Leaderboard

These forums rely on a threaded discussion structure. When you start arbitrarily pulling out threads, the entire garment falls apart. Or, in this case, the discussion stops making sense. Conversation has PersonA, then PersonB responds, and PersonA replies, and PersonC jumps in, then PersonB posts, and PersonA replies. This keeps going on and on for days, often weeks or even months. Deleting PersonA leaves that "conversation" looking like "PersonB no context, PersonC no context, PersonB no context." Why does this need explaining? When creating a membership, you agree to certain rules. Also, you post voluntarily. If you're bothered by inability to delete later, then don't post. Problem solved. The volunteer staff here are not in place to help you try to revise your post history because at some point later on you suddenly decide you don't like it.

They gave it up when they joined the site. From section 5 of the rules everyone agrees to: “By posting content on ScienceForums.net, you agree to grant ScienceForums.net usage rights to that content within the confines of the site, and other members the right to quote and respond to that content”

I wonder if the next dominant lifeform on Earth will evolve from plastic eating bacteria... 🤔 😉 The most enlightened mind would describe it thusly...

It's totally fair (and I believe often times important) to push back sometimes on some rules. That's okay. Here, though... It's like we're co-authors on a book. You write some chapters. I write some chapters. Our friends write some other chapters, and we stitch them all together and send them off for publication. The book goes out. People read it. Reference it. Share it. Come back and read it again later, sometimes. Now, if several years later you say, "I want my sections of the book removed," then all of that goes away... and since you mentioned fairness earlier in another post, one might argue that THIS is truly the unfair approach.... to take your part the story away and subtract your previous contributions to the book and all while countless others are still reading it.

I think you do, because it's been explained fairly well, and you're smart. Paintings rarely need other paintings to give them context and meaning, so no. In our case, individual pieces (posts, messages) are combined into a topic discussion (thread). Ideally, this creates something more than it's parts, so we can view a meaningful conversation as an emergent property of online forum discussion. It's not about the individual contributions, but without them there's no chance of discovering new meaning by talking with reasonable people. We need the discussion to be intact if we're to learn from it. Does that make sense? Fair? I think you're looking at this as if someone put something they owned down somewhere, and when they changed their mind and went to pick it up again, someone else tells them they aren't allowed to pick it up again and have to just leave it there. But that's not what's happening here. Putting down your thoughts is expected of everyone here, it's a science discussion forum.

Oh, this is a bad analogy on so many levels... It's more like: Somebody owns a wall. Everybody's free to write on the wall, but the wall is not yours. The rules are: You may paint on it if you want, but we reserve the right to keep anything we want. Because you can't be bothered with reading the rules, you write on the wall, and then regret what you wrote. Finally, you whine about your writing not being removed. Whether your name is Van Gogh or Van Morrison is irrelevant. Also, the arguments by Phi and iNow, which give you a practical reason that makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?

A lot of Republican leaders are going around ringing the alarm of " If The FBI can do this to Trump, they can do it you!" Of course, the the FBI could already have done this to the average citizen. That's not what bother them. It's that if they could do it to Trump, they could do it to them! They see it as an erosion of the protective shield created by being rich and powerful. It removes the power behind the words, "Do you know who I am?"

In recent days I have done a few experiments measuring the current of water as it goes up from 9 volts up to 36 volts, and following Ohms law to convert it to resistance. And I discovered a very interesting trend. In between 9 and 18 volts, there is a massive drop in resistance (by around a 40% reduction) but then as I go up to 27 volts, its a 5% reduction, and is even less of a reduction when reaching 36 volts. I've done this experiment a few times and this has continued to happen. This is it visualised on a graph; I am curious to know why this happens, why there seems to be a reduction as I go from 9 to 18 volts, yet the reduction seems to reduce at 27 volts and reduce further at 36. Is there a reason that? And as I go further up the voltages (don't want to test with higher), does this continue with the reduction in resistance continuously reducing, and if not at what voltage does it change? Specifically am asking why this is happening and what happens when the voltage gets higher. I kinda want to know what resistance can I expect at around 240 volts In the following video, a YouTuber does this experiment through a plastic pipe and tested AC through water (and also did DC in another video) and the results other than the early voltages (which lends credence to my theory about it being calculations) is quite linear and approximately ohmic. I did calculations based on his readings and got these results. Does this mean water is mostly ohmic whenever a current goes through it and if the probes were close together would it be the same level of ohmicness? How much does the electrochemistry reduce the resistance?

+1 for having a go, but realising the safety implications of higher voltages. A few points about you results. You are calculating resistance, whereas it is more usual to use conductance with liquids. Yes this is just the reciprocal of resistance but standard tables of values are all in conductances or conductivities. Do you understand the correspondence between resistance and resistivity v conductance and conductivity ? Also you have not put units to you 'resistances' I have multiplied my conductances in this graph by 10,000. By the way Desmos.com/calculator is a useful free simple online graphing tool. Looking at my graph which has only plotted the points, you are not justified in drawing the two straight lines as you have wiht only 4 points. The graph 'turns over' to become asymptotic to somewhere around 4.5 conductance units. Two other notes about your setup. Yes there is an ohmic aspect to conductivity of water. As the voltage and therefore the current rises some ohmic heating will inevitably occur raising the water temperature. This is the basis for certain types of water heater. The conductivity or resistivity of water, both pure and contianing impurities (eg tap water) is quite heavily temperature dependent.

The DoJ released a 36 page filing late last night which included this photo of classified documents found in Donald Trump’s office at Mar-a-Lago. Some of these documents were actually found in his desk . The filing discloses that the June subpoena for the return of documents which Trump ignored was a Grand jury subpoena that was part of an ongoing criminal investigation into the theft of documents from NARA. The filing also seems to imply that Trump and his staff moved and hid heavily classified documents from his own lawyers, who subsequently signed an affidavit to the DoJ officials asserting that they had searched the storage location, and that all classified material had been returned. This would appear to be felony obstruction of justice and concealment of evidence - a 20 year sentence.

The relativistic formulation of quantum mechanics respects all the usual laws of SR, so there can be no physical interaction (as in: exchange of information) if the events are not within or on each other’s light cones. There can, however, be a correlation between measurements that are space-like separated, as is the case with quantum entanglement. What swansont did yesterday can very well affect your state of affairs today - but not vice versa. So this isn’t a mutual “interaction” as such, but rather a one-way causal influence. Just be careful with the term “event” - in relativity, this term has a very specific meaning, being a point in space at a single instant in time. It doesn’t mean an occurrence with temporal extension, such as a car accident.

(My emphasis.) Oxford Learner's Dictionary: I wouldn't call it 'cruel.' Composing a bad song is not cruel. Publishing a bad song is not cruel. Keeping copies of it is not cruel. OTOH, forcing you to listen to it over and over can be cruel. But that's not what's happening here. It happens to me every single day.

Yes, it's exactly like that. Except Google employees are paid, unlike our staff. And nobody has had any personal information or photos exposed, also no video was involved. Oh, and most of the information in the posts was self-published and is available elsewhere for free, so removing it from our threads doesn't do anything. But yeah, other than those things, it's like what you said Google says.

We in the UK are still suffering the effects of the extreme right wing rubbish that caused the low level civil war between two sections of our public sector in the 1970s/ 1980s. This has seriously adverse effects to this day in a way that America and Poland are not suffering.

What your proposal seeks to do is increase the contact area between brine and the lower couple of hundred feet of the atmosphere in order for it to approach equilibrium at 100% RH more rapidly. My point is that nature already does this quite effectively. The missing step is getting heat into the system. This is required to both increase the water holding capacity of the airstream and reduce its density sufficiently to allow it to rise. The amount of heat the sun is putting into the ocean to try and do this is measured in Terawatts. And in the cases we have mentioned that isn't enough to overcome the local conditions which are dominated by cold ocean currents. How many TW do you propose adding to this equation? Have you ever heard the phrase 'latent heat of vapourisation'? Have you any idea what it means?

Maybe thats why they all came to Manchester.

Ok thanks for the heads up, I was hoping for someone with a higher IQ than myself who is more qualified to take the discussion forward, however, I will attempt to explain the concept in more detail.

As a resident of one of those 'African countries close to the equator' I've got to ask why you pick this example? Do you see the equatorial belt as being more at threat due to climate change than Europe or the US? I was under the impression that the greatest impacts were likely to be felt in the higher latitudes.

"AI is not the answer to every problem" But I think we can agree that catalysts can prove to be very useful? "As a resident of one of those 'African countries close to the equator I've got to ask why you pick this example. " I seem to recall that Lucy (Australopithecus) was also African as well?