exchemist

But you are the one claiming these lyrics are racist.

So what? How does this do away with the need for extra, invisible mass to account for the observed rotation rates?

So you think these are racist lyrics and you approve of them as such, right? So you are calling yourself a racist, apparently. 😁

While changes in a gravitational field will propagate at c, a static field, like that exerted by the centre of mass of a galaxy, has no “speed”. And this is just another vague idea, thrown out by you seemingly at random, with no attempt to work it out to show how it might produce the effect on rotation rate that we observe. If you want to make a serious scientific suggestion, you have to show how your idea might produce the observed effects.

Nobody has proposed anything so silly, though. So you are making a straw man to make fun of, aren’t you? Are you a teenager?

Hydrogen should still be liberated at the cathode, though.

That is what MOND tries to do. But that is based on an actual model with detailed calculations to support it. What you seem to be doing is pulling random ideas out of your arse, with no attempt at quantifying their effect to show how they might explain what we observe. That’s no good.

Do not try to drag quantum theory into a discussion about astronomical objects. It makes you look a fool. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is not relevant at the macroscopic scale, because Planck’s constant is so small it only makes a difference at the atomic scale.

What is your opinion of the Civil Rights Act? Do you see that as part of American heritage and culture, or a manifestation of beastly wokeness?

Yes, I could understand it more readily if bacteria are involved. The lack of hydrogen production seems suspicious for any electrolytic process. But I'm pleased to see this has got further funding. It seems very worthwhile to follow it up, not least in view of the mineral resource represented in these nodules and the obvious interest in extracting them.

Exactly. The edge is lower than the level of liquid, so it is acting like a siphon, in which the reduction in gravitational potential energy drives it. I first noticed this effect eating shredded wheat breakfast cereal, observing that milk dribbled out of the spoon if any shreds of cereal dangled over the edge. The entire spoon could empty itself of milk, even though I was holding it perfectly level. All because of surface tension.

No. It can act as a siphon, but it can’t pump uphill. Conservation of energy tells you that. Capillary rise, or wicking, is due to attraction of water molecules to the surface of the glass or wick material. Clearly, once the top of the tube or wick is reached, there is no more upward attraction. So nothing can come out at the top.

...with thanks to the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation for this informative bulletin......

No they can’t. These are 3D standing wave patterns, similar to the “spherical harmonics” you can excite by striking a rubber ball and watching its deformation with a stroboscope: And relying on AI in the way you are trying to is going to lead you astray. Don’t outsource your understanding to a bot.

Blimey! So the vent pipe was dipping into the water in the header tank. How weird. So you would have had cold water being sucked down the vent pipe when you ran hot water off. Not a great piece of plumbing, by the sound of it. But now I see why it had the effect it had. Comforting to know the cylinder can pop back into shape rather than splitting at the seams, at any rate. 🙂

This is a bit silly. Musk would have better things to do than try to take down videos making outlandish claims on his behalf, even if he were a person interested in truthfulness (which he is not, I agree). You can’t blame him for crap posted by other people. But you posted these videos, here on this forum, as evidence Musk was making false claims about warp drive and an anti- gravity fighter aircraft. So you took them at face value, without checking. That is not very sensible. Before responding to your post, I made a quick search for any claims involving Musk and either warp drive or anti- gravity…….and found nothing at all. So it seems to be BS.

That’s odd. Was the hot water cylinder not vented? I thought that was a requirement, e.g. a riser off the main hot water exit at the top of the cylinder. If it had been, there would have been no vacuum created. (I went into this once, worrying about whether I could change a tap washer on a hot tap in my house, after turning off the cold water feed to the cylinder. I eventually convinced myself I could not collapse the cylinder, because of the vent pipe.)

What makes you think these videos were posted by Musk? YouTube is full of all sorts of shit.

That article is poorly written. The term “orbital” was devised precisely because electrons in an atom do not have definite orbits. This is due to their wavelike nature or, to put it another way, to the uncertainty principle. On the more general issue of this modelling attempt of yours, I have difficulty seeing what it is for. You initially referred to gravity, but this seems to be some kind of attempt to reproduce the effect of electromagnetic interactions between atoms. Which is it?

You can't get round the solubility of a substance in a given solvent in this way. It is what it is. If this substance is water-soluble, it is likely it has some degree of solubility in an ethanol/propylene glycol mixture, as both are also polar solvents. But the solubility may be a great deal lower- as you have evidently discovered. As for additives, surfactants can sometimes be used to create emulsions, i.e. to suspend rather than dissolve the insoluble material. This is how detergents work to remove grease and oil, for instance, which are not water-soluble. Maybe if you can explain what you are trying to do in more detail, somebody may be able to advise you further.

It seems you are unaware of the principle of induction furnaces: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_furnace

Yes. And warm water is even better. Warm water can help unfreeze freeze water in your pipes. Because it's warm, you see. 🤪

I should think it must be. I would expect this layout, with the oesophagus behind the lungs, to be common to all tetrapods. But I'm not a biologist.

I feel sure the extra sugar in the US is in large part due to the decades-long inculcation of the "coca cola culture" which has, through incessant lifestyle marketing, habituated the US palate to sweetness. Drinking sweet beverages with a meal seems to be normal. In France that would be thought barbaric - and ultimately of course it can be bariatric 😄. I recall a US colleague, on a visit to our Hamburg office, expressing astonishment, almost to the point of panic, that there was no soft drink dispenser. Coffee there was of course, but he seemed to need his coca cola.

Yes it can be confusing. Notice these groups are described as Main Groups, and also that the block in between (often called the d-block) is described as being for the Transition Metals. The "transition" metals were historically viewed as being in the transition from the simpler rules of chemical behaviour of the light elements of the 1st 3 rows to the more complex behaviour of the heavier ones from the 4th row onward. (As with so many things in science, history has a lot to do with how things end up being named.) Nowadays, it is really better to speak of the s-block, for the 1st 2 main groups, the p-block for groups 3-7 and 0, the d-block for the transition metals (and the f-block for the so-called lanthanides and actinides that are usually represented below the d-block.) But over the years there have been many different ways to display the table and also a variety of different numbering systems and naming conventions. So inevitably you will come across a few different ones in your reading. Just keep the shape in your mind: 2 columns of s-block metals on the left, 6 columns of p-block elements on the right, with the metal/non-metal diagonal running obliquely through them like a staircase, and the d- and f- block metals in the middle. The reason for the rather ungainly shape of the table is to do with the order in which electrons build up* in layers within the atom, as one moves through the table from lighter elements to heavier ones. Remember that It is the outer electrons (called the "valence" electrons) that are responsible for the chemical behaviour of the elements. The shape of the outermost layer, and how strongly or weakly bound the electrons in it are, is what determines how the element will behave in chemical reactions. * from the German Aufbauprinzip or building up principle, which explains how the behaviour of the outermost electrons is determined by quantum theory. You will get to that in due course. It's rather cool.