EL

There are two Latin words of related concepts. 1- dimano = (to flow in all directions). 2- dimensio = (measuring) The second word is obviously closer to the English one and dimension is then related to measuring or making a measurement or even better (measurable). In Physics (the discipline of studying natural phenomena) there are seven arbitrated dimensions (measurable phenomena). Each of the seven dimensions has been given a name and a standard base-unit of measure in the SI system: Length is measured in meters. Mass is measured in kilograms. Time is measured in seconds. electric current is measured in amperes. Thermodynamic temperature is measured in kelvins. Amount of substance is measured in moles. Luminous intensity is measured in candela. **** Unfortunately, the word "Dimensions" has been overloaded to include a common usage, where the physical length dimension is measured out in three orthogonal directions to indicate the volume of the minimal box that can contain an object, hence the width, length and height. Notice that the word "length" also is overloaded to mean "how long" and not the Length Physical Dimension. Therefore, Time is second to Length as a physical dimension but it is fourth to the 3D of an Euclidian Space. When a body moves with a constant velocity for a finite interval of time it covers a distance, which Minkowski considered to be the 4th spatial dimension, which when generalised using the speed of light with the arbitrated base unit of time, represents a fourth dimension of all time at light speed. This 4D-space is capable of graphing all space for all time, which is perfect for representing anything within the whole universe since ever to whenever as long as now is a zero.

A grey ELOH will rsult.

Fire was never discovered by the human tree dwellers. We have two scientific sources of knowledge (leaving out guessing and speculations as possible), archaeological information relates fire to the tool-age, and written history of passed on spoken stories an mythology, tells us about humans being kicked out of paradise before fire was ever mentioned. Even animal domestication was a very advanced level then, but humans had to face desert and dryness after heavy rains in Africa where it all began. The folkloric Myth is about following the Nile North to the sea and living in caves beside swamps. The place was full of predators, lions, hyenas, crocodiles, hippopotami, and other less dangerous animals. Therefore, we must relate fire to the human hunter because our teeth were perfectly adapted to eating fruits, roots and leaves. When humans began hunting they had big trouble eating anything but fish without tools. Nets, spears and flint-axes were the first tools other than shell-(dishes, spoons and knives). The caveman intelligence reached a peak when a sharp shard of volcanic hard stone was used to carve a conical hole in flint (archaeology), and that hole was most probably used for sharpening wooden ends. That is how the bow was invented for sharpening and not for hunting at first, when very dry wooden chips fell right beside the being sharpened tip that got very hot by friction it caught on fire. We do not know how long time passed between discovering fire and finding useful usage for it. But the most probable incident is a correlation between thunder hitting forest and burning animals resulting a discovery about fire cooking flesh and making fire on purpose to cook and kill predators as well.

Do you have balls?

Yes.

Just to give you an idea how serious "safe experiments" can get dangerous. In collage, one of the chemistry-hobby-club-members wanted to try out making a synthetic precious stone. He reported to have built a fire-wood fuelled melting furnace and he placed in its peak-jet a carborundum crucible. The top of the furnace was completely sealed and I saw its pictures. The wind blew into the base of the furnace carrying great heat up and out of the door passing through the peak-heat-jet. In the crucible he mixed some ingredients including Aluminium chips and a powdered oxidizer. He said he blocked the crucible with a 30kg high-carbon-iron-block and closed the door with a red-pink-brick. After operating the furnace he urged a friend to stay away, at least 30 feet, because he was not sure if it will hold up. Suddenly, he said, a horrible explosion accompanied by the red-pink-brick flying right at his friend who was 30 feet away but right at the door's direction; fortunately, he said, that friend jumped right up and landed right after the brick have passed between his legs under his balls.

Can you bleach a piece of charcoal into white-carbon; No. It is not only a matter of oxidizing a "colour" dear mrbc19, it must be a stain or a pigmentation. It is common to use oxidizers because, let's say 85% of fabric stains are plant-pigment sources, such as chlorophyll from grass or tomato ketchup sauce, and dust, which is beside natural oxides could have plenty of carbonates, etc. Sodium hypochlorite is also very effective with fountain-pen-ink stains. However, metallic oxides will hardly be washed by oxidizers if any. Cosmetics is another source of coulours: Check this out <http://pigmento-colorante.com/gb/notre_selection_prod.asp?ID_categ=0 > Now if you check this out: <http://www.maxpages.com/dyestuffs > You will notice that dyestuff used for cotton (for example) can be instantly bleached by a direct splash of sodium hypochlorite 5%. That is why it is not recommended to apply any concentrated bleach directly on any dry fabdic. The effect will be very strong and local only. Read my previous post, please. Good bleaching demands homogenous distribution of the chemicals. When the bleach is further diluted in the washing batch, it is inevitable to use some heat (in case of NaClO). What heat does in this case is not only agitation but also exposing the ions temporarily out of the hydration shells. When Conc. NaClO is splashed directly the fabric's fibres adsorb the water and expose the ions, hence the reaction proceeds unhidred.

Yes, with NaClO it is better to use hot water if the fabric allows it.

The definition of ridiculous: ADJECTIVE: Deserving or inspiring ridicule; absurd, preposterous, or silly. A hype of thesis is characterised by incoherence and inconsistency. Trying to be as concise as I can post: One mother and two children. ** The Black hole idea is founded on the idea that if a quantity of mass that condensed into one place was big enough such that its gravitational force demands an escape velocity greater than {c}, not even light can escape and consequently all forms of matter and energy. ** The Big bang idea is founded on the idea that the red shift implies that the universal matter is moving "outwards" without having a clue about outwards relative to what, yet nonetheless, the theorists allow themselves to speculate that such apparent expansion of the matter of the universe implies that it was all at one and the same "POINT" (A singularity). This should obviously say that all the matter of the universe should logically exceed the puny quantity required for a black hole to prevent light from escaping. ** Now put the two theories together and you have the Ultimate Magnanimous Extreme Super-black-hole at the singularity of the big-bang, YET for some bizarre reason it explodes and matter as much as light escapes from the unimaginable gravity of all matter. ** If the above inconsistent and incoherent drivel of the relativists was not ridiculousness incarnated, then what else?

Yes, absolutely. Where else?

Say something intelligent or intelligible and I am all yours. If you wish to post fiction or even write books of the sort, then say so and we may even encourage you. We need to wake up from the slumber of a hundred years in fantasy and attend to our chemicals.

Hawking is a surfer, a wave-rider and a benefactor. Let him say whatever he wishes to say, or sue him for misusing your taxes. When a pseudoscientist claims that logical coherence and theory consistency is not required, then what else remain for our sanity! Non-local, virtual, imaginary drool should remain as a dream or fiction at best. Science was hit hard and got sick a century ago, so let us hope for a recovery ASAP.

Sorry, Severian, but Dimensions do not move. Motion is the change of state of coordinates. Dimensions do not have finite characteristics to allow that. A dimension is the abstract arbitration of absolute quantities, acting as a reference to which change of state takes place. Therefore, if you think that relativity says that dimensions move, then relativity must be wrong. However, do not panic yet; The alleged distortion of spacetime imposed by mass (as in GR) has nothing to do with moving dimensions. It simply redefines the metric arbitrations to allow for fanciful effects of length contraction and time dilation consequent to gravitational-acceleration curves. The last formidable reference is orthodox logic: If a dimension was to move, then relative to what is that motion!

So you do not get tired from posting the same mental diarrhoea on every physics forum available! Did not you have enough insults on Usenet, Google, ZapFuture and other?

Dear Severian, yes, mathematical dimensions are arrays and powers, and that is why an idea as simple as acceleration has a 2D-time concept as seen from the dimensional analysis. [math]\cf{Acceleration = [L / T^2]}[/math] As you may see there is a term that we can spell-out as "the square of time". However, in the Euclidean 3D all the L dimensions are orthogonal to each other to make sense. Nevertheless, all powers of time indicate that the time dimension as multiple instances parallel to each other and not orthogonal. As for the physical interpretations, it is very easy when one think that time scales can be embedded indefinitely. I do not recall the names now but someone came up with new names to match the powers of time in the denominator: velocity, acceleration, jerk, ........ something (not sure) Anyway, think that when velocity changes constantly, it is under acceleration, and similarly, when acceleration is under constant change [T^3] it is something else, and so on. To sum it up, Length and Time are single unique dimensions, but our perception indicate a maximum of 3D orthogonal relations of length as it varies directionally. Time has one direction only and its powers are parallel rather than orthogonal, which is evident from graphs where velocity is represented by a slope while acceleration is represented by a curve; such curves can get more complex as we increase the power of time.

I fear that you have to give us the chemical specifics, because Clorox is a trademark not a chemical, and they have a wide range of bleaching liquids and powders. Some chemicals will decompose in high temperature, others demand it to have any effect. In fact, some bleaching process requires heat decomposition to begin its action, while others demand room temperature and much longer time or stronger mechanical agitation. As a rule of thumb, do not "waste" the bleach on dirty cloths. This means that the best way for bleaching is to apply it to clean fabric (less the stains), that is other than persistent stains should be removed first. Hot water wash is not recommended first as this might stabilize some stains on fabric. The second phase is applicable without drying the fabric, that is the best effect is on washed and wet cloths. Never add the concentrated bleach directly on the fabric, dilute it first. Use soft water if possible. With clean fabric wet, all you need is to make sure that the chemical reaches the stains. Agitation, agitation, agitation, and then some more agitation. Finally read the temperature requirements of the FABRIC, as some fabrics will be destroyed by heat. Pure wool fabrics (especially knitted pullovers) could shrink to 50% of the original size. Cotton and linen seem to love hot water, and sodium hypochlorite would do just fine. So it is case by case, did that help?

Make it.

Absolutely correct.

Yes, that is a brilliant question, although not authentic. What I mean is that you are not the first to ask such a good question. Let me explain to you something about "Significance Boundary". Imagine being invited for a piece of cake, and while you place it in your dish, a teaspoonful of cream was left behind, but you relentlessly picked it up carefully and placed it in your dish. Someone noticed and jestfully placed an insect magnifying glass on traces of cream and a particle of cake. You smiled back showing that what you left out was really insignificant. ** An arbitrated quantification system is created to be as practical as possible, and occasionally we have to deal with fractions of units. In a decimal number system, we care about the significant decimal places, right? Now imagine a number so big, that a unit (1) is an incredibly insignificant small fraction of that big number so that adding it to that number as a fraction of it would practically dissapear. This means that we can work our way up, from a zero point, as a referential limit, towards positive infinity as a boundary of significance, beyond which any number added is insignificant. We may also work our way down, from a zero point, as a referential limit, towards negative infinity as a boundary of significance, beyond which any number subtracted is insignificant. Not only those, but convergence of numbers on the zero point limit demonstrates the same number phenomenon on divisibility, such as the addition of all the fractions of the remaining fractions, (for example) the sum of 1/2 +1/4 +1/8 ......+ 1/2n where n tends to infinity must converge on the value 1. I hope this explained a bit about such a huge subject. Regards.

And the BP of carbon is still third from top downwards. Not many people know that because of fast air oxidation and CO2. Yet another riddle is when we consider amalgams of mercury, where the alloy has a higher not lower melting point, and is even used in dental fillings, especially mercury-gold-amalgams.

Check the Melting Point of Diamond on the scale here. <http://www.fsref.com/Fatal/FEA00002.SHTML > A sublimating diamond ring stone would drive women crazy.

Use it as a marble etcher or cement remover from the excess between tiles. Or neutralise its acidity by throwing a piece of copper in to produce copper sulphate; then concentrate it, then evaporate the solution and dry the sulphate to anhydrous powder to test for water. Or neutralise its acidity by throwing a piece of zinc in to produce zinc sulphate; it is very good to help in soldering as a flux. Be creative; Fill a beaker with your solution and place a graphite rod on one side and an aluminium rod on the other; test for potential difference by connecting a 3V tungsten filament (lamp).