things as a Node. i.e a Node can also act as a Star and be part of the nucleus of another Node. This would make a neutron an atom in my theory and I am guessing this possibility has been discounted. Still worth a shot :)
- unless, of course, a neutron is just a squeezed down atom - which would mean that reality has an infinite number of levels (more about this in a future new theories post)

pps a Node, based on an event,  will select  from all possible instances (states) of a Star. Similarly it is likely an electron on receipt of a photon can forward that photon to one of all possible states (Quark combinations) of a proton. That is, make the state current. The electron may do so depending on the possibility of the selected state existing at any point in time and the number of all previous selections for that state. This assumes that all possible states (qaurk combinations) exist as separate objects within a proton. Sounds familiar? You betcha.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10