Carrock

35 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

She's not a child, she's an adult.

Not in every legal sense. She' still young enough to be punished as a child in this context. If she's an adult, why doesn't Bangladesh assign final (non)citizenship status at 18?

It's actually depressingly common for children to be punished as adults for crimes only children can commit. Do you really think individuals' responsibility to accept the consequences of their actions should reduce with increasing age?.

Just saw your edit.

Quote

In islamic cuture and some others, adulothood is endowed much earlier than in the west. 

Indeed. In some countries fifteen(or nineteen) year olds can be executed for crimes similar to those which she has allegedly committed. I doubt you want her executed, but that's where your logic seems to lead.

3 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Yes. Too many people attempting to reduce the responsibility of others to accept the consequences of their actions. 

Or saying children should not be punished more than adults. If she'd been 21 her citizenship couldn't be revoked, according to legal precedents.

48 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

would you say the same about your daughter?

I knew you'd pull that one... so predictable. Yes. She must experience the full weight of her actions.

And of course, if you're suspected of being complicit in your daughter's actions, you'd be happy to have your own citizenship, like hers, revoked based on secret evidence. You must experience the full weight of your suspected actions.

Or not?

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

31 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

so a life sentence for an opinion? 

Don't trivialize it.

Is life as a stateless person trivial?

Do you really think any country would grant her citizenship?

10 hours ago, Mordred said:

It must be emphasized that measurement does not mean only a process in which a physicist-observer takes part, but rather any interaction between classical and quantum objects regardless of any observer.^{[10][note 1]} "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

A little research on your part Itoero might be in order, you might just learn a few things. As I myself rarely trust wiki...

Yet another way to look at this....

The distinction between classical and quantum objects is purely arbitrary. See e.g. Heisenberg cut.

Evidence of e.g. a macroscopic decoherence field or a consciousness/observer field has been looked for and not found.

When/where/if a measurement is made is therefor an arbitrary choice, generally based on convenience.

18 hours ago, Itoero said:

The observer effect is the theory that simply observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes that phenomenon.

Since measurement/nonmeasurement is arbitrarily defined, any observation effect during measurement would have to be nonexistent to be consistent with measurements.

16 hours ago, nymnpseudo said:

As the bible is quoted here, and the post has remained, seemingly unchallenged because of source, I shall use that same source to say what the bible says of war and violence:  New Heart English Bible
"In her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all who have been slain on the earth."  Revelation 18:24  .....

 

From the verse and bible you selectively quoted:

Quote

However much she glorified herself, and grew wanton, so much give her of torment and mourning. For she says in her heart, 'I sit a queen, and am no widow, and will in no way see mourning.' 8Therefore in one day her plagues will come: death, mourning, and famine; and she will be utterly burned with fire; for the Lord God who has judged her is strong.

Would it be fair to summarise that as 'Two eyes for an eye, two teeth for a tooth?'

or acquisition of wealth as the Lord God's justification for mass murder?

You may find this quote from your own reference on quora helpful.

Quote

 

Fourth Law of Motion is often also described in the bibliography, which states that forces add up like vectors, that is, that forces obey the principle of superposition.

This law is refferd as 4th law but Newton never announced this as law. What is in it not understandable.?

 

43 minutes ago, nix85 said:

BTW you are talking to a person who defined the 4th LAW OF MOTION, recognized at Quora

A reference would be good; can't find it accepted anywhere

...

edit: maybe taeto had better luck

18 minutes ago, zapatos said:

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

 

Due to global warming there will be  less water in many rivers because the melting of glaciers which will cause water crises.

How does melting ice result in less water in rivers?

It doesn't, if averaged over a year or more.

If a glacier eventually thaws completely, then the following year, after snow melts in spring, there will be no meltwater during summer, at the time it is most needed.

i.e. the water in rivers will mostly flow during winter/spring.

I presume itero did not feel it necessary to go into this much detail.

You could consider various types of white paper which can't be directly burnt with your glass, only charred. You could brown but not overly oxidise a sufficient area that you can then take advantage of increased absorption to ignite the paper. Some skill required, at least for an eight year old, IIRC.

9 hours ago, kenjimckinstry said:

The Stellar Force is caused by the constellations that the precession travels through. We now know these constellations as the 12 zodiac symbols.

You may get a more sympathetic response on this forum.

https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/index.php

4 hours ago, nickm538 said:

QUESTION: I would like to know the weight (in pounds or kg) of each individual GREENSTONE Aplrazolam 2mg pill.

Each individual 2mg pill weighs 0.000002Kg. Or am I missing something?

16 minutes ago, Nod2003 said:

Based on google, acetic acid freezes at 16C.  Could I just put the jug of vinegar in the fridge and pour the cold jug through a strainer to get the acetic acid ice which I could then store until needed?

Don't know.

As a non-chemist:

Glacial acetic acid seems to be readily available on the internet.

Diluted as required, it should be much cheaper than using vinegar.

Handle with care.

1 minute ago, Nod2003 said:

5’=60”

60”*.01= 0.6”

Oops... You responded to a couple of typos before  I corrected them.

40 minutes ago, Nod2003 said:

Well a 1% difference in a 5’ tide would be +/- 0.6”, which would be measurable certainly, but not visibly obvious.

A 1% difference in a 5’ tide would be +/- 0.6”

or

a 1% difference in a 50’ tide would be +/- 6”

If by 'unnoticeable,' you mean not measured, then many people have never noticed any tide. Only an ignorant subset of the general public are unaware tides exist or would be completely unaware of Ceres' tidal effects.

24 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I was hoping for a stable orbit inside Earth's moon, any chance of that? Maybe a resonance orbit?  

Eventually tidal forces over millions of years might stabilise the orbit inside the lunar orbit. I can't think of anything faster.

Speculation: I suspect that as the moon/earth mass ratio is the highest of any satellite/planet in the solar system, the likeliest, perhaps inevitable, outcome is that Ceres would collide with earth or moon within a few centuries. (Or orbital mechanics would become an applied science.)

44 minutes ago, Nod2003 said:

With regards to tides on earth from a Ceres capture, as Ceres is only about 1% the mass of the moon, unless the orbital distance was significantly closer then the moon currently gets, wouldn’t the effects be essentially unnoticeable to the general public?

To the ignorant subset of the general public, yes.

I'd assumed Ceres' mass was not much smaller than the moon.

Which gets more done, a big stick or a hearty handshake with Donald Trump?

A lot of discussion of big sticks in this thread, ignoring the financially biggest and most lethal.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Country       Spending ($Billion)

World total        1,739

United States   610.0

People's Republic of China 228.0

Saudi Arabia    69.4

Russia              66.3

A perhaps apocryphal quote by my grandfather from a German during WW2.

"When the British planes come over, we duck; when the German planes come over, you duck; when the American planes come over we all duck."

Plus ca change....

17 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I was always a bit partial to Gould's view on that matter.

Edit: I probably should say I became partial to Gould's view eventually. The always is a bit of an overstatement if I think back to my youth...

I've never reached a definite view... haven't thought about this complex issue enough.

I feel Snow is describing a snobbish attitude that is at a few times and places quite common, but fortunately doesn't seem to do much harm to other people.

The OP is describing the other side i.e. science snobs and the self-harm of their narrow-minded attitudes is much clearer than the self-harm of culture snobs.

It's perhaps a bit off topic but I'm reminded of C.P. Snow's Two Cultures lecture.

Quote

A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is the scientific equivalent of: Have you read a work of Shakespeare's?^[5]

18 hours ago, Externet said:

No 'irradiate 200 Joules'  setting to your yesterday pizza?

You need a bit more. e.g.

'This is correct for a 647 watt oven. Adjust irradiation for different power levels to take account of heat lost, during irradiation, by convection and radiation etc and to minimise mankiness. See equations below.'

19 hours ago, Externet said:

To start, 'microwave' is not a verb, but less bad than 'nuke'.  And irradiate sounds weird.

If I've accidentally weirded the language in this post, I blame it on being required to study Shackspeare with no warning about his bad grammar and spelling.

(too much time wasted on the following not to include it)

Where are the ungrammatical hills of yesteryear?

"Torpenhow Hill" is a ghost word * and has been retrospectively desubstantiated out of existence.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_word#Origin_of_the_term

Quote

I only allow the title of ghost-words to such words, or rather forms, as have no meaning whatever.

* 'Two is equal to one' is good English and is useful when desubstantiation is required.

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

By focusing on the detail of the detector younare implying it matters.

I didn't intend that implication.

Any suitable detector could be used.

Perhaps we agree.

1 minute ago, swansont said:

The spatial pattern. 

OK, but that surely also applies to my original example of an array of photoelectric effect detectors.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Why is that an issue? You have evidence of wave behavior. It’s just not the detection method that provides it.

Any detection, not only photoelectric, involves

15 hours ago, swansont said:

... At the instant of detection, you have particle behavior (localized, quantized energy)

If this cannot be used as a necessary part of evidence of wave behavior, then what evidence is there for wave behaviour?

1 hour ago, jajrussel said:

I came across another video that seems to at least rationalize what I've been thinking. There is a section that says to my head, " there it is, you can make the leap they have already, in a way, said it."

I really liked the video. Accurate (AFIK) and open ended i.e. with clear indications of the complicated physics necessarily skipped in such a brief explanation.

16 hours ago, swansont said:

How would you set up the photoelectric effect to look for wave behavior?

<my answer>

9 hours ago, swansont said:

The diffraction happens before the detection. At the instant of detection, you have particle behavior (localized, quantized energy)

Not sure about the first sentence. Agree with the second sentence.

A slightly different question.

How would you look for wave behavior?

<answer>

Is there any answer which precludes this response:

The wave behavior happens before the detection. At the instant of detection, you have particle behavior (localized, quantized energy)

24 minutes ago, studiot said:

Sure thing.

No disrespect is meant, and no Scientists/Engineers were hurt in production.

MigL specifically said that if you look (at any quantum) phenomenon for a wave activity, you will see it (but not a particle activity)
But if you look for a particle activity you will also see it (but not a wave activity).

I disputed that since the activity discovered by Herts and named "The PhotoElectric Effect" cannot be produced by any known (including EM) classical wave.
It is the fact there is a threshold frequency that is important here.
It is not an interference phenomenon like the slits as you described.
With the slits if you look for waves you will see them and if you look for particles you will see them - the interference pattern will build up over time in the second case.

 

Interpretations... sometimes I think it would be easier just to shut up and calculate .

I was responding to this specific post:

4 hours ago, swansont said:

How would you set up the photoelectric effect to look for wave behavior?

So no need for me to verify the (assumed) photoelectric effect, just use it to show wave behavior. Implicitly I was using photons of more than threshhold energy. I actually think I've only shown behaviour consistent with unobservable waves.

I'd ignored Migl etc because of this interpretation issue:

47 minutes ago, studiot said:

I disputed that since the activity discovered by Herts and named "The PhotoElectric Effect" cannot be produced by any known (including EM) classical wave.

I agree with this despite my earlier probably inconsistent post; my view more clearly:

26 minutes ago, studiot said:

With the slits if you look for waves you will see them and if you look for particles you will see them - the interference pattern will build up over time in the second case.

This is a common view of wave/particle duality which I've never understood.

How can you ever 'observe' e.g. probability waves except by detecting particles and calculating their properties are consistent with probability waves, quantum effects, wave/particle duality etc? i.e. those waves are useful, unobservable constructs.

I suspect I'm just interpreting that last quote in the 'wrong' way. This gets more complicated the more I think about it..... even 'observation' and 'wave behaviour' are hard to define.

1 hour ago, Carrock said:

Set up a 2-d array of sensors which use the photoelectric effect.

Shine a monochromatic light through a double slit for a diffraction pattern.

Use the array to observe the pattern e.g. from variation in detections/second with sensor location.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

This is at cross purposes with my comment. It is not the sort of thing we are discussing.

Could you you explain why my example is at cross purposes and your example is not:

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Well I would illuminate a suitable metal surface with a range of frequency  and intensity EM waves, both above and below the critical frequency, and observe the effect, just as I believe it was Bequerel who first did it this way.