Jump to content

DivideByZero

Senior Members
  • Posts

    85
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DivideByZero

  1. i was correct! it was CaCl2!!! (btw NaCl was not one of the choices)
  2. The freezing point temperatures are correct but I forgot to take in account solubility and ice! Because both Na2CO3 and CaCl2 are very close in that they both produce 3 ions when dissolved and have very close freezing points when comparing in moles, they do not have the same solubility. Solubility of CaCl2 is about 75g/100mL and solubility of Na2CO3 is 30g/100mL therefore I have finally came up with the right solution. I will use CaCl2!!!!!!
  3. Its just that for school i've comparing two universities of my choice. I need to conduct at least 1 interview so im just searching for people. btw I want to study astrophysics, theoretical physics, number theory, and artificial intelligence.
  4. solute = CaCl2 molarity = 20g/10mL = 0.18moles/0.010L = 18M produces 3 moles of particles 3*18M = 54M KfM = (1.86)(54M) = 100.44 Freezing point = -100.44 solute = Na2CO3 molarity = 20g/10mL = 0.19moles/0.010L = 19M produces 3 moles of particles 3*19M = 57M KfM = (1.86)(57M) = 106.02 Freezing point = -106.02 solute = MgSO4 molarity = 20g/10mL = 0.166moles/0.010L = 16.6M produces 2 particles 2*16.6M = 33.2M KfM = (1.86)(33.2M) = 61.75 Freezing point = -61.75 Therefore Na2CO3 has the lowest freezing point!!!!!!!! correct?!? please reply!!
  5. Yeah but I want a first-person source to tell me how life and studies are like at either MIT or Cambridge. ...anyone?
  6. Ah thats interesting! 1 mole of CaCl2 = 110.984g 1 mole of Na2Co3 = 105.987g 1 mole of MgSO4 = 120.366g if I am only given 20g of a solution I have: 20g of CaCl2 = 0.18 moles 20g of Na2Co3 = 0.19 moles 20g of MgSO4 = 0.17 moles Given this data I found that the freezing point of Na2CO3 is -106.02 freezing point of CaCl2 is -100.44 and freezing point of MgSO4 is -61.75 So Am I correct? Will Na2CO3 produce the lowest temperature? Please inform me ASAP (before tomorrow)! By the way, thanks a lot !
  7. Hi, I'm very interested in these two colleges! Is there anyone in this forums who has studied in MIT(USA) or Cambridge(UK) that I can quickly interview? If you or someone you know went or goes to MIT or Cambridge please reply soon!
  8. using only water, ice and one of the substances below, im suppose to lower the temperature of water as much as possible. I was given 10 substances and I have successfully lowered them down to 2 choices. So the substances left for me to choose are: 1. CaCl2 • 2H20 2. Na2Co3 Which substance should I mix with about 10mL of water+ice for it to reach a very low temperature? I know that the more ions the substance has the lower the water's temperature will become. But right now I'm confused between CaCl2•2H20 and Na2Co3. Any help please?
  9. Yeah metaphorical. But also in a sense literal because what is the smallest unit of time? a second? no a millisecond? nanosecond? So far "Atimes" are subjective. I haven't really described them as a physical entity. I only said they have some sort of positive and negative parts. Woah. I was watching the lecture online and the professor explained the gamma thing you're talking about. Thats pretty cool. link to lecture: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8550767253417678390&q=relativity&total=1331&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4 yeah thats true just like the grandmother paradox. I don't believe traveling back in time is possible in the same universe. I believe that there are infinite parallel universes. There is nothing fundamentally wrong in assuming there is a smallest unit of time called "atime" or whatever.
  10. I never said it is possible for a physical entity with mass to travel at or faster than the speed of light. I only explained (or at least meant to explain) what happens to "Atime" particles. Your hands have different relative times. Why should it matter if its due to GR or SR? The point is that time is offset by the tiniest amount. Explain your uncertainty argument; it doesn't make sense. As for what prediction can this make: I haven't thought of that yet. Any ideas? I'll think about it and probably post it later.
  11. "Atime" theory According to Einstein, all people have their own relative time. If I was traveling 0.5c on my ufo orbiting the earth really fast, and my friend on earth was sitting down, our times would vary. Lets say person A is standing next to person B. Person A has a different time than person B (insignificantly small difference, but its still a "difference"). If person A is now holding one end of a rope while person B is holding the other end, their times are still different (plus or minus 0.000000000...............1 seconds). You can think of person A as your left hand and person B as your right hand. Think of the rope as your chest connecting your arms. Thus your left arm has a different relative time than the right arm (even though the time change is insignificant). This can be magnified to fingers having different times, joints, cells, etc... How much can you break up time? Atoms were thought to be the smallest unit of matter. But what is the smallest unit of time? The smallest unit of time is a particle called "Atime" (I made this up...). "Atime" has a positive time subparticle and a negative time subparticle. The positive particle, can be called "positime", goes forwards in time while the negative particle, can be called "negatime", goes backwards in time. When you stay still (relative to the ground), you have more positimes than negatimes. When you travel 0.5c, the number of negatimes increases. Thus time slows down. When you travel 1c (the speed of light), you now have equal number of positimes and negatimes. Thus your time freezes. And when you travel more than 1c, you have more negatimes than positimes. Thus you go back in time. Here is a diagram of what I'm talking about: http://b.imagehost.org/0129/ATIME.jpg So what do you guys think? Could this be an accurate picture of the universe? "Atimes" being the fundamental unit of time? Its a new approach and its reasonable. Thank you for reading, - Nishant Shukla
  12. Thats exactly what I did. That only takes less than a second for my program. What actually takes time in the current program is ordering it.
  13. Cool! Thanks so much for the link I never knew there was such a method. I think you're right, I can make this perform much faster. I'll be working on that soon
  14. There is an array containing 120000 numbers. For me to find the smallest number out of the 120000 numbers I ordered them from lowest to highest. How else could I find the smallest number? Also I'm working on a cool modification on the code where there will be a light green dot on the closest pixel, then a bit darker dot on the 2nd closest pixel, then a more darker green dot on the 3rd closest pixel up to the last pixel. I wonder what the picture would look like in the end...
  15. Sorry for the annoying time. There is a bug for when you only click 2 points. Clicking 3 or more gives accurate results. And also don't interfere during the run time because its running a very long for-loop. The reason it takes so long is because it goes through every single pixel to find all the distances, then it orders all the distances from lowest to highest and displays the lowest. The total run time is less than a minute though.
  16. Hi. I created this Java program where you click around anywhere as many times you want then click calculate. After its done thinking, it will find the pixel closest to all of the places you clicked. I can't really explain it well so please view my applet What do you think of it? I'm a new developer so please critique. I put a map of italy on the background and clicked every city except rome then clicked calculate. And then the closest pixel was very close to rome.
  17. sorry thedarkshade, thanks iNow.
  18. My solution was actually [math]x=i^3[/MATH], [MATH]y=i[/MATH], [MATH]z=i^2[/MATH]. I was hoping this problem would only have one solution (this) but apparently I rushed myself to post this...
  19. But bascule, that thread is about program languages. This thread is about what speakable language should the machine use to communicate with us humans.
  20. ok well heres the next number for those who are stuck: 0, 1, 1/2, 2/3, 3/5...
  21. it would be neat to create an AI that only speaks esperanto at first then teach it english later. lol but too bad im only dreaming.
  22. Yup. Atheist, I think you know the answer. I still don't know why it works...
  23. The few numbers I gave are just enough to find only one solution. If I gave one less number there would be multiple answers. If I gave you one more number the pattern would be almost obvious. Let me tell you one thing now, the limit is a very famous number. Atheist is right about it being irrational. Hope I didn't give too much away.
  24. Let me just give you all a broad hint. the pattern is not [MATH]1/2, 2/3, 3/4, 4/5, 5/6, 6/7, 7/8, 8/9, 9/10[/MATH]
×
×
  • 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.