Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science

Recent Profile Visitors

1141 profile views

RiceAWay's Achievements


Meson (3/13)



  1. You would need the advice of a real expert on this. Normal carbon is not magnetic. Fullerenes are as far as I can remember. And these are a manufactured form of carbon that has a permanent electric charge and so they would be weakly magnetic.
  2. We know what X does and so we can describe its effects on other things. But that does NOT define things like "gravity" or "electric charge". What IS it that makes an electron negative or a positron positively charged? These are fundamental laws we cannot explain other than in terms of what they do. And so you're close to the truth when you say that we know nothing about nothing at its base.
  3. The recoil of a man's weapon is absorbed by the spinal column and supporting muscle tissue. What "missing" KE are you talking about? As I said, the man could absorb and dissipate all of the energy and virtually none of the insignificant mass of the 300 grain bullet or the powder (energy) to drive it at about 3000 feet per second initial speed. Are you suggesting that if a man standing on the equator shoots the same gun due east true that the Earth slows? I'm sure that there are plenty of people here that want some of what you're smoking.
  4. Don't you think that trying to use science as best we can is a long way from declaring it the endall of being? After all, these days I find a very large percentage of people graduating with degrees in some sort of science calling religion "voodoo" or much worse. And yet a large percentage of these people cannot answer even very simple questions about their own major. This is why some 80% of college graduate never get a job in their major.
  5. Kelp only grow in particular areas and at depths no more than about 10 meter or so. This is a TINY portion of the Earth's oceanic areas. What's more - kelp farming would completely destroy the ecosystems of the area in which it doesn't naturally grow.
  6. I have vast experience with human memory being erased by being struck quick hard on the head. No - because each memory is contained several times in different areas of the brain having to do with the relevance to each subject. Lucky for me.
  7. I think that you have offended those here who consider themselves scientists and that a scientist can be nothing more than a atheist. Too bad that in place of God they put themselves and ever correcting theories up as proof of their own Gods. I can think of NO theories that have been shown to be correct in Science save Einstein and what he did was to show that God set ultimate limits. Though don't say that to the Trekkies.
  8. Should I use words of less than three syllables? 1. The CLIMATE is so long term that it would take 100 years to tell what is happening. Because this warming trend STARTED in 1886 we KNOW that it wasn't because of man. We also know that WEATHER is variable. We also know that for the last 4,000 years at least that we have had these warm periods totally without the assistance of man. We ALSO know that the earlier one's appear by geologic record to be greater than this one we are presently in. 2. So you are denying the NASA stance that the increase in CO2 is the CAUSE of global warming? http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ That's not very scientific of you. By the way - take two bottles. Fill one with pure CO2 and another with pure O2 put them under a heat lamp and act as if it doesn't mean anything when the O2 one is warmer. 3. So something you mumble about "relative humidity" proves your point? Gotcha. In fact the NASA paper SAYS that this is the most important "greenhouse gas". Let's see, all of the evidence shows that the rise in CO2 began on the PERFECTLY normal 800 years mark from the last warming period. But for some reason or another none of the "AGW" papers ever get around to mentioning that. We see that the warming period this time has occurred almost on the millennial mark as did the others. BUT IT IS MAN-MADE. Gotcha. 4. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/09/10/why-the-northwest-passage-probably-wont-be-ready-for-shipping-any-time-soon/?utm_term=.82c2e7950de5 Curses, foiled yet again. I guess you don't have to resort to countering all of my previous facts. You and your brilliant facebook friends can just yell - YOU DUMB. Don't get funny. Scientists in PAPERS most of which were never even referred to by the public articles used the terms properly since the studies began in 1985 or so. But the media NEVER used climate change and had glaring headlines of Anthropogenic Global Warming. After the term was so badly disgraced by Dr. Mann who so blatantly made end of the world predictions with his "Hockey Stick Curve" and then investigators using emails between the team showed that they had modified data to make it FIT the theory instead of retracting his paper. Dr. Mann's response was "I didn't do it - it was those other guys." So more and more the media used the term climate change FOR global warming.
  9. It is beginning to look to me as if we're arguing around in circles. I think that perhaps I could have done a better job of explaining my position and perhaps you could have started from a position in which you would be trying to understand rather than criticize which would have given you an easier time understanding me. The atmosphere in general has almost perfect conductance of visible light. The one problem is clouds in the upper atmosphere that reflect the greater portion of the light back out into space. The OTHER case is the Rayleigh scattering which is EFFECTIVELY a block on blue light of a specific frequency. This not only gives the sky it's sky-blue hue but reflects a portion of this light out into space. So to us, the sky looks blue and from outer space it has exactly the same color where stratospheric clouds do not reflect the entire wave band of visible light. So Earth receives only a portion of blue light despite the atmosphere not absorbing any of it. Remember that Rayleigh scattering either eventually allows half of that light to get to the ground or to be reflected back out into space. Regarding these stratospheric clouds (my theory) - in all probability that is what leads to Ice Ages. These warm periods gradually melt off the ice and expand the oceans. This in turn does two things: it allows the mountains to WARM so that the airflow over them from the trade winds, which forms gradually more and more Stratospheric clouds. The Earth's atmosphere is one HELL of a large place and building up enough humidity to form large amounts of high cloud layers takes a long time - on the order of 120,000 years. During this time the warm periods continue to melt off the ices despite the fact that the average mean temperature of the globe is dropping. As the humidity gets high enough because the ice has melted off and the enlarging oceans give enough water surface area, the clouds form an almost impenetrable barrier. Most of the Sun's energy is reflected back out into space and nearer the surface the humidity changes to practically nothing cutting off future cloud formation. Eventually this completely clears the skies of clouds. And then the Earth's humidity has to reform. Though his happens relatively rapidly - on the order of 20,000 years - to begin the cycle all over again. There is NO point in this cycle that's been occurring for at least 400,000 years that the Earth's climate is anything faintly "normal" or unmoving. The panic stricken headlines designed to do one thing - to hand ever increasing power to governments - accomplishes nothing whatsoever. As I point out - warming CANNOT continue unabated because it is self defeating.
  10. Better be careful. These "science forum" people are trained to follow one another from their first days in college. If you confront them with their biases they might "unfriend" you on Facebook.
  11. I will wait UNTIL you have some facts and reason to present other than "Oh you're wrong." Amund made a Northwest passage in the early 1900's and saying that it has become easier lately means NOTHING. http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/07/20/global-warming-expedition-stopped-in-its-tracks-by-arctic-sea-ice/ http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/01/01/clitantic-ship-scientists-trapped-in-ice-claim-expanding-sea-ice-caused-by-global-warming-but-data-and-studies-refute-claims/ https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
  12. Everyone else has done a good job of explaining the theory behind this but the practice is rather more complex. You see the height of the barrel is a problem. As the siphon begins emptying the barrel there is a very small head and consequently the flow of the barrel fluid is high. At the barrel begins emptying rapidly but as the barrel empties the barrel "head" increases the pressure necessary to hold the same barrel fluid flow for the same mix of water and fluid. There are several ways of correcting for this. 1. You can always empty and entire barrel at a time and set the initial siphon rate so that the higher initial flow and the lower final flow ends up with the correct mix at the end. 2. Another way is to use an expandable membrane in the siphon so that the greater pressure required to lift the barrel fluid at a known mixture rate reduces the size of the venturi thereby generating a greater draw (reducing the Bernoulli pressure more). With the constant initial pressure this has the effect of reducing flow of the water and increasing flow of the fluid. 3. And the most common method is to have a fluid that simply isn't effected strongly by the admittedly pretty small difference in mixture ratios. In an automobile when they were using carburetors the venturi pressure was extremely sensitive to mixture ratios and the design of the float chamber was such that it minimized these effects - not from head since the float chamber was filled via a pump, but from g-forces accelerating and braking and cornering.An automobile carburetor was quite a complex mechanical computer.
  13. Excuse me but are you a Trekkie? They will NEVER "cure" aging. And they will NEVER "cure" dying. They presently are researching a manner of turning SOME cells into younger versions of themselves so that they exude hormones at the rate of younger cells. This does not mean that these cells do not age at the usual rate. Man will NEVER "move into space". Rather than go into a subject so deep I'll leave it at man is not designed to live on other planets or there would be lifeforms ON those other planets already. The energy load alone be much greater than they could generate to sustain life even on Mars. A property of man is that he only reproduces for fun at this date in time. And it isn't any fun getting up four times a night to feed the baby and change his diaper. And women do not want to have their uterus expanded to 10 times it's normal size. Why do you suppose they soundproof the delivery rooms in hospitals? An "easy delivery" means the glass is only shattered once.
  14. We are in total agreement. But the question is "what is gravity" in particular. And to that we have no answer.
  15. Look at DrP's answer just above your comments. The added energy is immeasurably small or the man could not hold the weapon's recoil. How strong do you believe the human spine to be?
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.