exchemist

GDP is not "buying power". But, apart from these random assertions about economic rankings, what is it you wish to discuss?

How can you be "back" if this is your first post? I don't believe for a moment you are pitching this nonsense to investors next Friday, by the way.

What has that to do with the origin of these two missiles?

Different picture this morning. Seems the trajectory puts it in doubt that the missiles came from Russia, though they may be Russian-made. Could be Ukrainian missiles, attempting to shoot down the Russian ones, that went off course. Even if they did originate from Russia, it is very unlikely this would be deliberate escalation. Far more probable it was guidance error or something. Everyone should keep calm.

It's a long time since I did these, but I suspect the key is the equilibrium constant for the dissociation of the acid. NaOH is a strong base so it will mop up essentially all the H+ it can react with, leaving you with a lot more A- than H+. So that will tell you how much extra A- you have, and you know how much H+ there is from the pH at the end. So by plugging these into the formula for the equilibrium constant, I think you have enough information to construct an equation to solve for the unknown, don't you? But I admit I have not yet got out pen and paper and tried.

Where have you got to before you get stuck?

In fact, is it not the case that the time-independent version of Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation, of the type appropriate to standing waves? I presume that would have been the first application of it (H𝚿 = E𝚿), back in the 1920s, as I think Schrödinger originally applied himself to the question of an electron in a bound state in an atom. If so, it would have been in its original form a special case kind of wave equation. When the time dependence was added to make it more general, that would have been the point at which it became a diffusion equation.

There is almost no land higher than 45 deg south of the equator, apart from Antarctica. Just the tip of S America.

You have a point, I think. As I recall, Schrödinger's equation is not a true wave equation because it only has a single rather than double derivative with respect to time. I think I remember Peter Atkins telling us it is more properly a diffusion equation, rather than a strict wave equation. He went on say, rather enigmatically, that it might be thought more appropriate for a description of the behaviour of matter to be governed by a diffusion equation.............

What corrects individual biases is reliance on collective perception, rather than that of individuals. That is why science relies on reproducible observation rather than individual anecdote. Your next sentence, about elements of the human condition, seems to be a non-sequitur. It is not clear how that relates to anything that either you or I have mentioned up to this point. As for what more an intellectual can ask for, the answer is a coherent idea, clearly expressed and supported by evidence. As others have already pointed out on this thread, you have yet to come forward with anything like that. Referring us off-site to a book is not acceptable here. You need to lay out your ideas here on the forum where we can all see them and discuss them. But I have to reiterate that basing something on a concept like astrology that is well known to be pseudoscience, is not a promising start. This link evaluates astrology against the criteria for science and shows why it is not science but pseudocience: https://www.learnreligions.com/astrology-is-astrology-a-pseudoscience-4079973. I realise you have posted in the Philosophy section but this is a science forum and readers here are unlikely to give credence to ideas that fly in the face of science, even in philosophy.

Somewhat. The UK recommended max. weekly consumption for men is 14 units, a unit being 10g of alcohol. What you describe is 2.7units/day which is a bit over this. I have a particular interest in this as I have a tendency to a heart arrhythmia (A Fib) and so I need to manage my alcohol intake, which I control to ~12 units/week. It is also advisable to ensure you have several days per week when you do not drink alcohol. This gives your liver and other organs a chance to recover from its effects. My practice is to consume 3-3.5 units per night, on Friday Saturday and Sunday (i.e. 1 bottle usually French wine), and then no alcohol Mon-Thur, except sometimes one mid week beer (2 units). Having some nights when you have no alcohol are also beneficial as you tend to get better quality sleep.

We all have biases, sure. However that is not to say that any nonsensical idea can be put forward to account for them. Astrology, in particular, is demonstrably bunk.

If it's based on astrology, that's all we need to know: it is guaranteed to be crap.

Energy efficiency is not generally the goal of particle and quantum physicists, surely? Or do you mean those occupied with fusion research?

"Fussion" isn't a word. Do you mean fission or fusion? If you mean fusion, then I doubt it will make a contribution for another 30 years at least. But its long term potential is such that it justifies the current level of expenditure.

This made me burst out laughing, it is so crassly ignorant and incompetent. The laziness of pretending to be local and neighbourly, without even bothering to have a German sign off promotions referencing the local culture, is breathtaking. Some computer in the US seems to have been allowed to do it, unchecked, based on a calendar of anniversaries.

"times" = "multiplied by".

Indeed. The orange-red in the video looks like neon, specifically. But obviously videos may not represent colours accurately.

Good luck.

If you don't know what they are, from where do you get the information that they are used to generate ozone? The video (which is very poor quality) seems to show a reddish glow. However ozone production by photolysis requires UV. So something doesn't seem to stack up here. If the ozone information is wrong, then the red glow suggests to me it could be a neon discharge tube of some sort.

No. The uncertainty principle comes from QM, not relativity, and relates to non-commuting operators or, in the wave formalism, to certain pairs of properties being related to each other through Fourier transforms, whereby increasing precision in one leads to loss of precision in the other. QM is applied to physical systems - objects, if you like - rather than to spacetime.

I don't know the first thing about this program, but it sounds to me as if it may use some sort of method of iterative approximation that converges towards a final value. If that is so it may be programmed to stop iterating when the difference between successive iterations falls below a preset level, or something. Could that makes sense?

Yes, so I discover.

Rotons go very well with "p"s, I find.

Well it's multiple choice, so all you need do is choose an answer that seems sensible. What % of the enzyme is bound to the substrate at the Km value? You should know this from the definition of Km. So then you can ask yourself whether the actual concentration of substrate is higher or lower than this - and choose an appropriate answer accordingly. (At least, that is how it seems to me. Being a chemist, I didn't know what Km was, so I've had to to look it up. But I think I could now choose the correct answer.)