Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 12/16/18 in Posts

  1. 3 points
    So there never was a hidden agenda. +1 However the question of the word ether deserves clarification since it has enjoyed many meanings (not unconnected) over the millenia. The modern word ether comes to us (English) from the ancient Greek aither meaning the upper air. It was a substance believed to occupy space beyond the moon and cotnain the planets and stars. It entered Old English as edder and Old French as ether. It then moved on to Middle English as aether but now came to mean The region of clear space above the clouds. Passing on to modern English the diphthong was dropped and the word came to be ether. Because Greek, Norse and Saxon and Christian heaven's were located in this reagion the word etherial came to be associated with things heavenly/spiritual and of tenuous substance. This was the view of Newton and Descartes - not an all pervading ether but a medium to support the transmission of light rays. Their theories were not wave theories. Later scientists (Fresnel) proposed a 'lumineferous aether' (note the old spelling returning) as a specific change to an all pervading immaterial substance to support wave motion, when Young's wave theory had become ascendant. This was again a narrowing down of the, term tightening up the specification as both experimental and mathematical knowledge improved/increased. At this time Chemistry was developing and first a substance, then a class of substances, was discovered which is very volatile so quickly evaporates and dissipates into the air. They called this ether and later, ethers following the old idea of insubstantiality. Other scientists developed several ether models (eg Maxwell) in the late 19 century when the study of light really got going. Most of these facts are recorded in the links I have already provided. So there you have it, quiet. This is why anyone using the term needs to be carefully spelled out when used and why many responders have asked exactly what 'ether' you mean.
  2. 1 point
    Yes you are right, it was Edinburgh, I must have misunderstood my tour guide. Thank you for pointing that out. +1 However he was at originally at Aberdeen, and sacked. https://homepages.abdn.ac.uk/j.s.reid/pages/Maxwell/ This gives me a mental picture of a ' Feynman Demon' furiously scribbling his diagrams on a blackboard in that vaccum, in order to create all that activity and hot air. Feynman Demon = Son of Maxwell's Demon.
  3. 1 point
    Can you elaborate on this? When was that? He was born in Edinburgh, correct? Apologies if that is OT.
  4. 1 point
    Also worth noting that some reactions tolerate impurities better than others, so I would again recommend that you at least figure out what’s in there first. Can I ask what you’re making?
  5. 1 point
    If not symbionts, feeding on them, at least.
  6. 1 point
    I don't know how clear was my initial post for who read that I have wrote. For me can mean something and for other person can mean something very different. Now I will try to improve the expression. I have reasons, physical and mathematical, to reject the idea of ether. Mathematical reasons are exposed in this thread. I have reasons but, anyway, I am interested in all kinds of arguments. Why? Because I am a teacher. There are a little number of boys and girls really interested in this issue, and they are very intelligent, and they present many valuable arguments. I am trying to collect in the forum powerful arguments of all kinds, that can prepare me to manage better classroom arguments. When I started the thread, I ignore that it can generate passioned discussion and fighting. And I ignore that I will need to fight too for achieve that people read my posts with a bit of attention, in a way that avoid missunderstanding. I don't wrote, in no paragraph, that I am in favor of the ether hypotheses. But some persons have believed the inverse idea. Anyway, here was generated a very interesting development of the main issue. And I am greatful for this.
  7. 1 point
    There are two options. Use the stuff as it is to make your final product (in which case the product will need cleaning up) Clean up this intermediate- which will give you a product that's cleaner- but will still need cleaning up to get a pure material. The second course of action will probably give a better product, but the yield will be lower. It's more or less traditional in chemistry that you have that trade -off. You can have high purity or high yield, but not (usually) both
  8. 1 point
    I would suggest you do that so you can figure out what you have first.
  9. 1 point
    The still pic of that video reminds me of 21 pilots - Stressed Out: Or as I like to call, innocence lost: "We used to play pretend, give each other different names We would build a rocket ship and then we'd fly it far away Used to dream of outer space but now they're laughing at our face Saying, "Wake up, you need to make money." They say if only I knew then what I know now, but I say if only I could know now what I knew then. . .
  10. 1 point
    Good stuff on the first video. As for the second, Lady Gaga and I have a love/hate relationship. . . Je veux ton amour et je veux ta revanche, Je veux ton amour. . . Here's the true Lady Gaga. A side of which many of you may have not seen. I love it. She reminds me of the cool headbanging chicks in high school we'd hang with at belle Isle.