Leaderboard

Good question...not knowing the actual answer I did some googling.... https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/space-bacteria-survival-years-astrobiology#:~:text=Clumps of bacteria survived for,trip between Earth and Mars. "Clumps of bacteria survived for three years on the outer surface of the International Space Station, pictured here. They were shielded from the hazards of space by only themselves. New research suggests such clumps might be able to survive a trip between Earth and Mars". and this..... https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-discover-exposed-bacteria-can-survive-space-years-180975660/ and some interested information..... https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/mar/18/new-bacteria-lurking-on-iss-no-space-oddity-says-scientist "Four species of bacteria – three of them previously unknown to science – have been discovered onboard the International Space Station (ISS), begging questions about how they got there, and how they have managed to survive."

Sorry, that makes no sense. In a chemical explosion, the energy comes from the rearrangement of the molecular bonds. The difference in bond energies between the starting and resulting compounds is expressed as an increase of kinetic energy of the resulting compounds. These bonds involve the outer electrons of the atoms E=mc^2 would only come in if you were to very carefully measure the mass of the bomb before detonating, and were able to contain all of the resulting bomb material, let it cool back to the initial bomb's temp and then measure it ( and only it). Then you would notice a very, very slight decrease in mass. For acetylene, the difference works out to be in the range of 1 x 10^10 grams per gram you started with. E= mc^2 tells you how much energy you can get if all of m is converted to energy. But with chemical explosions, m( the mass converted to energy) is minuscule compared to M, (the total mass of the explosive) It is so small, that it is, for all practical purposes, immeasurable. You need a nuclear reaction, dealing with the bonds holding the nucleus itself together to get measurable changes between before and after masses.

I'm an older person. I've never used the word mass to mean volume. A lot of my friends and former work colleagues are older people. I've never once heard any of them use the word mass to mean volume. Most of the people I learned from were really "older people", so old that most of them are now dead. None of them ever used the word mass to mean volume. I wonder if this is just an artifact of the fact that most of them were educated.

I think that is more of a goal than a requirement. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-the-myth-of-maximizing-shareholder-value/2014/02/11/00cdfb14-9336-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html

Shell: Anglo-Dutch, but with a large and semi-autonomous US arm. But I have in mind not only Shell itself but the companies we used to do business with, either as suppliers to us or as our customers, or as manufacturers whose machines used our products: I was exposed to all three in the course of my career, many of them American companies. There were some, usually smaller, who you could perhaps characterise as cynical and driven only by short term profit, but most of the larger ones took a much more nuanced approach to their business.

Not older people who prize accuracy and clarity. You may as well be claiming that everyone here is wrong for not acknowledging that modern day computers are human. It’s absurd, really. None of your meandering reply did anything whatsoever to address the entirely valid criticisms of your point, but at least you’re consistent in your wrongness. Mass doesn’t change based on temperature. It may change forms or get displaced from the original quantity, but it doesn’t change. Suggesting otherwise makes you look foolish, as does digging in your heels when repeatedly corrected. End program.

Speaking as someone who worked for an oil major for over thirty years, including a short spell in the US, I find this unduly cynical - or a bit naive. My experience is that while major corporations certainly are driven by the bottom line, as they should be for the sake of their shareholders, it is not that simple. A major issue for companies like mine was the long term reputation of the brand, which was seen as essential to secure a "license to operate" from society - and thus protect long term profitability. There was also considerable pride in the standards of the company, in such matters as product quality, engineering and above all safety. (The safety culture was extremely tough: people could be - and were - sacked for not switching off their mobile phones when driving, for example. Being at work in one of the oil refineries was, famously, considerably safer than being at home!) So it is a bit glib and superficial to claim that the profit motive drives towards unsafe products and working conditions. It may in some companies, but not in well-run ones. On taxation you are right, of course. No company will pay more tax than the law requires and multinationals do jump around to find the lowest tax rates. But this is driven by governments competing to offer the lowest rates, in order to attract business. This is an argument in favour of countries agreeing to stop this practice and start to harmonise corporate tax rates - as I gather Biden is now proposing, in a modest way.

Ok, seems like I've fallen into a few newbie traps... sorry to be so predictable folks 🙄 So, I take it my 'lightbulb moment' is already an established (and presumably much better described) idea? I'll go check out Krauss' quantum foam see how it compares to what I have in mind - any other reading suggestions I may find helpful?

"Woodworking Extreme Edition #1"

The definition of density is Mass/Volume. Your statements are very confused. I was being sarcastic about knowing people in the aerospace field, and having contributed to stealth. But sure enough, you took the bait, and went off on another scatter-brained tangent.

In that context I would like to add that the civil rights protests were at that time, considered unlawful. Moreover, there were also peaceful protests, but also many violent clashes. For example after a police officer shot an African American Soldier on leave during WWII, outraged African American groups protested and it resulted in significant property damage and altercations. During the 60s (i.e. during the civil right movements) there were many waves of violent and non-violent protests. The common denominator is basically the protests were in response to injustice (e.g. not being allowed to enter certain stores, murder of black folks by police and so on). There is a big difference between those clashes instigate by either white or black folks, though and I would be careful to draw an equality here. The race riots in the Jim Crow era were dominantly instigated by white mobs and were often accompanied by lynchings and violent overthrow of governance. Some of the most famous once are the Tulsa race riots of 1921 (or massacre) where white folks, many of which deputized attacked and destroyed a whole district where more affluent African Americans lived. Death tolls are not known but estimates range into the hundreds. During the Wilmington insurrection in 1898 we saw a case where we saw insurrectionists overthrowing the biracial city government again with estimated hundreds of deaths. So the riots incited by the white groups were aimed at destroying affluence and influence gained by black folks and basically crippling their ability to participated in the democratic system. The recent capitol insurrection was less lethal but followed a similar pattern. In fact the violence was not a byproduct of protests, it was the very means to reach their goals. In contrast, the riots occurring during the civil rights period in the 60s were borne from protests (both violent and nonviolent) were borne out of protests against oppression and/or unequal treatment and the violence itself was not the endgame (for the most part). One specific tactic employed by Dr. King in Selma was to incite violence against them in order to create public support that could be used by the White House to pass the bill, which was politically problematic to pass otherwise. However, in modern times the violence against peaceful protesters and journalists(!) have been quickly dismissed by showing the damages caused by certain subgroups of the movement. As such, it does appear that civil-rights type of protests might actually not be terribly effective anymore.

I have no doubt that Pelosi gives the benefit of the doubt and the "most favorable interpretation" to her friends and colleagues. I mean, I do it too. But I also believe that approach is near universal and generally expected amongst nearly everyone. On the other hand it wouldn't surprise me to learn that in private Pelosi spoke much differently to Waters on the comment she made. What this boils down to is that it seems to me that in this case, Pelosi's response fell within the norm and is deserving of no more derision than of every single Republican congressman who responded similarly to Pelosi, but of course on the other side of the coin. How is their collective condemnation any worse than the collective support of the Democrats? In my mind people show their true colors not when they speak out in support of their own regarding issues where the meaning behind one's words are open to interpretation, but when they choose to go against their own when it is clear their own have crossed the line. How did Pelosi and Democrats respond when fellow Democrat Al Franken was accused of sexual misconduct? Al Franken was forced to resign with the condemnation of his own party. And how did Republicans respond when Trump was accused of sexual misconduct? They dismissed his activities as locker room talk and helped elect him President. I'm sure I can be less than 100% equitable, but to me Pelosi was within normal behavior on this one, and the Democrats in general rise head and shoulders above the Republicans.

Beyond this, it gets rather more complicated when we consider them indoctrinating their children or legislating and putting laws in place motivated by said beliefs. Some might consider it “parenting” and instilling values, while others might see it as a form of abuse and harmful to our collective future.

I'm with and for what you said in your last sentence. Religion/belief in any form of ID/creator is more a buffer against the evidenced backed, non caring, indifferent universe we inhabit, and the facts that when we are dead, we are dead. Some, probably most people see that as an uncomfortable disturbing fact, and need an answer or scenario, that over rides that complete indifference of the universe and the finality of death. People are entitled to fabricate any scenario that can give them that warm inner, fuzzy feeling of comfort. That's their choice. It's when they start railing against science on forums such as this, that will have me personally objecting. The Dawkin's and Krauss' of this world, are in reality explaining the science and scientific methodology, against the continued questioning of science, for those amongst us that prefer evidenced backed reality, rather then fabricated myth.

There used to be a lot of information about Antimony and how it expanded upon cooling right near the melting point. It does some wild color change too. Today on the net, I cannot find much. But regardless if you stated that you knew those other gentlemen and noted some of your finds and matched my reality to some extent or introduced new information, I would be highly impressed. There is no such thing as stealth if you use passive devices that read the ambient background radiation and look for blocks to the ambient radiation. Stealth might work on goat herders but would not work against an equal or superior adversary. Radar works by raising the voltage on the plane's surface, the air in particular in contact with it, turning it into a transmitter. It becomes an air capacitor charged to a point the dielectric breaks down on the surface like lightning is formed on a rain cloud surface and reciprocates with a burst of high voltage. If you have ever listened to the radio during a lightning storm, you know you see the light hear the crackle on the radio, and later hear the thunder. By keeping the plane's surface abundant with particles of electricity constantly, the effect is greatly diminished. Benjamin Franklin created the solution to this by using three fireplace balls to create an open-air transistor. He tied one fireplace ball to a ground rod in the ground, the next fireplace ball to an air capacitor charged with an air capacitor to about 30,000 volts, and the third to a copper wire that sat on his hillside home's roof. He was able to stave off the lightning from reaching the grounded ball with this setup. Until he drained the center ball connected to the copper plate air capacitor suspended from the wooden beams of his basement ceiling by fine silk strands. He could turn the lightning on and off by charging and discharging his gate. By maintaining a certain abundance of particles of electricity around the plane, there is no ARC-like reciprocation from the air touching a plane's surface. Only electricity stops electricity, and only electricity stops radar. Some prototype stealth reconnaissance planes had fine Tungsten wire built into the composite skins. The Russians can hear us coming a long way off with their ultrasonic equipment. Now with drones, they will set up listening stations to give early warnings. So it will come down to jamming and taking out millions of drones. Or a couple of EMP weapons. We used drones against Germany. Most metals follow a linear or curved rate of expansion upon heating. As they expand density measured by volume/mass to weight changes, they become less dense per cubic, whatever increment you want to use to measure the cube. Atoms move apart from one another when heated; the atoms vibrate more slowly between cycles, if only because of the distance between them. If you have hit a cold and then a yellow hot piece of metal with a hammer, you know what I am saying. It sounds like a broken bell; when it is yellow hot, you get a thud. Antimony, in my world, water, Bismuth, and perhaps some other radioactive elements and silicon as well have a point that this reverses; the chart is no longer linear or a curve; it has a jagged area over a certain temperature range. They get denser as they get hotter; they shrink as they get hotter so you can get more into a cubic whatever. The same is true with water; the water at 32 degrees Fahrenheit is less dense than at 40 degrees Fahrenheit water.

I try not to use mass as I know mass as volume. I think in terms of volume, specific gravity, adjusted for temperature. Or density adjusted for temperature.