DeoxyRiboRobert

Though it's obvious that the blue particle is the opposite charge from the gray line and the same charge as the red particle, perhaps add a notation to show their charge? There're two scenarios that would give the effect described in the field diagram. Scenario 1: The red charge is positive, the blue charge is positive and the gray line is negative. Scenario 2: The red charge is negative, the blue charge is negative and the gray line is positive. Also, there's a very minor graphical issue, the electric field acts beyond the gray line: https://gyazo.com/619ff9861c89b9bf9aa09d30195c12e3 You could also show the field lines acting from the charged objects. Or show that the magnitude of Force applied to the blue particle changes inversely proportionate to the distance squared between the blue particle and the other charged object (the gray line or the red particle) by making mock acceleration, velocity or force values for the blue ball.

When you coat something in black paint you prevent it from reflecting visible light, whereas white materials reflect the light. This causes the black material to heat up faster, since the light absorbed by the black material must be dissipated in some form, which is heat. Here's a useful website with a nice graphic that I used today to explain something similar, perhaps it's of some use to you: http://www.gcsescience.com/pen10-matt-black.htm

To those whom it may concern, do not bother to try and tackle Dubbelosix's comments with the hopes of getting a response, as he has been banned a few hours ago. I was under the impression that the De-Broglie can theoretically apply to all particles regardless of their respective mass? Or are you saying that it is unlikely we'd witness any such wave-like behaviour unless the particle is massive? See equation: y (Lambda) = h (Planck's constant) / mv (momentum), mass is a variable however there is seemingly no limit, except of course it must be greater than zero.

From what I'm aware blue light will obstruct melatonin production in your brain, preventing you from sleeping (Source). According to the study I linked people do result in having a low level of melatonin after exposure to large amounts of blue light as opposed to those without. If you miss out on sleep then you have an increased chance of suffering heart attacks or a number of different problems. I don't have the knowledge to contest the specific points you said about circadian rhythms Therefore you could argue that large amounts of blue light could indirectly negatively impact health due to an absence of sleep?

Hi there, I'll be answering your question(s) in components so please bear with me. Whilst I understand your frustration as I'm sure the education system is far from perfect, you have to sometimes see things from the perspective of the professors, lecturers or teachers that assign you your work. Though you yourself might be confident that you know the course you're currently taking or the skill being taught like the back of your hand, you must see that the teacher wouldn't inherently have this knowledge, as a result they may assign you many papers or essays to complete so that they may figure it out. Or perhaps they already know you're very good at the course, however, they may require physical evidence in the form of essays to confirm to people that don't know you (i,e independently marked exams) in order to justify your marks. Also, just by the way, in what country are you sitting these exams? I ask this since in Scotland we are a bit more relaxed with regards to the number of papers being assigned. Though I'm sure people in the 1860s would love to make our Lives difficult for us, it isn't quite why English class is as uniquely complicated as it is. you have to keep in mind that English is a skill, which is very different from courses like Physics and Biology which often have right or wrong answers. In English, you are often bereft of concepts like objectively correct arguments (unless statistics are involved). The exercises that I performed in my Higher English class (A levels in Scotland) were intended to show your ability in critical analysis (interpretive reading, like determining tone or intention), creative (writing a compelling story) or discursive (examining a subject or event) writing as well as essay writing (summarizing books in essay formats under timed conditions). These did various things and were intended to measure your skills in English. Although my exams were structured so that if you sucked at creative writing and failed that part of the course if you did exceedingly well in either critical analysis or discursive writing you could actually pass with if you did exceedingly well in either critical analysis or discursive writing you could actually pass with decent or extremely good grades. It is unfortunate for people like yourself (and I totally understand as I had gone through similar dilemmas during my English course) who might be more analytically minded than creatively. It's very difficult to give you an analysis of your current predicament within your school since you've omitted what country the exams you're sitting are taking place in. My advice nevertheless is to either find an alternative that works to give you the path or to grit your teeth and deal with it. Life is unfortunately unforgiving for people pursuing STEM fields since so few go into them. Keep in mind that we're all quite nice people here and are happy to give help (not to be confused with "Do for you" ) with work in most subjects if you need it, just be specific. Good luck! - Robert.

I'm not entirely sure what question you're asking but I think that you may wish to consider what the objective of the study is. For example, if someone is interested in determining the quantity of glucose produced per minute or the maximum able to be produced by an organism, then it's often best to perform experiments to determine this in-vivo since there're limiting factors that are difficult to replicate in a lab environment. However, this is not applicable to every situation/organism. it may also be cheaper to perform the experiment in in-vitro which is always more enticing.

Due to the inverse square law for distance being applicable to gravity. The centre of the black hole is the point of greatest mass, therefore the greatest gravitational field. The event horizon is defined as the area at which light cannot escape. The bigger the black hole, the bigger the event horizon. If a singularity were to appear all of a sudden at the event horizon, the gravitational field of the singularity would actually extend the area in which light cannot escape. This therefore prevents the concept of a singularity being the event horizon. To be honest it doesn't have to be a singularity for this statement, it just has to be matter compressed to such a degree that it has a swarchzchild radius. Where are you getting this definition of "information"

Why are you so hell bent on calling mass and energy, "information"?

Fair enough I guess, it's a very area-orientated thing. I don't personally have any solar panels so I am not able to give any personal experiences from Scottish models. But yeah nevertheless thank Einstein for Nuclear, else we'd have lights out.

Mutations can be beneficial to the environment and numerous examples are available online. For example, here's probably the best example of a mutation causing a benefit in Phenotype allowing for better survivability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution In the event you aren't totally interested in reading a wikipedia article for an hour to understand what's trying to state I'll abbreviate it as best I can: There was an area wherein there was lots of Lichen (Green-moss looking thing) and lots of photosynthetic (therefore green) trees. This environment was primarily green, therefore moths as close to the green colour of trees and lichen had the best ability to survive, and therefore went on to reproduce and survive. However, this changed when rapid industrialisation appeared causing the Lichen and other photosynthetic plants to die from the pollution. Therefore there's no longer this green environment for the moth to camo itself with. Through mutations a black variation of this previously grey-green moth was produced and it had a vastly superior chance of surviving in an environment where (due to pollution) things were black. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria - Nylonase production is a result of a bacterial cell which allowed bacteria to effectively live in a pond near a factory that used nylon in it's product. This is a form of a beneficial mutation. Or here's one on an London underground mosquito http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20160323-the-unique-mosquito-that-lives-in-the-london-underground

Solar does still generate electricity at night, just not as much as during the day. (moonlight)

You do realise I'm talking about massive amounts of natural selection compiled with mutations causing evolution to the extent of a chimp-like creature becoming human. (E,g common ancestor between humans and apes) not just simply "he who survives breeds" logic that you're pointing out.

The last time I checked, DNA is far from evidence for intelligent design. All it takes is for a bacterial cell to form once in the millions of galaxies in our solar system for there to be the possibility of evolution to cause them to form complicated life forms after a few million years. By the way, I'd like to share this letter to you from Albert Einstein on the subject of god, he wasn't quite as "Pro-intelligent design" as you seem to be suggesting. The scientists you quote are clearly not referencing the same kind of intelligent design I think that you are. Most of them viewed God as just simply, the natural laws of the universe and by that extent, the universe itself.

I think that the vast majority of confusion around whether Science is or isn't a religion stems entirely from the lack of scientific literacy in modern society and the inability for people to either access or understand scientific studies or receive an education within science. It's incredibly obvious to people like myself that science is clearly not a religion, it's a form of deriving the truth wherein we use the scientific method to differentiate the aforementioned truth from falsehoods. So when we take a look at things like Evolution, they can sound completely crazy and wild to people who lack a fundamentally basic understanding of animal Biology. For us, the concept of amino acids being deleted, inserted or replaced causing in changes to an organism's genetic makeup to then put it into the filter of natural selection for millions of years resulting in us eventually, is quite understandable. Whereas to someone who doesn't understand this process, it can sound magical and almost religious. This also applies to other methods of science but I don't particularly have the knowledge to comment on them. In essence I would recommend people to try and read through scientific literature without any biases and i think they'll understand how far science is from any kind of religion.

Actually after looking through some more research it seems that Solar is actually significantly cheaper than Nuclear in certain conditions. My only major concern was it's availability, I thought that Solar energy for countries like mine (Scotland) would have to transport energy from other areas, however after looking at that it turns out to simply not be as big of a concern as one would think. The only genuine concern I can find is the variation (Source of Graph) in solar production as opposed to Nuclear. As you mentioned previously, Nuclear can't just simply be "Turned off". This pretty much encapsulates my general notion towards Nuclear power, it's constant. No matter as to what season it is, nuclear power is simply more constant. So on that note, I'll happily concede that Solar is cheaper on average than Nuclear, thanks for pointing that out.

I'll redo all these calculations later with the correct values, I genuinely suck at maths. 31536000 seconds per year (60x60 = 3600, 3600x24 = 86400) (86400 x 365 = 31536000)

"That's not expensive". Expensive is quite relative. The reason I said expensive is because it's just a blanket figure of how much it costs to produce that energy, not how much it would cost to the consumer, it's still twice the price of Nuclear.I'll go into more detail of as to the problems of Solar when I have some more time to respond, so probably lunch.

Turns out I suck at both English and Mathematics. Here's what I wanted to say: There're 1.57x1017 Seconds in a year, since there're 4 years for every leap year we'll have to add 1.08x1014 ( (5x109 /4) x 86400 ), therefore the answer is 1.57108x10^17

Well... In terms of energy: The sun's energy output is approximately 3.8x1026 joules per second and the sun plans on lasting approximately 5 billion years before turning into a red giant, so let's ignore everything that will kill the earth and pretend that capitalism in the form of the US Dollar will continue to live on throughout the Galaxy outside of our planet's death. There're 1.57x1017 Seconds in a year, since there're 4 years for every leap year we'll have to add ( (5x109 /4) x 86400 ) = 1.08x1014 Therefore 1.50108x1017 x 3.8x1026 = 5.704104x1043 in pure Joules. Now if we were somehow physically capable of obtaining this energy then it'd simply be a case of multiplying the joules by the current rate of Kilo-watt-hours. Although... A Nuclear reactor's turbines are only approximately 38-44% efficient. This means that if we were to somehow develop turbines capable of being placed around the sun, and the water to be evaporated then... At worst:( 5.704104x1043 x 12) x 0.38 = 2.601071424x1044 $ At best: ( 5.704104x1043 x 12) x 0.44 = 3.01166912x1044 $ (I'm a biologist not a mathematician nor physicist please don't hurt me because of these wildly hypothetical calculations)

I would say congestion is mostly the only issue solved by flying cars.Since obviously it's easier to drive around in an area as a drone would than a car tied to the ground. The only major thing I think we could actually achieve is the whole "No accidents" part, What about self-driving cars, they are a thing apparently?: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/28/google-self-driving-car-how-does-it-work

not to mention that all it takes is an idiot on his phone to result in a miniature plane flying into a skyscraper.

(for this response I've changed "Create no Pollution " to "Cause no ecological harm" since it's easier to tackle that way, and fairer) "1) Cause no ecological harm" I highly doubt that a power supply which causes no ecological damage to the environment would simply only be used to power cars, chances are if it were used it'd be used in the most widespread manner possible. Therefore, let's ignore fossil fuels as they are flat out not long-term. Electric cars require electricity (Duh!) and the ways in which we obtain electricity is often just as widespread as the manners in which we use it. Since a large amount of the problems associated with electric production are more important to some than to others, I'll list a number of problems with each form of power supply and I'll let people decide on their own. This list is not all inclusive, feel free to to point out stuff I missed. Disclaimer: I am not a qualified scientist, please do not take anything I say at face value. Nuclear: Radioactive waste dependant on the form of nuclear energy is generally one of Nuclear's biggest problems. Currently the cost of Nuclear waste management costs approximately $46 Billion US Dollars according to the Nuclear Energy Institute ( this is a combination of the Nuclear waste costs of all 50 United states, individual breakdowns are available here: https://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/Costs-Fuel,-Operation,-Waste-Disposal-Life-Cycle/Nuclear-Waste-Fund-Payment-Information-by-State ). It is at this point I should place notice that all of this information is sourced from a group who benefits from nuclear power, therefore there is a bias, but I doubt it matters in this subject as it's quite transparent. Nevertheless, this is entirely isolated to Nuclear fission, there is nothing here that implies we will not be able to develop the method of nuclear fusion which is more efficient offers cheaper alternatives. The affect on the price of Kilo-watt-hour of energy is approximately 1/10 of a cent due to environmental costs. Price Per Kilo-Watt-Hour as a rated retail price is approximately 2.10 cents. Solar: Solar is the most efficient method in terms of environmental protection, however it is expensive. The cost that Solar power would have to charge in order to outweigh it's price would be approximately 5 cents per Kwh. Though this varies from country to country, apparently this is the average price. There're very few environmental problems resulting from solar other than the use of land to build the solar panels. The main concern with it's use (represented by it's price) is that it is not available in every area on earth, it's incredibly difficult to get a genuinely efficient solar panel functional in areas where there's little sun. Probably why I don't see many solar panels in Scotland :P. Keep in mind that Solar is (although long term) easily damaged, come a hurricane and we're in trouble. Wind Farms: Wind farms, much like solar, are environmentally friendly on the whole but can cause ecological problems when you look at the quantity of land that they can take up. They also cause problems to wildlife that are airborne and will often kill birds, this can reduce the biodiversity of birds and disrupt local food chains, causing a knock-on affect. The price per Kwh of wind produced energy can scale up to 9 cents. This is fairly high in comparison to things such as Nuclear, or even Solar. They are limited in terms of where they can be built, wind farms are not a sustainable solution year-round and are also not applicable to areas where there's no wind whatsoever (duh!) Hydroelectricity: Hydroelectricity can cause problems ecologically when we usurp areas that previously marine life occupied (Fish mostly). This can, and will cause problems within food chains for anything that relies off of fish for most of it's diet. Hydroelectricity is estimated at about 50% of the price of nuclear, at about 0.83 cents per Kwh. It's availability could be problematic as the costs of keeping water flowing in places where temperatures are too low (below 0*C) for water to flow, will have to have their temperatures risen. So... what does everyone think? which form of electrical production would you see in majority use or would you want to just see all out? I think that Nuclear is the way forward.

Thank you guys very much! you should consider posting a pinned topic or a guide when you make a profile telling you that you need to do this, because it confused me at first! Then again, maybe you have and I've missed it! Nevertheless thank you for the post.