Bufofrog

That I have heard of. I do not have a physics degree so there is LOTS about physics I do not know. I am a chemical engineer by trade (which means I do not know enough to be a chemist or an engineer.)

Interesting, I have not heard of that. I will look it up - thanks!

No, that has not been shown and it does not make any sense as far as I can see. The matter contained in a given sphere can be calculated by: \[\rho \times \frac{4}{3} \pi r^3 = Mass\] What do you mean "a much lower power"? None of this has anything to do with a preferred location... Where is this alleged periodicity? 72 km/s is a velocity, nothing to do with a period. I am not sure what that velocity has to do with anything anyway. The Hubble constant is approximately 72 (km/s)/Mpc. I pick C. C. We are not in a special location and the redshift is a convenient way to determine how far away a very distant celestial object is.

For the second time, would you please present the math that allowed you to accurately predict the Hubble constant. As you said you have already done the calculation so it should be an easy exercise to demonstrate it. This should also satisfy swansont's request and preventing the closure of this thread. I await your reply.

I think the OP should be able to see that creation science is an oxymoron. If you have faith and an unshakable belief in the literal meaning of the bible - then good for you. If you want to use science to prove Noah's flood, or that evolution did not occur, or that dinosaurs and people lived at the same time, then you are doomed to fail.

Alright, let's look at one sentence. This is a grammatical nightmare - but let's try to get through it. "The Big Bang a rapid inflation but then the slow then rapid increase in speed of dark energy" This does not make any sense. Energy is not a substance. You cannot have a bucket of energy - so the idea that energy has speed is nonsensical. "can be explained by the implosion effect the falling shrinking yet growing denser singularity theoretically implodes a rapid initial inflation of all the superheated information at x size then the cooling slowing down then speeding up affect of that information" Information cannot be superheated or cooled or speeded up. hypothetically explained by the initial singularity absorbing enough information energy from the field to have a drastic repulsive bounce effect spherically from the initial singularity by the fact that after x expansion of the matter state the fields either already were There at vastly to greatly x size or expanded much faster and pulls the matter universe layer faster and faster. Sorry but I cannot make heads or tails of this. If you are interested science take math and physics courses while you are in school. Good luck! Putting out ideas like this on a science site before you have understood the basics of science are only going to give you negative feedback. Don't worry about it we all had some funny ideas before we had a solid base in a science education

Question 1 was answered in the second post. Question 2 was answered in the fourth post. Sorry I did not put in the units of miles. Did you want us to plug the numbers in a calculator for you? Question 3 can be answered with the info you have been given in this thread. Did you want us to plug the numbers in a calculator for you? All reputable sources agree there is not nearly enough water to cover the earth - including the article you cited.

That wall of text is too hard to read. I think I will wait for your second or third TOE.

I am not sure what your definition a thick head is, but I think I a good working definition would be someone who asks a question, receives an answer and then asks the same question again. [shrug]

Good job.

Which has been answered. What more do you need? I think based on the answers we can say the scenario of a world wide flood above the height of mount Everest is impossible - there is not enough water to do that. So since it is not possible scientifically, we must say it is only possible with a supernatural intervention by God.

I double-dog doubt it.

You need to balance the equation. I assume the equation you presented is correct except that there are coefficients missing in the equation \[Al_2O_3 + Na_2CO_3 -->NaAlO_2+CO_2\] there are 2 Na atoms on the left but only one on the right. There are 2 Al atoms on the left but only 1 on the right. Finally there are 6 oxygen atoms on the left and only 4 on the right. Can you see a way to change coefficients on the right to make the number and type of atoms on the left and right equal each other? So for a hydrogen oxygen reaction you would have: \[H_2 + O_2 -->H_2O \] which is not balanced. To balance the reaction put in coefficients: \[2H_2 + O_2 --> 2H_2O\]

Sounds intriguing. Could you show the math that you used to accomplish this?

The rainfall would be about 384,000 inches of rain in 40 days. That is simply the height of mt Everest above sea level. That would be a per day average of about 8,700 inches of rain. This would probably require that you empty your rain gauge every day! If you want to make 1/2 of the water come from the fountains of the deep you of course would only need 4,350 inches of rain a day. If you want to know the volume of that water just calculate the volume of the earth (r=3958.5) - the volume of the sphere equal to the height of mt Everest (r=3964.0) Edit: I do not know why religious people try to use science to 'prove' religious stories. It does not work - period. This is religion we are talking about (ferchrisake!) use God to make it work, like this. God made the excess water appear in the form of rain and stuff and then he made all the excess water disappear after the flood. Problem solved....

So you read that a free neutron decays to a proton and an electron in 15 minutes. You have also read that the nucleus of an atom is made up of protons and neutrons. Now for some reason you say you believe the first statement but you reject the second statement. You could have just as easily said you believe the second and not the first. Seems rather arbitrary to me. Why don't you investigate a little as to why these 2 seemingly contradictory statements are true instead of just arbitrarily picking one of the statements as true and the other as false based on nothing?

Boric acid is of course an acid in the form: \[H_3BO_3\] Sodium bicarbonate is a base in the form \[NaHCO_3\] Sodium Bicarbonate is also known as baking soda. This is used in baking, in toothpaste and many other things. It can be used as and antacid when mixed with water. In general it is very safe. However doing something stupid like trying to eat a tablespoon of it could burn your throat, Boric acid is a poison. The most common use is in pesticides. There are home remedies that use boric acid; for instance athletes foot. Seems rather risky to use this product on or in your body in my opinion.

Are you being serious?

I think he was saying that there are the same number of negative and positive ions, so the solution is electrically neutral. Not sure why he thinks that matters, it certainly doesn't have anything directly related to the pH or the disassociation of acids.

Please don't hijack threads. If you have a speculative idea start your own thread in the speculation section.

The only way the piston can move is if there is more fluid put into the cylinder. Does that make sense to you?

Because that is how the movie Next was written. You are talking about the Nicolas Cage movie, right? I also think you meant go forward in time unless you are making a movie that is the opposite of the movie Next!

Did you first write a balanced equation of this form (with the right coefficients)? \[ C_2H_2 + O_2 --> CO_2 + H_2O \]

You need to use 2 ammonia cobalt molecules to get it to balance. Hope this answers your question. \[2Co(NH_3)_6^{2+} + H_2O_2 --> 2Co(NH_3)_6^{3+} + 2OH^-\]

Perhaps there is a glaring error in your idea that you are not aware of? Why not present the actual idea and let the people here give you some feedback?