big314mp

It is a nonsensical statement, I agree. But accepted theory has no choice but to agree with it, because there was never any work done.

Accepted physics agrees with the idea that electrons in orbitals do not do work.

This has no bearing on what accepted physics says about other things doing work.

I lift a 10kg weight by 1 meter, and I will do ~100J of work. Stop being so thick. You used that example yourself.

KClO4 + heat + sugar is also really cool. It should be done in a fume hood.

H2SO4 + sugar is also pretty cool.

That means for all of time there has never been, and never will be any power?

This is a nonsensical statement.

Anyhow, generalizing from atomic orbitals is ridiculous, and I think you are aware of that. You yourself have provided examples of power in other threads. I seem to recall something about weightlifters.

You have the right idea, but you should just use (x+2) instead of 2x. If you use 2x, you are assuming that both boxes weigh the same, when in fact one weighs 2kg and the other is unknown.

Remember that the normal force is the force perpendicular to the surface.

When an object is sitting on the ground, this force is the weight (since that force goes perpendicular to the surface) of the object.

Now what if I push an object against a wall? The force that I apply will be perpendicular to the wall, and the force of my push will be the normal force, not the object's weight.

In your case, you have a window washer, pushing an object against a window. But he isn't pushing the object perpendicular to the window. However, one of the components of the force he applies is perpendicular to the window. The other, of course, is parallel to the window.

You will have two variables, so you will need two equations, btw.

The premise that I am using here is that if some immigrant came and offered to mow your lawn 3x a month instead of 2x, the other lawn guy would be would be out of a job. Since an increased unemployment rate is not observed in states with high immigration, the above scenario must not be happening.

Maybe the other lawn care guy had to take a job at McDonald's, and as a result, faces reduced wages. But can you really argue that we should protect him like that?

Yes, customs and immigration is more serious these days, but as posted earlier in the thread, we allow in more people each year than any other country on the planet.

 

They already are more welcome than on any other planet on Earth, and more workers is only a good thing if unfilled jobs are actually available. Is there demand that is not being met? I don't know. Do you? Let's see some numbers. All I see at the moment are assumptions.

It is silly to think assume that since we let in more people than anyone else, that the border policy is open.

Consider: Why would the illegal immigrants show up in the first place if there wasn't demand for workers?

I'm getting together some numbers/reports/info ATM, and will post them here later.

http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=PB&pubid=491

This is a good one. On the whole, it suggests that immigrants bolster the economy by filling demand for workers and by paying taxes. On the flip side, it suggests that wages are pulled down some for native workers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/10/AR2006081001711.html

This one suggests that overall, immigration does not hurt US unemployment levels, but does have an effect on unskilled native laborers.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE7DD1F3AF937A25755C0A964958260&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

This one suggests that the previous one was wrong about the negative impact on unskilled laborers.

The only thing I can think of is that the MOSFET isn't getting proper gate voltage, as it appears like it isn't opening the channel fully (i.e. the linear region of the transistor).

That's a pretty poor explanation, so I think someone else who knows more than me needs to help you out on this one.

Sorry

(called a cluster, can't remember the specific name)

The local group?

So since the total volume of the atoms is less than the total volume of the sphere, what is it that causes the pressure to increase, the volume of the atoms increasing and the number of atoms remaining the same; the volume of the atoms staying the same and the number of atoms increasing; or atoms divide and grow??

This above demonstrates a complete lack of understanding as to what pressure is.

Pressure is a force exerted by atoms hitting the sides of a container. The atoms hit harder (i.e. the temperature goes up so they move faster) and the pressure rises.

when going in reverse. Keep going in reverse for eternity.

Except the solar system hasn't existed for eternity.

The earth moving slightly away can be explained. A blob of gas levitating off of the sun can't.

End of story.

Those boiling points are at 1 bar pressure. I doubt that for example the core of the earth is at 1 bar. Even if a large part of the earth would evaporate, I'd expect it to stay attracted to the earth. Then you get some kind of gaseous stone atmosphere... My point is that this atmosphere will create a pressure high enough to prevent the remainder from boiling.

 

My point (above) is regardless of heat transfer. But indeed, the heat transfer through a whole atmosphere and several (hundreds of) kilometers of rock will be slow on a human life time scale... Planets have a different time scale though, so if mother earth agrees with us I don't know.

As to the heat transfer, that is a very valid point.

On the other one (I'm talking out of my a$$ here, so correct me as needed), the sun could pull the atmosphere off of the earth as it vaporized, sort of like the star orbiting the black hole scenario. Or, perhaps the solar wind could blow the atmosphere away, which is something I've heard proposed for why the smaller inner planets lack an atmosphere.

So I take it the volume of the atoms is less than the volume of the sphere? Is that correct?

 

So if the sun has a specific mass, and it is losing mass as it transfers energy to other bodies, that means the acceleration of the Earth due to gravity should be getting weaker, because the sun is losing mass, and the Earth is not 100% efficient to that loss, correct?

The first bit is correct. That is the nature of a gas.

As to the second bit. It is technically correct. I would also be very surprised if astronomers were able to measure that difference.

If this is leading to a "well if the earth is moving away now, it must have started from the sun" argument, I'm going to head that off now:

As we run the "video" backwards, the sun becomes more massive, drawing the earth very slightly closer. Then the earth doesn't get any closer. Why? Because the sun has reached its maximum mass, and then we are back at the protoplanetary disc.

On the minimum wage point:

I have to wonder how many of these jobs aren't doomed, since countries such as china and india don't have a minimum wage. This automatically makes their workers more competitive than ours. I'm thinking that the only minimum wage jobs that will remain, are those that can't be outsourced (lawn care, construction, etc).

On the immigrations point:

Customs and Immigration is notoriously hard to get through these days. It took my cousin quite a while to get a student visa to get his graduate degree here. Even for educated people, it is very difficult to get through, even if you have a place to stay, proof that you aren't taking anyone's job, a good reason to come to the US, and a citizen family to vouch for you (and said citizens need a plainly obvious reason to vouch for you also).

IMO, if the economy can get back on its feet, then immigrants should be more than welcome. This only works if they are legal, and therefore pay taxes. More workers to fill jobs is never a bad thing.

And to address one last point:

Some american citizens will always be unemployed. It is unreasonable to say that we should employ all americans before we give jobs to immigrants. IMO, give immigrants a reasonable path to citizenship, and then let them compete with everyone else.

The volume of the sphere remains unchanged. Is the volume of atoms equal to the volume of the sphere?

No.

But is the total volume of all the atoms at any moment in time equal to the total volume of all the atoms a duration later?

Technically no, as the sun is converting mass into energy, the mass in the sphere would slowly drop.

The atoms don't get bigger as you are implying though. They just move faster, and therefore hit the walls harder, which creates greater force on the walls, which is known as increased pressure.

Also, how much chemistry have you had, or can you find some knowledgeable person to supervise you?

My chem and physics teachers always kept an eye on me as I made stuff go bang

That is exactly what was needed.

Remember that the normal force is perpendicular to the surface (in this case the window).

There is also a force moving the sponge upwards.

These two forces come from the force applied by the window washer (think vector components), and they exist in a constant ratio with each other (do the trig to find the ratio).

Remember that the sponge is moving up.

You can dissolve a soluble lead compound in water, and then add some of the liquid. If the liquid has sulfate in it, the lead will precipitate as a bright yellow powder.

"n" means a straight chain alkane (it stands for "normal").

Think about why a tertiary carbon goes through SN1, then go back and consider what is different between a tertiary carbon group and a "normal" carbon group.

Is the actual frequency important?

If not, a neon sign transformer may work, or perhaps a flyback transformer (although you would need several of the latter to meet your power needs).

Something doesn't seem entirely right with this question...

My chem prof (gen chem) spring quarter last year was absolutely awful. Couldn't teach worth a damn. Didn't know anything about the class material. Blatantly plagiarized the textbook and wikipedia for notes. He actually was on probation for recycling tests also, but that's another story.

Anyhow, the second longest question on the test was about grignard reactions. Which is something that had never even been mentioned in class before.

The question literally started out like this:

"The 1912 Nobel prize in chemistry was awarded for discovering the following set of reactions. See what you can make of them."

The static force of friction is equal to the normal force (the force perpendicular to the surface) times the coefficient of friction.

Hint: Break your forces into vectors.

It depends more on whether the total number of jobs increases or not. If immigrant A comes and displaces citizen B from his job, then we haven't changed anything (actually, we added an unemployed person).

However, if immigrant A comes and gets a job, and citizen B also keeps his job, then we have real progress, as we now have another taxpayer, and another person to (hopefully) buy a house to help soak up the excess supply in the housing market.

I read something a while back (as in before this mess) that suggested that the latter scenario was far more common. I don't know how (or if) that would change in the current economic situation.

The earth is attracted to the sun. If there were no attraction between the earth and the sun, then the earth would not stay in orbit. Imagine a ball on a string. If you swing the ball around in the air, it goes (more or less) in a circle. The string represents gravity, and you would represent the sun. Should there be no gravitational attraction (say, we cut the string), the ball (earth) flies off in a straight line.

Laugh out loud at the coincidences of life:-p