gib65

Okay, so what I'm looking for is h: h = (constant - P)/pg The liquid isn't moving, so v=0, making the first term zero. Since P, p, and g are the same on either side, that means h will be the same as well. Did I reason right?

Hello, In the diagram below, you have a U shaped container full of water. You have two red objects being dropped into the water at the two tips of the U shaped container. Both objects are equal in all respects (same density, same material, etc.) except for their size (and therefore their mass as well). What happens when they are dropped into the water: do the water levels stay the same as each other or does the larger object push the water level down on its side more than the other side gets pushed down (so they're unequal)? NOTE: This is not a homework assignment - it is school related (a physics course) but I'm just having trouble understanding the concept. Thanks for any help.

Very well said - I wanted to argue something similar, but couldn't do in a succinct way. It's as if we had an equation: universal_constant1 x universal_constant2 = possibility_of_life (oversimplified, I know) If we held possibility_of_life constant, then that would put constraints on universal_constant1 and universal_constant2 such that if one changed, the other would have to change inversely proportionally, make life possible for any possible combination of universal constants. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged That's also an interesting view. It would say that it's not so much that we live in a 'special' universe but in a 'special' time. We so happen to live at a stage in the evolution of the universe when the universal constants have values favorable to life. They may continue to change into the future and take on values that can't support life anymore, and that's the end of our existence.

That may be, if I knew that to begin with, I'd address the problem as one for spiral galaxies more than life. But look: I think you and I are more in agreement than it might at first seem. I'm arguing against those who think the constants, being what they are, is miraculous. Their main defense of this is that nothing nearly as complex as life or spiral galaxies could have evolves from any other combination of constants, for that's the way the problem has always been articulated when I've heard it. So that's what inspired me to write the OP. In addition to Dawkins' multi-universe proposal, I added 1) that perhaps life, or something equally complex/interesting, would evolve from any set of constants, and 2) that perhaps the constants can't be different from what they are, rendering any stupification over the fact that they are what they are unfounded. If 1) is true, then we get what you're arguing - that life really isn't 'special' just because it's complex - but that does require 1) in order to be appreciated. There are some who, for whatever reason, don't want to grant 1). I'm putting this argument forward for them.

I thought I addressed this: I don't see how you could say it's not special. It's incredibly complex and sophisticated. Some would say that if the constants were the slightest bit different' date=' you wouldn't get anything nearly as complex and sophisticated. Nope. Read my OP again. One of my arguments is exactly the opposite of this assumption. Again' date=' you're wrong. I do not assume this, and my OP makes this clear. It's as though you didn't even read it. I'd look at that twice, but I think the complexity and sophistication of life is much more interesting. Again, exactly the kind of argument I made.

I assume what you're talking about is this:

Yes, of course, but the idea is that the constants could have been different. This idea brings into question why we are here. It makes it seem like an amazing coincidence, so amazing that some would like to bring in an intelligent designer. What I'm trying to offer, in addition to Dawkins' multi-universe hypothesis, are reason not to think of it as such an amazing coincidence.

I've been watching youtube videos of Richard Dawkins lately, especially his arguments against Intelligent Design. One in particular is his openness to the possibility of multiple universes to explain the bizaar fact that our universe seems to have been set just right for the possibility of life to have evolved. I'm sure most of you are familiar with this: all the basic constants of the universe - the mass of electrons, the gravitational constant, the speed of light, etc. - are of such precise values that, should they have turned out to be even the slightest bit off, life as we know it in the universe would have been impossible. It is as though the parameters of the universe can be set according to a set of dials - one for the mass of electrons, one for the gravitational constant, one for the speed of light, etc. - and they have been set at very precise values, precisely the ones at which life is possible. It is as though some intelligent designer set them. Richard Dawkin's reply to this is that it is possible that there were a whole multitude of universes that sprung from the Big Bang - or that Big Bangs happen all the time in some meta-universe - and we just so happen to inhabit one that's just right for life to evolve. This makes our existence seem much less miraculous because it fits with the odds. One should never think of winning the lottery as an act of God. Dawkins doesn't really take this theory seriously, but he puts it out there to show that an equally eccentric theory, like Intelligent Design, has at least one contender - so there's no reason to settle on one over the other. Now, what I want to do is offer a couple of accounts of my own. I don't know if they're as powerful as Dawkins' account, but I hope the scientific community here can give me some feedback. I have two accounts to be exact: 1) something interesting happens regardless Maybe it is just the nature of universes - any universe - for there to be a very specific set of conditions under which something interesting or complex happens. It may not be life per se, but something equally interesting and complex nonetheless. Admittedly, I don't know much about how the constants affect the lifespan of the universe, but I'm told that some values won't allow the universe to live passed a few seconds. Well, who's to say that in those universe's, a few seconds isn't enough time for something interesting to happen? Maybe it just so happens that in universes like that, interesting and complex phenomena don't need eons of time before they emerge. But even if I can't argue that, maybe I could argue that there would still be enough possible universes that last for sufficiently long so that finding ourselves in one isn't all that unlikely. Another thing I'm told is that in most universes, you wouldn't get the kinds of things for anything interesting or complex to happen at all. For example, in most universes, all you'd get is electromagnetic waves travelling through space without culminating in anything significant. Well, who's to say that electromagnetic waves travelling through space can't react under very special conditions - conditions so special that it's unlikely that any of us would think of them - in such a way as to give rise to a process through which interesting and complex phenomena occur. After all, we're talking about a universe that we don't, and never will, inhabit. All we have to go on is what we imagine such a universe would be like. Being so unfamiliar with such a universe, we're not really in a position to say what would actually happen. We can predict what would happen, but such predictions would have to be based on our experiences of our own universe, and since our universe is so different from the one in question, such predictions may not be nearly as reliable as we would think. 2) the constants can't be different What if the universal constant couldn't be different from what they are. We don't know why they have the values they have. We don't know what created them, what they're based on, why they came to be - so why should we assume they could have been different? I imagine it's like asking what if gravity pulled in another direction than down. What if it pulled up? To the side? At a 45 degree angle? Or how 'bout asking what if fire wasn't hot? What if it was cold? Room temperature? A million degree (assuming it's an ordinary bon fire)? Well, knowing a thing or two about physics, we know these scenarios are impossible. We know that gravity can only pull down because that's where the bulk of the mass is. We know a regular sized bon fire can only be so hot and no cooler. So it doesn't even make sense to ask what if they were different. Maybe it's the same with the universal constants. Maybe, if we knew what gave rise to them or how they got the values they have, we'd realize it couldn't be any other way. Thus, it wouldn't make sense to suppose that the universe could have been otherwise. What do you think?

Hmm... looks like we have controversy even here. One thing that strikes me as odd is why it would even matter that the scientific community doesn't take these CF advocates seriously. If they really did get the results they claim, couldn't they just start building a technology out of it? Couldn't they produce power cells and sell them on the open market? That would be one hell of a battery! If it really works, it would sell like hot cakes and soon enough there would be one in every household and every retail outlet. Those nay-sayer scientists who deny the result of these CF experiments would be completely bypassed and we'd be brought into a new age of clean renewable energy. Why bother making a documentary to expose the conspiracy?

Check out this video: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=PTBSp1QvCuw&feature=related Is it real science or pseudo-science? It strikes me as paranoid conspiracy theory. It's about a group of scientists who discovered a cheap and easy way to perform cold fusion but the scientific community refuses to believe their results are legitimate.

Oh, I don't know about that

Thanks for the link. Yuck is right!

Hi y'all. I just bought a 60 mL bottle of 5-Hour Energy ®. I'm thinking it's no different than a couple cups of coffee, but I'm going to list the ingredients just to be sure. If there are any bio-chemists out there who can tell me if any of the ingredients other than caffeine contribute to the "energy boost" (directly or indirectly), please point them out: -30mg niacine (as niacinamide) -40mg vitamin B6 (as pyridoxine hydrochloride) -400 mcg folic acid -500 mcg vitamin B12 (as cyanocobalamin) -10 mg sodium -1870 mg "Energy Blend"* -other ingredients** * "Energy Blend" consists of: -citicoline -glucuronolactone -N-acetyl L-tyrosine -L-phenylalanine -taurine -malic acid -caffeine ** "other ingredients" (yes, it literally says that) are: -purified water -natural and artificial flavors -potassium sorbate -sodium benzoate and EDTA (to protect freshness) -sucralose (sorry, it does not specify any amounts for the contents of energy blend or other ingredients)

CP, Thanks for the links... and no, this is not a homework assignment. I'm honestly just curious. vedmecum, Thanks also. I'll have to read all the links later (busy right now) and I'll get back to you about how useful it is.

What are the properties of H2O molecules that allow them to form the unique geometrical patterns that snowflakes take and how is it done?

Thanks YT, I thought for a second there I was going crazy. He claimed he knows for fact that I'm wrong because he works with logic designs for AI systems which are then implemented into computers.

Isn't it true that computers don't read anything but machine code? I'm having an argument with someone about that. He thinks computers don't read machine code except perhaps the BIOS. I've got a degree in computer science and I'm pretty sure I remember learning that the only information that goes through the CPU is instructions written in machine code. I'm right... right?

Hello SFN, I had a question about photons and the information they carry. We call photons "messenger particles" and they carry the electromagnetic force. When an electron emits a photon and it gets absorbed by a proton, the proton is attracted to the electron. We say, in a sort of metaphorical manner of speaking, that the photon carried a message that said "Hey! Look here! I'm an electron. You better be attracted to me." Even though this is just a metaphor, it still leaves me with a question (which I think still needs to be asked even when taken literally): How does the proton know it was an electron that emitted the photon? I mean, in the metaphor, I guess we're supposed to assume the message carries this information. If it were another proton that emitted the photon, the first proton would be repelled, not attracted. This means the information would have to be different. It would tell the first proton that the other particle was another proton, not an electron. But how should this difference in information be interpreted literally? I mean, what is there in the photon that's different if it were emitted by one kind of particle rather than another? Aren't all photons the same (aside from how much energy they carry)? How should the event of the first proton absorbing the photon be understood differently whether it received that photon from an electron or another proton? Is there any physical difference?

Can anyone tell me if this is right? It's based on what little I remember from the course I took in digital design.

Wow, that's interesting. Completely throws my misconceptions for a spin. So then are there any particles in the universe that don't exert gravity (gravitons notwithstanding)?

Yeah, that's exactly what I want to know. So if you took two photons and fired them at the same time in the same direction (say an inch apart) they would eventually pull themselves together under their gravitational influence?

Are photons the only particles that don't exert a gravitational force on other particles?

What prompted primitive man to become bipedal? I mean, what were the environmental pressures that made it necessary to stop swinging from trees and start walking upright? Note I'm not asking what advantage it gave us (freeing our hands to use tools), I'm asking what prompted it.

I remember learning in school about how ROM chips are created. They start out with a uniform grid of wires with fuses at each intersection. Then, depending on how they want the chip to compute incoming data, they blow certain fuses while keeping other fuses intact. Signals cannot pass by the blown fuses making for only certain pathways that lead to the output lines. Does anyone know of any online ROM ship simulators? Something that lets the user manually blow the fuses and set the input and then see what kind of output results?

Right. Technically, IQ can't change. But mental age can. IQ is determined by mental age divided by chronological age. It's as if we were trying to measure the length of something that kept growing over time and so we adjusted the size of our ruler. Thanks for the article john5746.