LazerFazer

Molar Mass of SO2=32g+2*16g=64g/Mole You dont need to know how many molecules per mole. You already have the answer in terms of moles, now just do simple unit analysis and conversion to convert moles to millimoles and you have the answer. LF

Well, I would set my axes parallel to the slope, so that your acceleration is in the direction of your axes. Then you can split mg into x- and y-components, and then in the y you have Fn and (mg)y and in the x you have T and (mg)x. That should help solve the problem. Cheers, LF

Couldn't it be re-arranged to read: [math] E - E^{0} = - \frac{RT}{F}ln [H^{+}] [/math] and since [math] \Delta E = E - E^{0} = 0.1mV [/math] you should be able to solve it. cheers, LF

Hello there, I'll try to answer your questions as best as I can. Here goes: Magnitude simply refers to the 'length' of a vector. magnitude=sqrt(Vx^2+Vy^2) where Vx is the x-component and Vy is the y-component of the vector. A vector is a scalar with direction. For example 10 m/s is a scalar speed. The vector VELOCITY would be something like 10 m/s Due North. Same with displacement, etc. What do you need to know about velocity time graphs? The slope is the acceleration, and the area under the curve is the displacement. One of the more useful graphs, actually. F=ma. Force equals mass times an acceleration. That would be Newton's second law of motion, a body at constant velocity will continue at that velocity until it is acted upon by an outside force. So the body has an acceleration, and thus a force must act on it to cause this acceleration. Since the acceleration is directly proportional to the force exerted on it, the ratio of the force to the acceleration is a constant (for a set body), also known as the mass of the body. Hope this helps. If you have more questions, post them and we'll try to help you. Cheers, Lazer Fazer

Oh, dont get me wrong, I definately do not agree with violence. All I'm saying is that you shouldn't just put the blame on the Muslims. There are a lot of things that factor into the situation, and playing the blame game doesn't help anything. What we should rather do is try to find a way to prevent the situation in the future. Yes, peacefull protest is the best way to go, but get realistic, is it ever going to happen? Not unless another Ghandi comes along. Or at least someone as influential as him. Rather, as I said, we should take steps to prevent the same type of situation in the future. Which is partially the reason why I enjoy posting on science-oriented websites much more than others. At least here logic and rational thoughts prevail... instead of prejudice and close-mindedness. cheers, LF

Yes, I agree, but the thing is not to just blame the Muslims for the violence. The Christians also made a poor choice by showing the film during Ramadaan and on a friday nonetheless, and also for allowing such a branding to occur. LF

Unless instead of H2SO4+Zn-->ZnSO4+H2 you get H2SO4+Zn-->ZnSO3+H2O. But don't see how that would be possible, since they give you the reaction itself.

Have you actually read The Elegant Universe? It provides some interesting insight into string theory, why it came about, how it came about, and what evidence we have to 'proove' it. It's usefull if you want a more indepth understanding of string theory, as the PBS/Nova series leaves out a significant amount of material to make it more understandable for the masses. cheers, LazerFazer

People, you need to take into account the context of the situation. I live in Egypt (not Alexandria, tho, but rather in Cairo), and so I can understand it a bit better than some others, I think. Anyway, heres the religious/social context. First of all, this happened during the Muslim holy month of Ramadaan, where spirituality is higher than normal. Secondly, it happened on a Friday, which is the holy day of the week for muslims. Put the two together, and you get extremely spiritually charged people that got angered at a fictional video that was supposedly about terrorism. In reality, it was a video depicting ALL Muslims as terrorist, a false claim. Historically, there has been almost no conflict between Muslims and Christians here in Egypt, but the situation just went overboard. Cheers, LazerFazer

Well, what you could do is as follows: Q=mcT+mLf Q=Pt m=mass of water/ice thats converted c=specific heat capacity of water (4.186x10^3 J*kg^-1*C^-1) T=temperature change of the liquid water Lf=latent heat of fusion of water (3.33x10^5 J*kg^-1) P=power (1.5x10^6W in this case) t=time Then you should be able to solve for m, and there you go. Hope this helps, LazerFazer

Yup, I agree. Showing someone how its done usually helps them see a pattern and then they can figure out future problems themselves.

Well, do you have an answer that i can compare to? From my calculations, I got Fapp=43.1N as the smallest force to keep the box stationary. If you wish, i can email you a scan of how I went about doing it, along with possible explanations. cheers, LazerFazer

From what I know, within the nucleus theres also the Strong nuclear force that holds the protons together. Also, a Neutron is essentially a proton and an electron fused into one particle, and so it has partial-dipoles, thereby providing even more possibilites for arrangements within the nucleus. And also, I believe the size of the overall atom is some orders of magnitude greater than the size of the nucleus, and thus the electrostatic forces originating from proton-electron interactions would be negligable with respect to the nuclear forces within the nucleus. Cheers, LF

Well, to answer your last question, I do believe that ElectroMagnetism is one force, and thus the force carrier is the Photon, which string theory does accomodate for. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me, as I'm not entirely sure on this. Cheers, LF

People, just look at the industrial process for cutting diamonds. The only way they do that is by using another diamond that has naturally formed to be sharp, so that it can actually cut the diamond that needs to be 'perfected'. If there was another method, they'd probably use that and save the 'cutting diamond' for sale, and therefore increase profit. And yes ,there is now a substance harder than diamond. According to this, its composed of carbon nanotubes. Cheers, LF

Ahhh... just the type of question I wanted (I just did a presentation on this today, so its fresh in my mind ) Alright, back on topic. Basically, at the time of Einsteins death, there were two theories that described our universe, General Relativity, which dealt with super-massive things, and Quantum Theory, which dealt with things on the sub-atomic level. Problem was, they conflicted with each other. Since they were both supposed to explain the SAME universe (ours), they should not have conflicted. Thats where string theory comes in. It attempts to reconcile the two, and provide a set of eqauations that provide the reasons for anything and everything happening in the universe at any given time... and hopefully that will allow us to predict what happens when the two theories (gen. rel. and Quantum) need to be used simulataneously, such as at the center of a black hole, or at the beginning of our universe, split-seconds before and after the big bang. It could tell us how we came to be here, and how and why our universe developed how it did.

Well, to answer this, we need to look at the mass-velocity equivalence formula (from special relativity): m=m(rest)/(sqrt(1-(v^2)/(c^2))) so, if v=0, then you get m=m(rest)/(sqrt(1))=m(rest). And yes, as Xyph said, rest mass doesnt change ever, unless of course you chop off a body piece or something. cheers, LF

Well, here's how I read/understood it from my own personal reading: We are ALAWAYS travelling throught the 4-dimensions of our universe at the speed of light. This might seem bizzare, because according to relativity we cannot achieve the speed of light, merely because we have mass. Think of it this way: there are 4 dimensions: x,y,z (the 'normal' spacial dimensions) and then theres t (time dimension). Just as a car moving along at 10m/s due north goes faster in the 'y' dimension than a car moving at 10m/s @ 45degrees North of East (because in the second instance the velocity now has to split into components), if you move faster in the spacial dimensions, then it would follow that you have to move slower through the time dimension... but heres the catch... RELATIVE TO A STATIONARY OBSERVER, ie. an observer that is not moving through the spacial dimensions. So, now for the proof. Think of vector-magnitude calculations when you know the value of the components. For a 2-D vector, R^2=x^2+y^2, where x and y are the components of Vector R. Expand this to a 4-d vector, with the total magnitude equalling the speed of light, c, and you get the following: c^2=x^2+y^2+z^2+t^2 with c=speed of light, x=x-component of motion, y=y-component of motion, z=z-component of motion, and t=velocity through time. Following this, Einsteins time-based special relativity equation can be derived. (for the proof of that, email me and i'll send you a scan of my proof. its too tedious to type up on this) Hope this helps, LazerFazer