Leaderboard

Thanks: John; & Tuco, that guy is excellent. Could you expain a bit (which secondaries)? Btw, doesn't the metal Pt have the ability to absorb hydrogen &/or oxygen gas? (~20 times its volume?) Constant environment (low humidity) might degas (it)? Otherwise, I can only suspect Hubble's expanding universe & its matter (=material, atoms) expanding with it (=the universe) (due to the surrounding=outer_space vacuum. E.g. Osmosis: the high concentration tends to go to low concentration. Thus high density migrates to the low(er) density; & the (previously) higher becomes less; while the (previously) lower becomes more; so both will (finally) become similar (=almost equal). Cosmically that ((homeostasis) result from Hubbles (non_linear?) (volume) expansion_constant) might take billions of years; if not more?)

These days, I give green to people who do their best to facilitate a reasoned discussion. I also reward clever, funny, and of course, really great mainstream science explanations. Too many people are so interested in "winning" an argument that they'll use really poor and obviously fallacious reasoning, so they get red from me. I give red to those who seem willful in their ignorance, asking for but then rejecting good science in favor of some pet idea. I give red to folks who don't understand the difference between critical analysis and personal attacks, and get rude about it. I give red to those who start with a decent question about science and then spend the rest of the thread trolling about how others treated their question. I don't give red for wrong answers. I don't give red because someone disagrees with me. I don't give red usually unless the behavior was pretty blatant. I give green to counteract someone else's red if I think it was done in retaliation for not agreeing with them. Those are always easy to spot,.

...By counting when people click the little green up arrow on your posts

The fact that women no longer feel alone or isolated in these exchanges. The fact that they're finally being treated seriously and not dismissed or shamed or victim blamed. The fact that people are tired of "ugly" men having all the power, and... to be clear... I'm not referring here to physical traits or indicators of fertility. There are other reasons, but those are some. Completely tangential and irrelevant to the points I actually made, to the point of being an outright strawman. If my point was unclear, please request I clarify it and I will happily do so. In return, please don't assume that I hold such remedial concepts about the need for equality across the sexes.

yes like two sine waves both simulatneous.

Tom Morello was the guitarist in „Rage against the Maschine” and „Audioslave”

Wow, folks actually voted against an (alleged) child molester?

Neither can I. It might show weakness. BTW - OT, but AP just called the election for Jones

There. FTFY

Molecules are fine too, they work the same (at least in principle). OK so for (1) you require solutions to the Schrodinger equation. This is full on quantum mechanics. Have you seen any plots of electron densities/probabilities? These are commonly called atomic/molecular orbitals. The point about these is that they answer the age old question: Why does the orbiting electron not spiral down into the nucleus? If you look at an atomic orbital (there ae plenty of images on Google) you will notice that the probability of finding the electron at the origin is essentially zero. So this is saying that bound electron won't fall into or through the nucleus. For completeness, when an external electron approaches an atom (whether it belongs to another atom or not) it 'sees' the atom's cloud of circling electrons shielding the nucleus. Of course this cloud is negatively charged, like the electron so the approaching electron is repelled ever more strongly, the closer it gets. The equation in this case is called Lennard-Jones potential theory. Again this means that the electron will never fall into the nucleus. So we are left with firing incredibly energetic beta particles (electrons) in an atom smasher to find out what happens. Here I look forward to one of Sensei's posts.

SOMEBODY should give some input. FYI wired.com is very informative, and it seems to be very pro-net-neutrality. Personally, I do not see what good will come from this repeal. The loosening of restrictions often has short-term economic benefits, but these FCC regulations are designed to ensure that internet service providers (ISPs) do not squelch the competition of web platform designers. In the case of ISP competition, we do not have many ISP choices anyway. You can get AT&T broadband, Comcast broadband, or a wifi hotspot. Other options like satellite internet simply aren't cost-efficient unless you live in the middle of nowhere. Unfortunately I do not know that the limited number of ISPs is attributable to physical constraints upon the Internet infrastructure (see Internet backbone), but I am more concerned about the effects on small programmers. The fast lanes seem to be another avenue for monopoly because they could create a vicious cycle: some web designers get more business; they make more money; they buy a fast lane with the money; they get more business because their product is in the fast lane.... I can understand why this would be a bigger problem.

I met people like this and it's more depressing that that Mootanman. These people would pass a lie detector... I would prefer to live in a world full of liars. The problem is that we live in one full of imbeciles.

Bazinga.

Most of us stop dividing our yearly age by about 12 and three quarters. That study is of four-year-olds, which does seem similar to a 27 and half-year-old.

Or maybe they cannot find them. Maybe they will find intelligent life on other planets. Maybe a meteor will destroy earth in 20 years. Maybe the big bang is an incorrect model. Maybe Bush did 9/11. I object to this thread still persisting. You're insulting people who come here to discuss science. You're talking nonsense. You have no evidence for anything. You intentionally refuse to even look for evidence or calculate it in some form. You're basing your conclusions on sample sizes of a few people you know. You're the exact opposite of what a real researcher is. Get serious.