mooeypoo

! Moderator Note Moved to speculation. I suggest you go over this, crazynutsx: http://www.sciencefo...ums-and-debate/ and in particular, this part: But feel free to go over the entire thing. Also, avoid talking about creationism here. We don't accept soapboxing. You are welcome to discuss the scientific merit (or lack thereof) of a scientific theory. We're not going to argue or explain to you the entire theory; there are tons of books and online resources that have *evidence* - repeated, repeatable, predictive and observed - for the (quite big) theory of evolution and natural selection. You're in a science forum; we don't argue empty statements here, so if you want to argue against this established theory, you are more than welcome to post the counter-arguments or the reasons you think it is bunk. Coming here and demanding we prove it to you is not the way we work. You make a claim (that the theory is bunk), you should supply evidence for this claim. Go for it. Good luck, and welcome to Science Forums. ~mooey

If you need a natural glue, milk+vinegar (and then baking soda to the watery part without the curdle) makes a great and quite powerful glue. The curdled part, by the way, can solidify after 48 hours to something quite strong and plastic-like. http://www.wikihow.com/Make-Glue-out-of-Milk

Kerry, just be extra careful with the heat. I found that the experiment WORKS with an open flame (like a candle) but it gets very tricky to control it from burning the paper. A heat source like a toaster (the heat above it, of course, not inside a toaster oven) will be sufficient and probably safer. Just be careful I can't find resources on this, and I'd love to add something about this to the kit in the "Extra resources to read" section (links and such)... any ideas ? links will be very welcome.

Frustrating? Annoying? Unfair? Not-meant-as-a-science-inquiry? Intellectually Dishonest?

No question so far was unanswerable. He just doesn't want to accept the answers. Or even read about them for himself, it seems.

It doesn't matter. Evolution doesn't operate as a long-term benefit, but rather short-term mutation benefit that ADD UP towards long term changes. For that matter, the human body has quite a few NON benefitial design flaws in us. In fact, if a house would have been designed with the human body's waste piping design schematics, you'd sue the architect. that said, your assumptions are somewhat weird to me. Isn't it more logical to have a winged creature that can ESCAPE predators and protect itself when falling from large height (where there are much fewer predators)? Nothing will be logical if you frame it to not be logical. Seems to me you're not really interested in being convinced by science or evidence,but rather push your own agenda. I am willing to be open minded and weigh the evidence you shall present objectively. Can you really say you can do the same? ~mooey

elas, If you think your particle physics proposal is good enough to be peer-reviewed and published, then you should look for academic researchers who DO have experience/credentials/whatever and team up with them. Researchers *want* to get work published, so if they find no flaw with your theory, it can be published. The forum is a good place to get various questions or criticism on one's work, but it's not really a way to find publication. There are many universities out there with physicists who do research in the area you are interested with. I'm sure if you contact a few of them, you might have a chance to have someone actually go over it. My suspicion, however (judging from the criticism I've seen so far) is that there might be more problems than you'd think in your proposal. That said, the only way to actually know if you should or shouldn't give up is to try a different approach. That, however, is completely up to you. Regardless, I wish you luck in whatever you do. Painting sounds awesome. I wish I had the talent for it. ~mooey

Richard Dawkins isn't the only author out there. You might want to visit a library sometime soon.

We already answered that question. You just never accept it, lemur.

One could say the same about your defensiveness. Did you notice that it's about 10 people already who told you the SAME thing about your defensive reactions and insistence on being ignorant about actual physics? None of it strikes you as a catalyst to .. say.. try to see if, perhaps, you have SOME flaws in your logic? God forbid, not all wrong, just.. something.... perhaps inaccurate. Just a thought, here.

Sorry, I might be missing something here, but what is weight without mass?

!!! that makes so much more sense! I knew the whole "burning the paper easier" bit was weird... thanks!

Meh, I'm having a brainfart day. Let me see that I get it. Both are *solutes* (as in, they both dissolve in water). The sugar make the ice melt faster than regular ice, but not as fast as the salt. Which makes sense according to the posters here.

I don't think I *can* try this at home, unless I talk to the ice really fast and obnoxiously... har. Anyhoo, I think what I'll do is a bit of a reframing of the experiment. Instead of comparing "powers" I will show the difference of regular melting vs. melting with a solvent -- so sugar vs salt. The salt made it melt much faster, and the sugar made it melt a tad slower. That's enough to also explain why we use Salt on the pavements and not something else. Also, sugar will make the pavement sticky....

Indeed, I know. Thing is -- kids aren't really too surprised that ice makes something freeze. While it RESULTS in a cool ice cream, it's not much of a science demo; the kids aren't SURPRISED that the cream cooled to be ice-cream. The salt-on-ice demo is a bit better since they can see very well that the ice melts MUCH faster with ice on it, and slightly faster with sugar on it, and slower without anything on it. Yes, but you need quite a large pressure (which is extremely hard to do in a kitchen) and even that will only result in a VERY small change. Probably too small to observe without some computer probes.

Okay, I found this site: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/kitchenscience/food/exp/invisible-inks/ This site goes over many fruit juices and other liquids. Seems it's mostly the sugar. BUT, it doesn't go over lemon juice, so I"m still not sure lemon juice follows that. Though it DOES have sugars in it, so that makes sense. On the other hand, I tried to caramelize the lemon juice on a spoon (heated over flame) and failed... soooo... it doesn't seem to caramelize? I'm not sure what's up. Any ideas?

Salt would melt the ice, and would decrease the freezing point of water.... so that won't work. What I ended up doing is just comparing between the ice cube (with nothing), ice cube(with sugar) and ice cube(with salt). Sugar and salt were much faster than the "empty" cube, but clearly salt is MUCH more efficient in making the ice melt. That could be a good demo. I just wanted to see if there's a way to make it even better.

Me again with my kitchen experiments. So, I'm going to show (again) how pouring salt on an ice cube makes it melt FASTER. I will have a control ice cube with nothing on it and another cube with something like sugar (to show it's not just the "powder"). I am trying to look for a substance that can do the opposite and actually increase the freezing point of water, hence keeping the ice from melting *longer*. Anyone knows of any such substance? What, in this case, is the opposite of salt? I'm trying to look it up online but so far with little success. I'll post it here if I find anything. IF there is such a substance (and .. there must be!) I sure hope it can be found in a kitchen ~mooey EDIT: Waa.. seems it's not possible: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03446.htm I rely on your imaginative ideas, then, if it is at all possible....

It's not defensive, it's careful. When an experiment goes against what we know in reality there are two main options: Either the experiment wasn't done right, or our theory should be fixed accordingly. The first option should be first eliminated for us to accept the second option, so scientists (going by the scientific method) demand a rigorous peer-review process that includes shredding the theory/experiment apart and having it retested multiple times. The purpose isn't to be defensive, it's to test the idea and make sure it really is working. Only after the experiment was verified to be CONSISTENTLY working can we really move to the next step and correct our theories. Theories *are* being corrected in science all the time. That's how progress is made. ~mooey

Yes, you are right, I apologize. I meant to rephrase that and forgot to erase after I posted the definition from wikipedia. I think it has a much better explanation though, it should be read. Right. But it has "force" in the name, which is just a historical terminology, that, most of all, was my point, and I apologize for mixing things up and causing a bit of a confusion. The wiki terminology is much clearer (hence, please, thread participants, read it). ~mooey

Also, emf is NOT a force on its own, it's the induced current. It's called EMF out of historical definition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromotive_force And in particular, read #Terminology: I wish people would actually READ the links we give out. I am sorry for this frustrated comment, but really, this whole thing is getting very much tiring. ~mooey

Hal, I already answered it. Lemur seems to want to be 100% correct despite of physics rather than take what he can get and go study a bit more. Here. A repost: A good start of avoiding this is to pose things you're uncertain about as a question rather than a statement. Weight is a force (Gravitational force) and Voltage is an electric potential difference, so in that aspect I'd just be careful in the similar-framing. But in general, I guess you can think of it similarly in terms of conceptual imagining of the effects; To get gravitational potential we can use the equation [math]W=\int F \cdot dr[/math] (which leads to mgh on earth) To get electric potential we can use the equation [math]V=\int E \cdot dl[/math] In that aspect, they're similar. Just worth noting also that electric potential will only act on objects with an electric charge while gravitational potential will act on all mass. ~mooey

This is actually on topic with your other topic; and the answer is still the same. I am not sure I understand why you INSIST on staying ignorant of the textbook physics. You are more than welcome to criticize it but that would be much more effective after you know what it actually says. There's not a lot more we can say on this, lemur, no matter how many threads you post on it. You insist on reducing things to your own way of thinking without knowing what the physics says, and then you blame everyone else for having no idea what it is you're trying to say. I promise you: unless you do so while driving or, potentially, while crossing the street, reading will likely NOT kill you. Try it. ~mooey