StringJunky

While we are on the subject of reputation would it be possible to have a confirmation window of some sort after clicking plus or minus saying "Are you sure you want to vote this post up/down" (as applicable)" > Yes/No? It happens quite often that I click the wrong button unintentionally and it also may give a person a pause for reconsideration reducing knee-jerk reactions.

Stick around here and you'll soon be walking around with a concise version of the Oxford English Dictionary in your head...I learn at least one new word everyday here that I have to look up.

So that's the definitive answer as assessed by you? Your confidence is inspiring. There are possible paths but no definite answers. For starters, cyanobacteria are blue/green which are thought to be the precursors to algae and plants, so, the evolutionary shift to a dominant green was made earlier than algae might you not think? I alternatively suggest that the green algae dominated and the red algae evolved to utilise the spectrum space that was left. I've not noticed anyone being bad-tempered...earnest maybe. Regardless, I've learnt a few things from this thread which is why I read these boards.

It means nothing...it was definitely staged and pre-arranged...those people are frauds that try to capitalise on the hopes and fears of the naive and vulnerable. Forget it...you will find no answers with charlatans like that.

Before consulting WIKI I would have said that which occupies space and has the the property of mass but in reality, it would seem, is a quite grey term that has meaning depending on the context and field of physics it's used in: The term "matter" is used throughout physics in a bewildering variety of contexts: for example, one refers to "condensed matter physics",[42] "elementary matter",[43] "partonic" matter, "dark" matter, "anti"-matter, "strange" matter, and "nuclear" matter. In discussions of matter and antimatter, normal matter has been referred to by Alfvén as koinomatter.[44] It is fair to say that in physics, there is no broad consensus as to a general definition of matter, and the term "matter" usually is used in conjunction with a specifying modifier. So, no I can't give you a universally applicable definition of "matter"...I'm sure you would do a much better job than I.

All matter has mass but not all Mass is matter.

Why is it misleading? The absorption data for the whole leaf is the one that really matters...that's what plants use . It's the best compromise because if it was black it obviously can't maintain Homeostasis, given the intensity and output spectrum of our star as filtered by the prevailing atmospheric conditions here on Earth, otherwise they would have evolved that way. Plants may look completely green but in fact contain different pigments...the proportion of which will vary between species. I think this basically distills what you've already been informed of.

Could you have individual radio-controlled detonators placed in each pile negating the need for wire....just trying to stop the thread falling apart.

I've given you someone's test data now give me yours. Plant's have evolved with the best set of compromises.

Black is obviously no good on Earth for the reason Essay stated: "...but mostly it is the "green" pigment that is best at absorbing energy that is "low enough" to avoid destruction, ". It's a balancing act between maximising useful absorption and heat dissipation...a black plant obviously can't cope with or shed the excess heat or else they would be the dominant plants now. Plants actually absorb 2/3 of the green part of the spectrum according to this article extract: It is the absorbtion spectrum for chlorophyll that has been extracted from a leaf. As you can see, although chlorophyll by itself doesn’t absorb very well in the green wavelengths (the low trough on the graph), the whole leaf has A > 0.5, so it absorbs over 2/3 of the incident light in the green wavelength. Also, we must consider that most plants are part of a "canopy", where light first encounters tall plants, and then what isn’t absorbed by the tallest plants goes down to the next level, and so on. So, eventually almost all of even the green light is absorbed. The wavelengths scanned here pretty much cover the visible spectrum. Wavelengths shorter than this carry too much energy and can be actually harmful, so the plant is better off reflecting them. While longer ones do not have enough energy to be of much use chemically, so absorbance of them would lead to excessive heating. http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2000-03/952478790.Bt.r.html

One idea someone has come up with is that it is the colour best adapted to our Sun's colour temperature (including local atmospheric effects). On another planet with a local star that has a different colour temperature, chlorophyll may well not be the dominant pigment because it doesn't make the best use of that star's light so evolution there won't favour green. http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/217-news2011/1963-could-black-trees-blossom-in-a-world-with-two-suns

Because, having established everybodys expertise and methodology here I know you will respond reasonably quickly and if it comes out ok I would then take it to a journal for formal scrutiny based on your advice...don't forget, I'm an armchair-scientist who is self-taught and it's all been done by meta-researching and I'm also a hermit. The internet is still young, it may happen one day with someone...we have the world's knowledge under our finger-tips. I agree with Phi, my hypothesis should go in Speculations regardless of how convincing it is...what I'm getting here is a contradiction here in the application of forum policy with regards to Speculations. On the one hand some mods reassure irate members that their idea is not being moved because it's crap but because it's not established science and then another says it's basically the Trash Can and if he likes the idea because it's consistent with conventional practice it can stay regardless of whether it's established or not. i'm not picking on anyone here but highlighting a lack of collective consistency regarding the function of Speculations. If Speculations is effectively considered the Trash Can you might as well just lock and delete the thread. You mods do not appear to be singing from the same songsheet from where I'm standing. I personally like Speculations because it negates any accusation of dogmatism on the part of the forum administration and just maybe somebody will knock you out with something brilliant one day. Besides, I'm sure there's an awful lot of crap in arxiv as well...we see what we want to see and ignore the rest. In a way, I see Speculations as a training ground for people to see what it takes to be taken seriously, when they post what ultimately turn out to be wrong ideas, after some expert analysis. Edit: I thought I'd tag this quote on from Phi from another thread because I think this is the correct attitude and application regarding Speculations: "Look, this is a science discussion forum on the web. We have to make a distinction between what is established science, and what is not established but may become established someday. Students need to know what they can take confidently to class, and what is more speculative in nature. When a thread is moved to Speculations, it's not because it's disliked, or wrong, or unpopular. It just means the idea has not yet passed the kind of review that establishes firm ground for further work. Can't you still like and support your idea but admit that it's not firmly established? Speculations is more like ice. It's not firm ground but you can still walk on it. It may not end up holding your weight, but that's why it's there, for testing ideas to see if they have merit. Yes, it's tough. Yes, your idea will be put through the ringer. Science is meant to be methodical and precise. It's not meant to take huge leaps without carefully testing each step. That's why established science can be trusted. And we would absolutely love it if one of our Speculation threads managed to prove worthy and become established. That's why we have the section, and most others don't."

But doesn't that demean the function of Speculations...it is effectively Trash if that is your criterion? I can understand talking about other people's speculative work in the science section in the sense of science's possible future direction, for example Quantum Gravity, but my hypothetical hypothesis of everything is still a speculation and should be in that section for consistency and to avoid confusion amongst layman which is one of the stated reasons why it's there.

I'm sure you'll get more responses if you paragraph your posts because walls-of-text are hard on the eyes.

Suppose I posted a thread in Physics called "On The Unification Of The Fundamantal Forces" and presented a hypothesis, illustrated and backed up with the most meticulous math's such that it was sound logically and all the meta-research data was there to back it up-I'm the ultimate self-taught armchair scientist ...it would still get moved to Speculations wouldn't it because it's not established?

Thanks for all your responses, that enlightened me a bit more and I hope also the wannabe-theorists have taken something from this and realise Speculations is not the dustbin.

One thing I've learned here is that any new idea must encompass and incorporate the 'domain of validity' of any existing established ideas ie GR does not make Newtonian Gravity invalid entirely but extends it where it starts to fail just as Quantum Gravity (if it ever comes to fruition) must extend where GR fails ie at the point of Singularity or at sub-atomic dimensions...historically, consecutive Theories are a series of conceptual overlaps. How do you determine what is established or is it essentially an arbitrarily consensual decision between the scientists here? Is time out being used in the field important?

Do you mean has excellent adhesion properties and dries out but remains elastic or that the adhesive has excellent adhesion but remains tacky for as long as possible...like the glue on flypaper?

What sources/criteria do scientists here use to determine whether some methodology/idea is 'the norm' ie belongs in the Science categories and not Speculations. I understand perfectly why SFN filters like this, to make clear distinctions for learners like myself, and it slightly bemuses me why people get irate when their hypothesis gets transferred to Speculations. Is it just an arbitrary decision between the experts here or do you have a 'bible' or institution that you can consult?

If you have W7 you can tweak the battery notification settings to warn you to plug in at a higher than default level ( which is 10% on my Compaq) that helps you to maintain a life-extending shallow-charging routine. Here's a How To Geek article on it: http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/39635/how-to-tweak-the-low-battery-action-in-windows-7/ It depends on how much time you need to be on battery at one time whether you need two or not. The way I look at it is if this routine gives me a solid usable consistent battery life over 5 or 6 years even if I can't use a fifth of it that's good enough for me because the laptop will be old at the current rate of technology. I wish I'd known this a few months ago when my laptop was new...it's already down from over 3 hours to between 2 and 2 1/2 hours now. I've been emptying the battery before recharging.

Running the laptop on mains with the battery in does not overcharge the battery...it switches off charge when full up. Phi To quote someone...Charging Li-ion is like the best form of diet...little and often. It prefers frequent shallow charges to deep ones from a flat battery. Here's a 'real-world' bit from a photographer who hammers his camera batteries: It also means that I never try to suck either one dry. Li-ion batteries prefer frequent and shallow discharges. If you do that you'll get far more total energy out of them. I don't know the exact numbers, but you'll get about four times as many charge cycles out of them if you only use 50% of the charge each time, and twenty times as many cycles if you only use 25% of the charge each time. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/battery-life.htm

Isn't that the same problem for a desktop? You are right, let it happen too many times and it will corrupt the OS. The best way upon further reading to get maximum life is to run two batteries, swapping them when one is about 80% discharged.

AFAIK you're going with the routine for the old NI-CAD's...it's different for Li-Ion's. Long story short, to maximise the life charge to 40-50% take out the battery and run laptop off the mains when you have it. Fully charge it when you need it. If you leave the battery in fully-charged all the time, the high temperature within the laptop will shorten its life which is the bane of Li-Ion's. Practically, the second-best scenario is to always run on the mains if you have to leave the battery in and keep the number of charge/discharge cycles to the absolute minimum ie don't pull out the mains lead everytime the battery is charged. Putting rubber feet or some such device to raise the laptop higher of the supporting surface to allow better cooling will help battery life as well in this scenario. If you want to splash out some dosh, a cooling pad is probably a good idea if you must leave the battery in. When you are using it on battery, fully charge but only run it down to about 20% capacity before recharging...don't fully discharge it in use as it puts a strain on them. Heat and repeated charge/ full discharge cycles are the killers...leaving the battery out is the easiest solution when not needed.

If you fear your past don't ever have a Facebook account, as that will surely come back to bite your a***!

The physical structure of rust, being open as opposed to densely compact, allows the ingress of more oxygen, moisture and electrolytes allowing it to spread...I think this is what people when they say rust causes more rust. Take another scenario with lead and it's oxide...once the oxide, which is dense and compact is sufficient to be impermeable to moisture and air, oxidation ceases and is therefore self-limiting unlike iron rust formation which continuously exposes new oxidizible surfaces until exhausted.