Leaderboard

Oh yes, I get it now! Thank you! Al2O3+Na2CO3 -->2NaAlO2+CO2

You need to balance the equation. I assume the equation you presented is correct except that there are coefficients missing in the equation \[Al_2O_3 + Na_2CO_3 -->NaAlO_2+CO_2\] there are 2 Na atoms on the left but only one on the right. There are 2 Al atoms on the left but only 1 on the right. Finally there are 6 oxygen atoms on the left and only 4 on the right. Can you see a way to change coefficients on the right to make the number and type of atoms on the left and right equal each other? So for a hydrogen oxygen reaction you would have: \[H_2 + O_2 -->H_2O \] which is not balanced. To balance the reaction put in coefficients: \[2H_2 + O_2 --> 2H_2O\]

I have a solution to all this; How about Hyper reprimends whichever mod locked the thread, then I'll get really stoned over the next weekend and studiot & sensei will be forced to address all the ridiculous crap that comes to my mind for hours in a specially created thread for it.

If the Chicxulub crater is the smoking gun for the impact theory on the KPg extinction event, then these findings from North Dakota by DePalma and his colleagues are one of the ricochets. Here is the abstract - " The most immediate effects of the terminal-Cretaceous Chicxulub impact, essential to understanding the global-scale environmental and biotic collapses that mark the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction, are poorly resolved despite extensive previous work. Here, we help to resolve this by describing a rapidly emplaced, high-energy onshore surge deposit from the terrestrial Hell Creek Formation in Montana. Associated ejecta and a cap of iridium-rich impactite reveal that its emplacement coincided with the Chicxulub event. Acipenseriform fish, densely packed in the deposit, contain ejecta spherules in their gills and were buried by an inland-directed surge that inundated a deeply incised river channel before accretion of the fine-grained impactite. Although this deposit displays all of the physical characteristics of a tsunami runup, the timing (<1 hour postimpact) is instead consistent with the arrival of strong seismic waves from the magnitude Mw ∼10 to 11 earthquake generated by the Chicxulub impact, identifying a seismically coupled seiche inundation as the likely cause. Our findings present high-resolution chronology of the immediate aftereffects of the Chicxulub impact event in the Western Interior, and report an impact-triggered onshore mix of marine and terrestrial sedimentation—potentially a significant advancement for eventually resolving both the complex dynamics of debris ejection and the full nature and extent of biotic disruptions that took place in the first moments postimpact." The full article is available here on PNAS.

People have their own particular way with words and, like in the real world, familiarity brings understanding. Too often, as you are doing here, people are too quick to pass judgement on post presentation and the general conversational style of the forum. It takes time to understand the style and lingo of a hobby or interest forum. Scientists and enthusiasts are generally dispassionately terse and to the point; padding with soft words is not their usual thing.

OK. That’s good. Those have all been answered.

Just over 1 billion cubic miles or 5x1021 litres https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=4%2F3+*+pi+*+(radius+of+Earth+%2B+height+of+Mount+Everest+%2B+22+feet)^3+-+(volume+of+Earth) This is about 3 times the volume of water on Earth: "The total volume of water on Earth is estimated at 1.386 billion km³ (333 million cubic miles)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_distribution_on_Earth So your magic fountains would have to summon up two thirds of that As you say, that much water would cause massive effects. From this we can conclude that the "Great Flood" covered approximately 0% of the Earth's surface. Which helps enormously, because then it is entirely possible for natural causes to explain it. Quite possibly, the regular floods of the Tigris and Euphrates in the area where the story originated. These would have been devastating to the local populations and was probably one of the drivers behind Babylonian astronomy and mathematics. Don't you dare. Thank goodness for that.

This isn't even something a person could be skeptical about. What people usually define as miraculous isn't testable or repeatable ("God cured my aunt's cancer"), or it can be easily explained by natural means ("My toast has the face of Jesus"). Miracles are inherently supernatural, so science can't even consider them phenomena. Something else is ALWAYS at work, something natural and explainable. And btw, any time you find yourself saying "without any doubt", you probably aren't doing science.

Each element on the right hand side should always add up to the same as the left hand side, so look at each element in all the compounds on the left hand side and add them up together, then see if you have any elements left to add to the right hand side. It might be easier to see what's going on written like this: Al2O3 + Na2CO3 -> NaAlO2 + CO2 PCl5 + KNO2 -> NOCl + POCl3 + KCl

I think Dawkins also discusses the logical fallacy known as a strawman. Perhaps follow-up by reading that section

You know what’s a disappointing tale? The fact that this dead horse is still being beaten after 3 pages of discussion. It’s an Internet forum, people. Perspective please.

What part of the response was lacking in courtesy? Was it the "best of luck" part?

The rainfall would be about 384,000 inches of rain in 40 days. That is simply the height of mt Everest above sea level. That would be a per day average of about 8,700 inches of rain. This would probably require that you empty your rain gauge every day! If you want to make 1/2 of the water come from the fountains of the deep you of course would only need 4,350 inches of rain a day. If you want to know the volume of that water just calculate the volume of the earth (r=3958.5) - the volume of the sphere equal to the height of mt Everest (r=3964.0) Edit: I do not know why religious people try to use science to 'prove' religious stories. It does not work - period. This is religion we are talking about (ferchrisake!) use God to make it work, like this. God made the excess water appear in the form of rain and stuff and then he made all the excess water disappear after the flood. Problem solved....

Questions to ask before that: Was there an actual person corresponding to the Jesus in the Bible? Did the miracles actually happen? (I have read one good analysis suggesting they could be extended metaphors* for the ideas behind the new religion ) * “parables” was the word I was looking for

they have more money than love

Think from the history of science about gravity. At the end of the 16 th century the telescope was invented in Europe. In the 17th century Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and others, the age of celestial observation developed rapidly. In 1543, Copernicus advocated the theory of revolution in "About the rotation of the earth". But yet the times were before the dawn of science, the church did not admit the theory of the theory. Kepler announced Kepler's law in 1609 "Astronomia nova ", the next year Galileo will publish "Sidereus Nunciu". In nearly a century from Copernicus, the pressure of the church could not suppress the quest for inquiry. There, in 1637, Descartes appeared, introducing 'Discours de la méthode'. It was an epoch-making idea of seeing phenomena in the natural world in relation to things and things. The idea of revolutionizing the church 's authoritarianism, metaphysical nature' s perspective from the ground up shone. The era will push forward to the scientific revolution at once. Descartes' Mechanism thought was accepted by astronomers and scientific noblemen of those days. Astronomical observations were performed vigorously, but since the telescope was not on the market as it is now, astronomers had only to assemble themselves. It was the first step towards observation of astronomical observation that self-made telescope which can be seen well. Galileo built a telescope about twenty times as much as I made himself and made astronomical observations. In the observation of Galileo, the orbit of the planet was thought to be drawing a circle almost. It seems that Galileo thought that the planet was operating under the support of a stick. When Kepler calculated the orbit of Mars, it turned out to draw an ellipse instead of a circle. Kepler also thought that the planet was at the top of the polyhedron at the beginning, and it was moving with certain rules. It is different from the image that spinning around the sun as it is now. Kepler clearly handled gravity and repulsion when the two planets moved. However, when this becomes Newton, the repulsion disappears somewhere. Newton's gravitation was two groundbreaking discoveries: gravity equally acts in all places, gravity is a force proportional to the quantity of things. But the former had no grounds. Applying the ground attraction to the moon trajectory calculation, it was only by chance that close numbers were obtained. Gravity acts equally in all places, the influence of God Newton has believed is great. It was reasoning from Kepler's law that gravity is proportional to the quantity of things. It is said that this will produce gravity later on. Newton seems to have known the gravity idea by exchanging letters with Hook. It is pointed out that the idea is stolen from Hook. Newton announces the universal gravitation is criticized by German Leibniz. This was due to the controversial interest of the integral method, but Newton's attraction is a remote effect that is transmitted instantaneously, contradicting the Descartes methodology at the time, meaning the introduction of the power of God. The power that is transmitted instantaneously without intervention was an unacceptable idea at that time. This criticism leads further to Kant. Kant describes the formation of the universe in the "Philosophische Bibliothek", but criticizes Newton's universal gravitation which is told only by attraction in a theory which later becomes the theory of nebula. If it is only gravitation, the universe will become one chunk. He pointed out the drawback of universal gravitation as repulsive force is not a distant force. For Kant, gravity and repulsion occupied the same position in the universe. Perhaps it was considered common sense of philosophers and astronomers in the first half of the 18th and 17th centuries. In the early nineteenth century, Hegel wrote that criticism of Kant 's Newton in' Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften im Grundrisse 'was due to Kant' s lack of understanding. In the era of Hegel, the repulsive force had already disappeared from the universe. It was the experiment that Cavendish did in 1798 that erased the repulsive force. The experiment of Cavendish was to weigh the earth, but it was assumed that the mass would produce gravity. The force with which 700 grams and 160 kg of lead balls attracted was measured with a torsion balance. As a result, the weight of the earth was set to 5.4 times the specific gravity of water. This was later used to determine the gravitational constant. The experiment of Cavendish is said to have proved that mass produces gravity. He strongly affirmed Newton's universal gravitation. Because Hegel knew this experiment, he probably criticized Kant. Even without knowing, common sense of the world might have changed. Prior to the creation of electromagnetism in the 19th century Newton's universal gravitation was common sense. The gravity of the earth and the universe are the same, the mass produces gravity, these two are embedded in the root of modern science. In the nineteenth century was also the century in which geoscience rapidly developed from geology. Lyel, a foundation from Sir Kelvin to Wegener of Continental Movement Theory was created. In the 19th century, a great experimenter Faraday appears. Faraday was a bookbinding craftworker, but he began to engage in scientific research as an experimental assistant at the Royal Society. Because he did not receive higher education, almost no mathematical formula came out in the paper written by Faraday. But Faraday laid the foundation for current electromagnetism, including electromagnetic induction. Maxwell was the mathematical expression of the achievements of Faraday's experiments. The difference in age between Maxwell and Faraday is 40 years old. When Faraday is 64 years old, Maxwell 24 years old formulated Faraday's electric lines of force for the first time. However, this mathematical electric line of force was quite different from the image of Faraday. Faraday's electric lines of force were images of the power that plus and minus force exerts straightforward power. Maxwell, however, had positive and negative lines of force containing the effect of neutralizing each other halfway. In other words, Faraday's electric lines of force act separately on objects as plus and minus, and the resultant forces inside the object appear as a result, but Maxwell neutralizes the lines of electric force and adds and subtracts them I tried to do it. For the resultant force in the object, it may be because the mathematical formula becomes complicated. It is the same reason Newton eliminated the repulsive force. Actually, Maxwell was doing the task of sorting experiment notes of Cavendish at that time. Whether Cavendish's experiment was told from Maxwell to Faraday is unknown. But Faraday suddenly begins gravity experiment after meeting Maxwell. The aim was to drop the specially made coil from top to bottom and ascertain the existence of the current that should be making gravity. Faraday realized that gravity is electromagnetic force. Lead used in the experiment of Cavendish was diamagnetic. Paramagnetic materials such as iron and diamagnetic substances have properties that they can bounce magnetic field lines when placed in a magnetic field. Also, if the S pole of the magnet is brought closer to it, it is magnetized to the same S pole. It has properties opposite to those of paramagnetic substances. Faraday discovered that lead is diamagnetic. Perhaps when I learned about the experiment of Cavendish, did not Faraday notice the effect of lead placed in the earth's magnetic field? In this experiment I felt that a strong electromagnetic force of 10 ^ 40 of gravity is acting. The experiment of Cavendish is wrong, the mass does not produce gravity. Faraday tried to prove by gravitational force that the gravity is electromagnetism many times, but it eventually failed. But "This is the end of my present attempt, the result is negative. These results do not shake my strong premonition that there is a relationship between gravity and electricity, but that We have not given any evidence that such relationship exists. " The current Faraday tried to detect existed. At the present time, very weak current called atmospheric current has been discovered. Atmospheric current is only 1 picoamperes per square meter. It is a weak current that can not be detected by instruments at that time. Faraday's premonition was not wrong. Let's summarize the main points. There are three unproven laws mixed in the foundation that made the present science. 1. The ground attraction and the universe's gravity are the same (elimination of repulsive force) 2. Mass produces gravity 3. Neutralize electric flux lines These three are complicatedly intertwined and continue to exert a huge influence on physics and earth science. From 1 and 2, the theory of relativity was born. Current mainstream Big Bang cosmology is under its influence. The experiment of Cavendish 2 is the foundation of earth science as it is. The electric line of force 3 made Bohr's atomic model, and it gave birth to quantum mechanics. Modern science is established on Newton's mistake, Maxwell's misunderstanding

Ooooh now the incomplete sarcasms come out. Lol. To whom it concerns: I've been posting random questions, maybe half dozen a year, if that, on forums since 2002ish. It is almost always the same toxic culture of bad debate skills. Even when I'm not asking for a debate. I've not seen anywhere that an internet forum is translated or defined as "be a cyber punkass". I'm so sorry if you're lonely but realize not everyone is looking to engage with toxic behavior. If anyone knows of an online source that has calculated a days (24 hours) heavy rainfall volume, across the globe, I'd like to reference that, even if you're the calculator. I would think the calculation could employ a record rainfall figure, as in heaviest volumes ever dumped over any area and then applied globally. Thanks!

Can everyone who is not helping the way I asked just stop commenting please? I appreciate the chit chat, like over a beer and smoke, but I'm not into online debating. I'm in Western CO if you'd like to meet up for in person discussion. I asked for calculations or references to completed calculations of the amount of water from two sources, the rain and the subterranean flow upward, to flood the current world's surface to about 22' over the highest elevation.