AbstractDreamer

So doing some reading: http://chem.libretexts.org/Core/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry/Acids_and_Bases/Aqueous_Solutions/The_pH_Scale This tells me that temperature affects PH. How much I don't know, but if you keep it constant it should cancel out in measurements. Also at the bottom are some maths and solutions that might help. http://chem.libretexts.org/Core/Analytical_Chemistry/Lab_Techniques/Titration/Titration_of_a_Weak_Base_with_a_Strong_Acid This sounds like what you have to do. Need to take care of the equivalance point. The examples provided are reversed for your case. Eg1 is where you are given the volume and molarity of the base and the molarity of acid and have to calculate the PH of both separately and together, and volume of acid. Your case, you have the molarity of your acid, and can measure both volumes and both PH (separately and together) to obtain molarity of the base (your feedwater). I cant see a second variable that would make this impossible, but I'm not familiar with the calculations. Good luck.

What makes you think that? What makes you claim that? Humans are good at telling stories and believing them. The ancient Greeks found dinosaur bones and believed there used to be Titans and Gods. Eventually people stopped believing those religions that didn't make sense. I claim, the ones that are left are the best stories. Why do you think that? Why do you think we can ever get to the truth? I agree Its incomprehensible so that is the reason why it exists? Doesn't make any sense You jumped from nonsense to your Creator. You lost me. I agree Why? Do you need a purpose? Nope, you will just believe the Creator put life out there to give you more purpose to figure out why. So is this about taking the safer bet? The creator can never be disproven so you can never be wrong. But if we find some ruins, then you can say "I told you so?", but no-one can tell you the same? But from this, I can see your Creator has desires. "He/she/it" "wants". Why does he "want" anything? What is his purpose? So he makes us incapable of understanding, and he then wants us to see what we cant understand. Why would your Creator do that?

That what you've been saying all along, but it doesn't sink in at all at first, and only very slow over time.

1,000,000,000 stars.... 1% of milky way. I'm speechless. We're SO not alone. Or god created way more than he needed. There I was worried about heat death. I feel safer already. Would other galaxies show up within apparent magnitude 13.3, but distance is too far to plot? What is the apparent magnitude of the brightest galaxy? Would that be Andromeda? And another 100,000,000,000 galaxies in our observable universe?

so the difference between WMAP and Planck description is a universe with: 1.9 km/s/Mpc faster expansion rate for a 35 million year younger universe with 122.789 Mpcs wider particle horizon can we simply say 18.4 million years per 1km/s/Mpc, for the period around today would be within the error range of both results? if so, can we say over 1 year, there might be 5x [math] 10^{-8} km [/math] increase in H_0 if so, how much more accurate do our measurements need to be before see yearly measurements statistically significantly different?

ball bearing technique ~20:00 ~45:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64j0yGpjg-w rowing-lever technique https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-J_6Jct_X8 IMO, both more feasible than rock-pivot technique, at least for small scale monoliths.

What order of magnitude of time are we talking about before we might see a real increase in [math] H_0 [/math] of [math] 1 km s^{-1}Mpc^{-1} [/math]? 1 million years? 100 million years?

Not only that, with anisotropic expansion around gravity wells, superluminal galactic recession velocities, local (peculiar) spacetime curvature and gravitational lensing; it is possible that some images are of the same galaxy but viewed from the complete opposite direction (relative to observer and object)!?

PS Really? I get -2 rep for #7? For mentioning aliens? No one able to detect the sarcasm? Makes you wonder. lol

That's kinda my thinking. That would work if all the OP wants is to get the water at PH 7 But there was another question like which acid requires least amount. So calculation is required. But from a practical point of view, I'm with you.

Well like i said I don't know much about this topic. But it seems if you only have one unknown variable like carbonate content of the water (whatever that is), then you should be able to solve the problem, if this unknown variable is consistent throughout the water. You take a measured sample of your feedwater, say 10 litres. You thoroughly mix in a measured sample of one of your acids. You measure the resulting PH of the water+acid solution. From that you can reverse calculate the carbonate content of the feedwater source. It will be an estimate, the larger your sample of feedwater, or the more accurate your PH measurement, then the more accurate your answer. But I'm just guessing here. Listen to the experts. Can't be done.

No, making a solid surface is easy. Making 140 miles of solid surface is not. Not around 3000 BC. Clever engineering like releasing the stones from the quarry face, dragging the stones 140 miles from the quarry to the henge (by pathing solid surfaces if using this technique), lifting up and down hills, or over marshland, and perfectly align them. They probably didn't even need to use this rock-pivot technique and relied more on brute force. But that's fine if you want to think this is the technique they used to move the stones 140 miles.

Well that's what i don't understand. The paper claims [math] 3.4 \sigma [/math]

Why did the creator let the aliens leave that big stone in the ground? So that 2000 years later we would say "oh wow we used to be waaay smarter than we are now"? 350 Million years ago, we were so clever we genetically modified things called dinosaurs to play with. There's proof in bones. If the Earth is 4 billion years old, that means we must have been super advanced to build a PLANET all that time ago! You're standing on the proof!

so this paper concludes [math] H_0 = 73.24 \pm 1.74 km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1} [/math] has 99.9% more confidence than [math] H_0 = 66.93 \pm 0.62 km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1} [/math] Is that right? That's quite a huge swing? Are they only factoring measuring uncertainties and not some modelling assumptions into the confidence? Does a larger [math] H_0 [/math] value set us further to the right on the red line in this graph? https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_concepts_exp.html

How did the ancients put down a big enough surface, and then remove all evidence of the surface? Ancients built it, aliens only removed it.

Clever and resourceful! But still, how did the ancients use that rock-pivot-move technique on soft ground? I still think it was more man power + a lot of time + some clever engineering.

I think most people agree: There's no doubt exercise relating to chi heats you up. Neither is there doubt exercise not-relating to chi heats you up. There's no doubt you can transfer thermal energy via conduction. Its not impossible that you can control blood flow, metabolic rate, and even maybe electric charge in the body using conscious thought. The question is there something else to chi beyond heat and charge that we don't know yet. Or is there something about heat and charge that medicine hasn't yet discovered? Seeing something you don't understand is not proof that "special physics" exists.

Before you starting building anything , just a few thoughts: What is your optimal float altitude? Too high you get less protection vs UV rays and yes less oxygen, too low you get weather and storms. Tempertaure variations with altitude too. Earth magnetic field is constantly shifting. It might even flip soon (1- few million years). http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Swarm/Earth_s_magnetic_heartbeat http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/layers_activity_print.html

Questionology the study of asking questions. Questography the measurement of asking questions. Law of Questions: [Math] Q_1 \leqslant Q_2 [/math]

Sigh lol. How did I not guess 1 question = 5 more questions. No more questions for now, I need to study QM basics. Thanks for all your patience.

Ok so the sum is the same, but the larger the region, the more likely a large fluctuation will appear somewhere? Are energy fluctations either positive or negative, or are they multi dimensional? Do positive fluctuations ever "materialise" into something permanent or non-virtual? What happens in the negative locations? Anti-energy?

So as space expands, does the sum total of zero-point energy increase, or are quantum fluctuations "co-thingy" with expansion. "co-volumetric"?

But if there is nothing within a particle's future event horizon, then uncertainty (of position and velocity) is meaningless as there is no reference, nor will there ever be a reference. The only reference would be in the past.

Will time ever end? If the universe continues to expand and entropy, will it ever reach a state where it can "decay" no further. A moment when no further change can happen. When everything has cooled to absolute zero. When all particles have decayed to sub-particles that do not experience time. Where space has expanded so much that there is no other particle within every particle's future event horizon? How does expansion and entropy fit with laws of conservation of energy? Does the Universe have an absolute Energy value? Can time spontaneously begin after it has stopped?