exchemist

I find the [...] button at top right doesn't work this morning, so I can't edit my posts. Is the problem my end or it is the website?

"identities like E² = p² + m²". Eh? Where did you get this from? The Sirius Cybernetics Corporation?

I doubt anyone disagrees with what you are saying here. It is just that the mere act of perception does not get one very far on its own. One then needs two further things: to identify the perception as relating to a physical phenomenon and to check that the perception - of the phenomenon- is shared by others, i.e.not just a one-off misattributed experience, due to something other than the presumed phenomenon). Only then can you say you have something concrete, relating to the objective physical world, which can be explored and eventually fitted to some theory of the physical world.

Sure. It's just that, as someone else on the forum pointed out a few weeks ago, this world is beloved of chatbots when given the task of dressing up crank ideas about physics, so I tend to feel a bit jaded when I read this word from a newcomer with , er, unconventional ideas about physics.

Ah a framework. That word again. Hmm. Since energy is a property of a physical system, I can't see any way it can make sense to identify spacetime with it. So I think this concept falls at the first fence.

Déjà vu all over again. Well played, Nostradamus! 😁

This is now the 3rd bullshit medical suggestion from this moron. Perhaps enough?

OK it wasn’t my favourite thing at first either. I got used to it. But pV/T = constant means p1V1/T1 must equal p2V2/T2, right? So if you have p1, V1 and T1 from your experiment, you can set that equal to pSTP.VSTP/TSTP , and since pressure and temperature at STP are standard, they are given, so you just need to find V STP, by rearranging. The thing is you know that, for any gas, 1 mole at STP occupies 22.4litres. So once you have converted the volume you have measured experimentally into litres at STP, you know how many moles were generated by the reaction.

Judging by the title, this is not quantum theory. By the way, you need to post material for discussion here rather than expecting us to download stuff. And what you post needs to be your words, not AI.

It is in my second post of 9th October. As @sethoflagos poi ted out, it utilises the principle that pV/T = constant.

So is this an energy equation, in units of, say Joules? If so, where does information come in? There’s also the problem that not all forms of energy are associated with waves, so in many cases there won’t be any corresponding frequency or wavelength.

This is too much of a hotch-potch to deal with sensibly, with a mixture of statements and questions, all of them too brief to be clear to the reader. Can you explain what exactly you want to ask? The Wurtz bit at the end seems to be a duplicate of a separate question, which I have tried to answer.

These terms and structures are rather garbled. It is bromomethane, not bromomenthane. Ethane is C2H6, i.e. H3C-CH3. And n-Butane is C4H10, i.e. H5C2-C2H5. The mechanism is explained here, in the good old libretexts that I have recommended to you before: https://chem.libretexts.org/Workbench/Chemistry_LHS_Bridge/12%3A_Alkanes/12.03%3A_Synthesis_of_Alkanes/12.3.03%3A_Wurtz_reaction

Surely that would be shukran?My understanding is shukriya, or shukria, means thank you in Urdu and possibly in Hindi as well. As least, it was widely used by people from S Asia when I lived in Dubai, including by my Goan secretary. To your question, it seems they are taking STP to be 273K and 760mmHg. This seems consistent with the IUPAC convention, though there are others, as you can read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_temperature_and_pressurehttps://oxfordre.com/planetaryscience/planetaryscience/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190647926.001.0001/acrefore-9780190647926-e-145 The purpose of the multiplication is stated in the text you originally pasted. It converts the measured volume change into a volume at STP. The purpose of that is so you can calculate how many moles of gas have been generated: https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/Heartland_Community_College/CHEM_120%3A_Fundamentals_of_Chemistry/06%3A_Gases/6.11%3A_STP You are quite right that standard Gibbs Free Energies are generally quoted at 25C (298K). This is annoying I agree, but it is the way it is.

It reads like mad rubbish.

Indeed. Though these clips of Musso also put me in mind of P.G. Wodehouse's immortal character, Roderick Spode. He was a large, irascible man, prone to violence, who ran an organisation called the Black Shorts, in which young men wore black shorts, because all the shirts had already gone, and to whom he gave rousing speeches. He also, ahem, ran a ladies' underwear boutique in Bond Street..... Wodehouse was clearly taking the piss out of Oswald Mosley here. He is quite merciless, having Bertie Wooster observe: "I don't know if you have even seen those pictures in the papers of Dictators with tilted chins and blazing eyes, inflaming the populace with fiery words on the occasion of the opening of a new skittle alley, but that was what he reminded me of." There is also, contrary to the macho, strutting image, the subtlest of hints of incongruous homosexuality here, which makes it funnier. The stories in which Spode appears were written in the 1930s.

This reads as if you are smarting from having some academic submission rejected. if it is, I have to say I am not wholly surprised, as your writing style is rather rambling and disjointed. It is hard to work out what you are trying to say. This won't endear you to the readers of any academic submission you may make. As for the accusation that submissions are rejected due to "personal pet peeves" this is not in general a warranted conclusion. There is such a thing as the recognised body of knowledge in a given subject. Far from consisting of personal pet peeves, this is a consensus reached by numerous experts in the field as a result of study and, in the case of science, verified observations of nature. It can of course nevertheless be shown to be wrong or incomplete - that is how science advances - but the person wanting to do that has to do quite a bit of work to show where the problem lies, how it can be remedied and why the proposed remedy is valid. To do that, the person needs to understand the existing body of knowledge before proposing something that contradicts or extends it. This is what Einstein, whom you quote, did. By the way, what is this "oath of seat of position" you mention? I can't say I recall anything like that at my university other than to observe the customs, statues and privileges of the university, which one did by saying "Do fidem" when receiving one's undergraduate degree. I do agree it is useful to be aware of applications of scientific phenomena, as a way to make them seem more real and immediate to a person learning about them. The examples you give of GPS and MRI are nice ones. But like other responders I am in the dark about these horrific biases you allude to.

Yes but there doesn't have to be a question of "why" those values are the case. There has to be a set of values and the ones we observe are no less probable than any other individual set. So they, er, just are, it seems to me.

No we're talking about the same thing, I think. I'm just saying that, while the probability of the universal constants coming out so as to support chemistry and thus life, out of all the possible values one can envisage, would appear to be infinitesimally low, whatever values they had would have the same low probability. Yet for any universe to exist they have to have a value. So the values they actually have are no less probable than any other individual possible set.

I think history shows a lot of Germans knew, or could very easily have known by asking a few questions, but they chose not to lift that particular stone for fear of what was crawling beneath. Once you know a thing like that you feel impelling to take some kind of action, whereas in fact they were powerless. So they chose not to know for sure. I think this happens quite a lot, actually.

I have World at War on DVD. Comprehensive and excellent, marred only by the irritating quibble of Olivier continually mispronouncing Stalin as Shtalin. No idea why. S and sh sounds have separate letters in the Russian alphabet.

I found your comment about the (H-bonded) polarity of water as a solvent leading to the exploitation by life of 2 phases (hydrophilic and hydrophobic) rather insightful. I immediately thought of bi-lipid membranes, for instance and the mechanisms for selective transport across them. Your final remark suggests we could try to imagine life developing with the use of other solvents. Liquid ammonia perhaps? Liquid CO2? Under suitable pressures, these could perhaps be feasible at temperatures high enough to give reasonable rates of reaction.

Modesty is not mentioned in the Agreeableness category, as far as I can see. My experience is that a lot of egocentric people can be socially very agreeable. It may be one of the things they use to dominate other people, being "the life and soul of the party" as a way of drawing attention to themselves. In fact I am always suspicious of "Hail fellow well met" types, as I've found in business they are often crooks, or out for themselves! But maybe I'm misunderstanding what is meant by "agreeableness" in this categorisation.

I think there is a spectrum there, from the perfectly normal to the pathological. Consider anyone working in the performance arts, politics, legal advocates or even surgeons. Many people enjoy performing to an audience, without being narcissists. Many of the classical musicians I know are quite shy and retiring people but put a violin in their hands or sit them behind a keyboard and they are away. I myself have performed solo, which I found very stressful but compensated by the reception from the audience. Enough to persuade me to do it again, a year later. But thinking more about this I suppose your point is that, with televangelists in particular, the performance often seems to be largely about them. There is more about them than about the gospels, even though the gospels are ostensibly the subject matter. That certainly does suggest narcissism. I don't myself think that consideration of a multiverse is required to dismiss the Fine Tuning Argument. It seems to me, rather, that the FT Argument rests on a misunderstanding of probability. Just because a particular outcome is one of millions does not mean that the outcome we observe is "impossible" and therefore must have been influenced in some way. After all, there has to be an outcome, which will be one of the millions of possibilities. For instance the probability of dying by being struck by lightning is vanishingly small, yet people do die that way.

You might think that. I couldn't possibly comment.😉