All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Looking for science web sites

    i think the maths and science on wiki is usually pretty good and one can always check the references in the lower half.
  3. Arming Teachers

    And the U.S. The only country in world with teachers armed.
  4. Looking for science web sites

    That hyperphysics site is better than Wikipedia as some of information on Wikipedia may not be 100% true. It also seem bit more simplified on the hyperphysics for high school person.
  5. Looking for science web sites

    Wikipedia? For physics related stuff:
  6. Arming Teachers

    What could possibly go wrong...
  7. I'm Looking for some science web sites. Some thing where you can look up fun facts like how the heart works or liver works. Or look up electricity or magnetism. Or understand basic biology, chemistry or physics. some thing like how stuff has some science stuff but lot of it too fringe science.
  8. neutral nuc: acidic conditions

    Because otherwise how do you form the ester? You could also consider reaction kinetics and thermal stability, but I think that might be a more complicated answer than you're looking for.
  9. Today
  10. Greatest Possible Beings and Posets

    I was under the impression that was almost unique to the Abrahamic religions.
  11. Ultra violet catastrophe and Plank's theory

    Because it worked. At the time it was seen, by Planck, as a mathematical "trick" to get rid of the infinities. But the quantisation was later confirmed by Einstein's work on the photoelectric effect. Where would that infinite energy come from? Torch batteries wouldn't last long if the were the case! If it doesn't "manifest" how can you say it is there? You seem to be invoking magic as an alternative explanation Theoretically? Please show the maths and evidence that supports this claim. Otherwise it is not "theoretical," it is just nonsense.
  12. Rotation - is it absolute?

    In GR there is no concept of inertial FoR, but it has curved space-time and you would either be rotating relative to your local geodesic or moving on a closed geodesic. In ether case it should be absolute. P.S. There's actually a wiki article on Absolute rotation.
  13. Scientific Method in climate science

    hint the clues are in the words 'change' and 'null' That sounded like a snarky comment. In any case it was not particularly informative was it?. I was rather hoping that someone could provide some info about what model I am supposed to use. String Junky, Yes I want to put numbers to something - but what? The example given as a guide was Einsteins theory of relativity. It is described by a single equation, provides it falsification criteria, has been tested thousands of ways and has never been falsified. I realise that i cannot even get of the starting blocks with this one. Which model do we consider?
  14. Rotation - is it absolute?

    Thanks. Much more succinctly stated than what I was posting. That carried to extreme suggests the possibility of no absolute rotation, at least to me. This is true locally but is it true in a more global geometry of GR spacetime? (is it true absolutely?)
  15. Rotation - is it absolute?

    To rephrase the question: can one portion of spacetime rotate with respect to another? Frame dragging to me seems to suggest the answer is yes, but I'm not familiar enough to be sure.
  16. Why do some humans have extra ribs?

    I was born in 1962, long before we were using cell phones and I have not only 1 extra set of ribs (cervical), found during a recent Xray, but I also have a set of small 'nub' ribs as well, 4 in all. I also have RH Neg blood. My mother, who also had RH Neg blood, also had 1 extra set of ribs (cervical).
  17. I don't think so. The equality sign in a "proper" equation has specific meaning. It eg shouldn't matter if you switch right and left (= is commutative ). This property is violated by both the chemical reaction and the computer language assignment.
  18. Rotation - is it absolute?

    Clearly true in Newtonian physics or SR/Minkowski Space but is that absolutely true in GR? Perhaps I am taking this too far, but how do we know for sure our little portion of the Universe (the observable universe), everything we measure rotation against, is "Absolutely" non rotating? "This frame is rotating with respect to the fixed stars and counter-rotating with respect to the black hole."
  19. Ultra violet catastrophe and Plank's theory

    I tend to believe that the Universe is infinite, but what I believe doesn't matter. We can observe only a chunk of the entirety of the universe with large but finite amount of mass and energy. As for 0 K, yes, it can't be reached in principle, but we can get within some hundred billionths of a degree to it using lasers. You can look at it in other way. For example, we have an object and it radiates "infinite" amount of energy via black body radiation. We heat it up by X Kelvin. The amount of energy radiation is still an infinity. Therefore, where did the energy we just added to the system go?
  20. Sorry, if I make mistake, but according to modern physics 0 K cannot be reached principally, and blackbody will always radiate something. Do you believe that universe is infinite? If yes, than it should contain an infinite amount of energy anyways?
  21. Scientific Method in climate science

    Is putting numbers to something not quantitative?
  22. better late than never? Why does the OH leave in the 4th step? why does this need to happen? thanks in advance
  23. Ultra violet catastrophe and Plank's theory

    Nope. That's why I specified 0 K. There's no black body radiation at this temperature. And we know exactly what amount of energy we put into making an object radiate. Therefore when see infinitely high amount of energy coming off, but we've just put in 1000J, then where did the rest of the energy come from? That is not to say that the notion of infinite energy is not absurd in its own right.
  24. Not sure it could serve as a mathematical prove. Infinity plus something still gives you infinity. Let say a blackbody radiates infinite amount of energy at ambient temperature. Then you use 1000 Joules of electric energy to heat it up to 1000 K. At 1000 K it will still radiate an infinite amount of energy, but this time we are sure it obtained a certain portion of energy which manifests itself in such visible phenomena as melting, boiling and evaporation. In one word something that affects atomic bonds and crystal structure. But still there can be a huge portion of energy which doesn't manifest itself under regular conditions. It simply doesn't affect the state of atomic bonds.
  25. Arming Teachers

    Aww c'mon, a kid's gotta have some fun.
  26. Greatest Possible Beings and Posets

    I don't actually agree with that assumption. It's part of arguing a fortiori. An argument has more force if you make assumptions that make it harder to make your point, but support the point against which you're arguing. In this case, specifically, denying this assumption in the argument would be tantamount to circular reasoning. It would be arguing that there is no fact of the matter that there is a Greatest Possible Being because there is no fact of the matter that there is no Greatest Possible Being. While logically valid, it's not persuasive, and is in fact an informal fallacy.
  27. Ultra violet catastrophe and Plank's theory

    Simply put, it violates energy conservation. Take an object close to 0 K, now provide it energy to heat it up to 1000K. You know exact amount of energy that went in, and if your calculations show you that it should radiate infinite amount of energy, end don't meet.
  1. Load more activity