Leaderboard

Well, for that last one anyway, they become POTUS.

Yes. For physics, very near or perhaps at the top. (Nature and Science are probably higher, but they are multi-disciplinary) (I have a PRL on my cv. Not bad for someone who is without knowing science)

In many mosquito-species the mouthparts of the females are adapted for piercing the skin of animal hosts and sucking their blood. Which mammal has the same diet as those female mosquitoes? I hope it's not an easy question.

I'm going to post this here, it is a short video about bacteria movement and super fluids but I have seen something similar in real life. I used to culture euglena as a food source for rotifers, in the culture barrels the euglena would swim around and round the barrels and almost always they would all go the same direction actually making a visible current that would carry small floating particles on the surface around visibly moving at several inches a minute. These microscopic protists creating this current as long as the sun shone on them I think was similar to what is being said here.

Hello guys, So, a lot of my time is spent reading about history, studying it, writing about it, etc. And I mean a vast majority of my time. And while I know this is a science forum, I feel that if we can have a politics section, which arguably has less to do with science and politics then it does with pure politics at this moment, it wouldn't overly hurt us to have a history section. Would anyone else agree that having a section open about history would be good as well? I mean the same basic rules could apply. You have to have evidence, you have to list sources, you can't preach, etc. Just my personal suggestion and I'm curious what other's on this forum think. I personally would love to start a discussion about Christopher Columbus.

Hmm... I think something went wrong. I just glanced into my pants and suddenly I look like a Ken doll.

And this French show (called Taratata) that requires live performance without any soundtrack, playbacks, orchestra or any other support. Lady Gaga: Poker Face et "mon français est merdique (my french is shitty).

my thing is.

I don't think so either. It's not a quantifiable thing anyway.

This is what you get for secreting your photon generator under a wicker containment vessel.

It's not quite that simple, though. Neutrinos travel (slightly) slower than photons but are far more penetrating because they don't interact the same way. You have to look at the interaction probability as well. Alphas are more likely to interact owing to their larger charge. They will ionize surrounding atoms, which causes them to lose energy and slow down. Neutrons will tend to penetrate better than protons, because even though they have roughly the same mass, the neutron has no charge. Alphas don't. They have a pretty well-defined penetration depth. "The range of alphas of a given energy is a fairly unique quantity in a specific absorber material." https://sciencedemonstrations.fas.harvard.edu/presentations/α-β-γ-penetration-and-shielding There's a plot here of what the alpha count typically looks like with distance. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/308359/does-alpha-radiation-penetration-depth-decrease-exponentionaly-with-distance/308428#308428

I don't. But there are notable physicists who do. Science should explain what we can observe. In physics this means we observe events, and try to find the regularities and put them into 'laws of nature', which are then abstract descriptions of what factually happens. To say it in other words: the laws of nature are descriptions of causal relationships. A very special example of this is a measurement. Our measurements are also caused by something. Say we have a method of measurement, M1. Now scientists must guess: what kind of phenomenon could cause measurements like M1? Here you must realise that our 'language equivalent' of causal relationships are sentences like 'if A happens, then M1 happens'. However, when that sentence is true, it does not mean that 'If M1 happens, then A has happened'. So we must test by other experiments to see if we find other causal relationships, e.g. 'if A happens, then M2' happens. So we measure according M2, and it is confirmed. That does not yet mean that we know A is true: maybe M3, another kind of measurement for A doesn't work out. So science can never be 100% sure. But now for the multi-universe. It supposes that there are no causal relationships between the universes. So how can we hope to find measurements that prove that there are other universes? Then there are several kinds of 'multiverses': those that follow from the 'many worlds interpretation' of quantum mechanics, for which the above ('no causal relationship') is definitely true. Also, it is just an interpretation, the many worlds interpretation is empirically equivalent with other interpretations. Then there are those presupposed by string theory. The problem with string theory is that it does not lead necessarily to a universe like ours. Many different kinds of 'universes', with different laws of nature can be derived from it. So one way out is to postulate that all these different universes exist, and we happen to be in the one we actually observe. But again: such idea is not supported by any kind of measurement. Measurements occur, by definition, in our universe. So in my opinion, even if physicists do not like the standard model, because of its many parameters that only can be measured, but not derived from a more fundamental theory, we still must explain how our universe works. Theoretically, it is possible we find nothing that explains the standard model. It is just as nature is. Full stop.

The transmission medium original question was air. Further alpha and beta rays are both charged and particulate. The particulate part says that it depends upon the nature of the source and the particle density. The charge says that there is interaction with airborn particles. In fact transmission through a medium usually follows an exponential decay type law. This also applies to EM radiation, but the coefficients are such that air is virtually transparent to gamma rays, over distances measured in less than hundreds of kilometers.

It's not pure chance, like rolling dice. There are elements of chance, like the probability of collision and, hence, a reaction occurring. What actually happens when certain atoms/molecules collide is predetermined and not chance.

You just have to heat it to high enough temperature..

I'd like to think that I'd behave kindly towards the "lilliputians". It costs me practically nothing to do so. I suspect I'd end up worshipped as a God anyway unless they were fairly sophisticated. It's not as if it would be hard for me to help them with major construction work (from their perspective- or sandcastles and dolls' houses from mine). The only "payment" I could expect would be the satisfaction of my curiosity (and maybe a bit of help with splinters etc). Who knows- I might get them to make me a diffraction grating. The tricky bits would be communication and also avoiding accidents. I'd clearly need to sleep somewhere else. Even an ill-timed sneeze would be a problem.

The link I gave you in your other thread should answer this one as well. An electron beam can be deflected by electrostatic or electromagnetic fields. The electrons are travelling too fast for there to be a measurable gravitational effect over the distances of a typical cathode ray.

Hi I think there's a translation problem here What do you mean by "distract"? Can you show a web page where there is a picture of what you mean? If we have a picture the language does not matter.

I have enabled the public profile at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mones_Jaafar If the link do not work properly let me know No jargon please just your scientific opinion. I have made updates and clarifications and restored the parenthesis notation according to norm that do not have any influence or change on the formulas according to the scientific context.

Probably best to warm the tank on the outside first to let the gas/petrol escape into the interior from the wall then blow it out with an airline for a minute or two. Petrol is not miscible with water and the trapped petrol in the wall pores will stay trapped.

Is that right? According to this they get refracted : http://www.x-ray-optics.de/index.php/en/physics/refraction Interestingly, according to that page, X rays are refracted in the opposite direction to visible light. So focusing lenses for X rays would spread optical light. I'm a bit mystified by that, as visible light refracts more as the wavelength gets shorter, so I expected X rays to follow that pattern. But logically it would mean that there must be a certain wavelength in the ultraviolet that gets zero refraction by glass.

Blast! I was just about to link my "String's Pulled-Out-Of-My-Arse-and Evidence-Free Lectures On Things you Didn't Want to Know But I Think You Should" channel.

First of all to address John. "Ammonium hydroxide" is employed as a trivial name so arguing that it is not an isolated compound for the point of making a snide remark is fairly juvenile. Also, here- it is called "ammonium hydroxide solution" anyway so your argument doesn't even hold true in such situations. As for ammonia and aluminium, I have no specific idea- but the presence of hydroxide may account for silimilar reactions as NaOH. If this is true, I don't think I would agree with it being a catalytic reaction (not unless the hydroxide is replaced). It is possible you might produce an ammonium/aluminium complex? So I don't know if you would yeild aluminium hydroxide anyway (note that reaction with NaOH gives sodium aluminate not aluminium hydroxide- maybe a similar reaction occurs (although more slowly)?).

John, you're being a bit of a pedant. While it's true that ammonium hydroxide has never been isolated, most aqueous solutions of ammonia are still sold under the name of ammonium hydroxide. It's annoying, but true. So perhaps if we re-word the question "does ammonia in water, which is usually called ammonium hydroxide despite the fact it doesn't actually form ammonium hydroxide, react with aluminum?", then you'll answer the poor fellow's question?

Or in any way valid or supportable beyond personal bias... What are we waiting for? Just remove the option. Make it so, Hypervalent!

In truth, I did not finish reading the article. Much of what is written there is already outdated. Let's start with the simple thing: Today it is not the state that creates money, but commercial banks. And the creation of money by commercial banks is not regulated at all. (Actually regulated of course, but so weakly that a medium-sized commercial bank can arrange hyperinflation in one person) Therefore, it goes without saying that the emission system proposed by me will not work, First, banks need to ban the production of new money. If we are done with this, let's move on. "The velocity of money" has little effect on inflation. And let's not carry this nonsense about the gold equivalent. (And in Wikipedia it is still written, although it was outdated many years ago) This is complete nonsense, it's time to forget about it. It has long been refuted. The main causes of hyperinflation are 1. panic, 2. uncontrolled release of money by the state. 1. In my model, there is no reason to panic. 2. The state does not have access to making money. A "velocity of money" - amenable to calculation and control. The following. No need to consider the national currency as a means of saving value. There are other things for this: Deposit bank deposits Bitcoin Gold, and so on... I propose to consider the national currency only as a means of exchange and no more. Let's go back to the essence of money. Money is a medium of exchange. The model I proposed does a good job. Do not cling to the needs of your fathers and grandfathers. They will soon die, and we live on. By the time this is implemented, we ourselves will be grandfathers. In my old age I see 3 currencies in my wallet: 1 - exchange medium - 1 month reserve (national inflation currency) 2 - currency standard - stock for 1 year (stable world currency) 3 - reserve stock (gold, real estate, Bitcoin) I can’t imagine a person in 10 years with 1 currency in a wallet. And about the size of the issue in the first message, I gave the wrong example. Now I have made an approximate calculation. Clarified. For the functioning and even development of the state, it is sufficient to daily produce 0.03-0.05% of new money. (12-15% per annum) Such a number even with a great desire can not lead to hyperinflation. I apologize for the English translation. Perhaps the meaning of the text is distorted.