John Cuthber

The figure quoted is generally for an electron and a proton attracting one another. (You can move the decimal point a bit by looking at the force between two protons or two electrons.) If you looked at the force between all the protons in the sun and all the electrons on earth the force would still be roughly 10^36 times bigger than the gravitational force. The difference is that the electrostatic attraction is practically cancelled out by the protons in the earth and the electrons in the sun. This is, of course, another example of the difference; gravity doesn't ever seem to cancel out. Incidentally, the reason I can pick up a book is that a relatively small amount of electromagnetic force (in my muscles) can overcome an entire planet's worth of gravity. That's really quite a big difference.

Precipitate the copper as the carbonate by adding washing soda, wash it, then redissolve it in nitric acid.

IIRC the electromagnetic force is about 10^36 times bigger than the gravitational force. Asking if one is the other in disguise is something like asking if a virus is the planet Earth in disguise. I may have lost count of the decimal places there; but there's clearly a difference. On the other hand, they may be different aspects of the same "unified" force. At this point physicists start talking about wriggly bits of string so I will leave them to it.

They do separate density gradients in centrifuges. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isopycnic_centrifugation Using roughly a million g might be thought of as a bit tricky. I think haloclines"cheat". The fresh water isn't on top because it diffused there. It got there from the rain (or river run off) onto an already salty sea.

My grandfather (among others) is responsible for my existence, but I am not my grandfather. If I were to solve, for example, the travelling salesman problem, I wouldn't be my grandfather's solution to that problem because there's no way he could have predicted that I would solve it. The cyanobacteria that were our ancestors didn't "know" the future and couldn't consider future problems; far less solve them.

Slightly. You can calculate just how few ions need to move to produce a charge separation of the order you get in a Leyden jar. A few pF or so at a few Kv means a few nano coulombs. Something like 10^7 electrons worth of charge. A molar solution of salt has something like 10^22 ion pairs (and about 100 times more water molecules) so the overwhelming bulk of the ions are not really moved. To do the full calculation you need something like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debye%E2%80%93H%C3%BCckel_equation

Motion happens so either it doesn't contravene this "law" or the "law" is wrong.

Yes, zero is the angle between two parallel lines.

Nitric acid will dissolve tin, lead, copper, and quite a lot of other metals but it will leave the platinum alone. If you are doing more than a few at a time I would suggest working outside unless you have a fume cupboard. The by-product of the reaction is a mixture of the oxides of nitrogen and they are not good for you. BTW, please don't post the same thing twice.

Which is true, the bit in the first post that asks "Where is the speculation? " or the more recent bit which says "s with all my submissions I submit an idea and use the criticism of that idea to produce a final theoretical submission."? Is this idea meant to be speculative or is it a "done deal" as the first post in the thread suggests?

"I have not moved the goalpost, but presented the same facts in a different manner." No. You have changed the maths you did on those numbers to force them to "fit" your ideas. That's moving the goalposts. If all you had done was change the presentation then the numbers wouldn't have changed. Did you not realise that I would point that out?

It would separate out slightly; there would be a difference in the concentrations of ions at the top and bottom of the container. I'd sooner have to calculate the difference, rather than measure it. (incidentally, I'm generally quite good at measuring things- it's what I do for a living ; and I'm rather bad at maths)

"The criticism made so far by swansont and John Cuthber can be answered by replacing the unsatisfactory graph with the following table:" Presumably, if someone points out more problems you will keep moving the goalposts to "solve" them. This is, of course, at odds with the idea that your ramblings have any predictive value. That means they are back in the realms of speculation, rather than science. BTW, at least one of the "corrected" numbers is still way off (9% is hopeless compared to the accuracy with which astronomical data is known), so the idea is still pants.

More like these, but stuck together in the middle with a band aid. http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.retrospecs.co.uk/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/5e06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d/N/H/NHS_524_UKO2_Tortoise.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.retrospecs.co.uk/review/product/list/id/12037/category/3/&usg=__WBdl2AlfcgtOqWY2uvLy82FpcI4=&h=350&w=1000&sz=26&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=Z4um59DB5Kz0AM:&tbnh=65&tbnw=186&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2522nhs%2Bglasses%2522%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-US:%257Breferrer:source%253F%257D%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D907%26tbs%3Disch:10,498&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=859&vpy=249&dur=2696&hovh=133&hovw=380&tx=310&ty=82&ei=ZE19TO7rCJakONXBqYIE&oei=ZE19TO7rCJakONXBqYIE&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=31&ved=1t:429,r:30,s:0&biw=1280&bih=907

Plenty of people have died in the name of their religion. I think they probably believed in it.

I googled "1" and got lots of hits. Then I tried "2" and still got lots so, I think that the evidence shows the number is more than 2. Imagine someone with better computing skills repeated that process automatically until they came to a number that wasn't used. That would be the smallest number not on the (googleable) web. If they posted the outcome here and google found it...

Why? Hasn't this topic been done to death all over the web?

There are some things you can do with a violet laser that you can't do with a red one. For example, make holograms with dichromated gelatin. With a violet laser you can pump a red laser; doing that the other way round is tricky- you need to cheat and use frequency multiplication or some such. In general, because of the relationship between photon energy and lifetime of excited states, it is much easier to make lasers that emit at longer wavelengths. By implication, IR lasers will generally be much more efficient than visible ones and visible lasers will be more efficient than UV ones. Xray lasers are just plain difficult.

Are you just wondering why the scale is "the wrong way up"? with strong acids getting a small number? If so that's because they chose to get rid of the minus sign.

It seems to me that the problem there is that the assertion "but when you will be perfect, you will be even more simple, the closer one approaches to God, the simpler one becomes" is both an unsupported assertion (and therefore unreliable) and also apparently nonsense. Any God must be, intrinsically complicated in order to do (or even to wish to do) complicated things like build a universe. Why do you think God; notoriously difficult to explain, is simple?

Great, now, not only do I know that the original problem does not have a unique solution (several perfectly valid solutions have been supplied), but I don't understand why Needsimprovement thinks that asking me to prove that 2X2=5 is in any way helpful. Does he mean just plain wrong. Does he mean that while everybody else uses 4 for the answer to that question, he has decided to use the symbol "5" for the number of dots here .... Did he mean to ask me to prove that 2X2 =4 and cocked it up? The trouble is that 'When I say similar to prove 2x2=5, I mean "disguised with simplicity". ' doesn't really mean anything.

If your teacher doesn't have the results then how can they mark your work?

"One can wander off into the realm of strings and branes or stay with observable reality. But I am not going down that road, " I think that says it all. On the other hand "It is not possible to do the same for the Solar system, " says a lot too. This just isn't science.

The question is not amenable to a correct answer because, as has been shown, there are many possible answers depending on how the question is interpreted. I think it falls to you to "try harder" to ask a clearer question rather than expecting us to try harder to answer the one you have set.

It doesn't seem that hard to make. There's a patent about it http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2010018199&IA=EP2009060450&DISPLAY=DESC