exchemist

Oh, now I see with the second photo that there are two tubes protruding through the ground glass joint. And it is the shorter one that is connected to what I took to be the syphon tube. And indeed the U bend is too high for the syphoning action to work unless the liquid rises through the joint. It's very odd.

As you may or may not realise, we have actually been to the moon, and have orbited numerous spacecraft around it. So we know its diameter is nothing like what you say it is.

I admire your generosity. I think your first line is the understatement of the month!

I remember reading about this and find it highly ingenious and persuasive. It also has the beautiful paradox of entropy maximisation being the engine that drives the growth in order implicit in living organisms. Apart from its inherent appeal, it's a great one to tease creationists with! But it's all gone a bit quiet - at least, I have not seen any more articles developing the idea. I had wondered whether it had been shot down, on some grounds or other.

Isn't this the Jeremy England hypothesis?

Could well be a Soxhlet extractor, yes indeed! I had not spotted, in the photo, that there is a glass tube extending beyond the upper ground glass joint. This could be the syphon tube for a thimble, to be attached via the joint. I had also thought there was no opening between the long tube and the top of the condenser, but looking again it seems there may be one. I'm not sure why there would be a spiral in the return tube from the syphon, though. Any idea?

To give a less mathematical response, it is the latter. For a QM entity to be in an exact place with an exact momentum is just not something that is even defined, in QM. The uncertainty is intrinsic to nature. From reading Carlo Rovelli's "Helgoland", it seems the "relational interpretation" of QM in effect denies that a QM entity even has any properties on a continuous basis. According to this view, all properties become manifest only in the course of interactions involving the QM system in question. In between interactions, it is not necessary to assume that it has any properties at all. The wave function (when the QM operator for a property is applied to it) tells you what range of values of the property the system may manifest when it interacts. Tying properties to interactions gets rid of the tiresome issue of "the observer", which has led all sorts of people astray over the years, even sometimes to the extent of speculating that QM gives a special place to conscious observers. This last is something that has spawned an entire industry of quantum woo (Deepak Chopra et.al.). But, on the contrary, any "observation" necessarily requires an interaction. It is the interaction that counts, not an act of observation. The further implication of this is that what we call "reality" is made up of the interactions going on all the time between QM entities. Which is not as crazy as it sounds. After all, something only provides evidence that it exists when it interacts with something else. Classically, we interpolate between interactions by assuming that objects possess properties with defined values all the time, in a continuous manner. But in QM it seems the only thing that unambiguously persists is the wave function, which represents the potential properties exhibited when an interaction "collapses" it. This, at least is my understanding. I find it elegant, as it seems to resolve a number of the paradoxes that QM throws up.

...as opposed to an experiment conducted somewhere else? Here, I've got an axiom for you, now: Brontosauruses are thin at one end, thicker in the middle and thin at the other end. Ha!

Because of your nonsensical posts, that suggest to me some kind of psychiatric disorder. Just look at your opening post. A Tesla turbine (metal rotating discs, propelled by steam, for power generation) has nothing at all to do with a rotating magnetic field in space. And why does doing it in vacuum, or under zero gravity, make any difference to a field? And why, in the name of God, do you think that a rapidly rotating magnetic field would break apart "the material world"? Or why would it create a "whole hole" (whatever that is) and lead to a "previous, next" [?? make your mind up] block of the universe. It's incoherent garbage, from start to finish.

I think you should probably see a doctor. But thanks for introducing me to the Tesla turbine:something I did not know about.

That’s really interesting. What experiments did you do and what did you discover? Perhaps you should start a new thread, though, since it would be a new topic.

Nope, all it means is you are double counting the k.e. Relativistic mass has fallen into disfavour nowadays, as it is not seen as very helpful. You are inadvertently illustrating why. The full version of the mass-energy relation, for bodies in motion relative to the observer measuring their energy, is E² = (mc²)² +p²c², in which p is the momentum. For objects at rest, p=0 and this reduces to the well-known E=mc². (For a photon, which has zero rest mass, it reduces to E=pc, thus accounting for why photons still have momentum in spite of no rest mass.) As I understand it - others better qualified can jump in - relativistic mass is the "fudge" you have to apply if you want to carry on using E=mc² even though the object is moving (which, if you are being rigorous, you should not really be doing). In effect it is just reconverting the k.e. back into its mass equivalent. In other words you either have a 4kg rest mass object with an additional k.e. of c², or you have an object with a relativistic mass of 5kg.

Er yes I put that link in my post....😃 But tell me, does CRC or anyone else maintain an on-line version of the Rubber Book? It seems like an obvious thing to put into a web-accessible database.

If you had read the Nature article, you would not need to ask me.

Aha! I suppose that makes sense, when one thinks about what happens during reflection. Thanks for the correction. This problem is fun! But I must break off, as I am going to watch Carlo Rovellis' Oxford webinar on this history and philosophy of science....

Actually I have more or less persuaded myself that the phase change on reflection is irrelevant, after all. If one is just measuring the change in path length between one peak (or trough) and the next, it doesn't seem to matter: the phase shift simply turns what would otherwise have been peaks into troughs and vice versa, but without altering their spacing relative to one another.

Nature's article supporting Biden was exceptional and due solely to Trump's egregious disparagement of science and encouragement of anti-science viewpoints, as was made clear at the time. So it looks to me as if you've got cause and effect the wrong way round here.

Yes the dissociation constants are known for thousands of acidic compounds. OK I won't say google them, but the fact is you need to look them up somewhere. When I was doing this sort of thing back in the day, we used what was known as the "Rubber Book", a huge telephone directory size book that sat on the bookshelf in every chemical laboratory. Details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRC_Handbook_of_Chemistry_and_Physics I have no doubt that similar compendia of this data exist in on-line form. Checking briefly on-line just now, it looks as though most of the tables one finds actually still reference the Rubber Book. Re temperature dependence, I gave a formula for how equilibrium constants depend on temperature, in an earlier post: ΔG = -RTlnK. The snag, as @John Cuthberpoints out, is you need to know ΔG for the reaction in question, which means looking up the relevant thermodynamic data for the reaction. You will find this ......in the Rubber Book.

You are still using the wrong formula for k.e. Do you bother to read the replies to your threads? Why do you not check it? The second term should not be +mc², but -mc². That's MINUS. I've highlighted it for you in red. That way, when v = 0, k.e. = 0 which makes sense. Rework your maths using the correct formula and see what you get.

What about the π phase shift of the reflected wave. Have you taken that into consideration when working out where the maxima and minima will be?

You are still using a wrong sign in the formula for relativistic k.e. In your formula, if you set v to zero, you get a kinetic energy of 2mc², which is an obvious nonsense. This has already been pointed out to you. If you fix that, you have a chance of making sense, at least.

If you use a wrong formula, you can expect to get a nonsensical outcome. As @Ghideon is gently hinting, that is what you have done here.

I see. I'm not sure how bringing it here helps, if your antagonists are on Twitter, but that's your affair I suppose.

Don't we already know that epigenetics partially rehabilitates some of Lamarck's ideas even though in a very limited way)? What is new here?

...by which you mean you didn't get an infection, I suppose.