dragonstar57

you are saying that melting does not require possibility of reversibility. and repeating your concept of melting is not helping. why don't you try to describe why you believe that reversibility is not inherent in melt despite the evidence shown by me and other posters and why you wish to use a definition of melt that is not widely accepted?

yes all tensions. resources will always play some role in any political happenings a shortage of resources will always inflame any situation.

solid becoming liquid is not melting. to prove that that what occurred was a change of the structure rather than a change in the blocks (molecules) that it is built from your need to be able to change it back. solid----->liquid could be any form of reaction. just as liquid---->gas is not necessarily evaporation. while you need no validation to say that something has has become liquid you do need to be able to turn it back to say it was only a phase change rather than a reaction of some sort. ps all of your reply's have been identical plz if you reply explain how your definition and how is not just a less specific definition of the real thing

I said causing or aggravating. all tensions between nations are aggravated by resource shortages and high population stress resources. and why should developed nations have a positive population growth? why not try to achieve a negative population growth?

I don't think I ever heard a concept as frightening as millions of near earth antimatter asteroids. it would almost be better to just let the asteroid hit than to antimatter it lol

but global population growth is still a problem and is it not the responsibility of those that can slow global population to do so?

why aren't countries like the US and others creating any laws or incentives to limit the population of their countries? isn't it universally excepted that most problems are in the world are either caused or aggravated by population being too large? so why isn't anything being done to slow the growth?

how can people say that the brain is faster than a computer. my computer seems smarter than many people i know. it never spells things wrong and does math problems almost instantly etc

you know you don't have to say that every time right?

I'm thinking the OP is looking for someone to teach them how to solve exponents and roots. seems homeworky to me

Than why don't you explain why it is correct to say anything turning from a solid to a liquid has "melted"?. "hal's melt'" and a real phase change only share the idea that a solid has become liquid. "hal's melt" does not require it to have been a simple rearrangement of molecular structure due to adding heat as real melting does. The core idea of phase changes is that there are 3 states of matter (ignoring plasma) and that substances can shift from one to the other freely based on heat. You want to retain the "solid becoming liquid" definition of melting but science has had to use a more specific definition because of the different mechanisms by which a solid can go through a process and produce a liquid.

metal expands when it rusts so any rust that may occur under the paint would damage the protective layer of paint

Words like melting by definition imply that the beginning substance and the product substance are the same in every way but phase. water is still H2O no matter if its water vapor, liquid water or ice.you seem to define melt as "to turn a solid to a liquid" but the more scientific definition has the core idea of phase changes not changing the substance in any way but phase. While if you look up a definition of melt it never says "can be reversed" but its a critical idea to the concept of states of matter.

I have never seen any form of honey sold other than the normal generic honey. maybe your area is in honey production or something but most people have only one option when it comes to honey. the only variation seems to be how much they add other sweeteners to it (high fructose corn syrup etc)

as I understand it the paint prevents oxygen from reaching the surface of the steel and once the seal is not perfectly air tight it no longer prevents the oxidization as well as when the seal was air tight. the one thing i hear often that is not correct is that rust causes more rust when in fact oxygen and an conductive materials cause the oxidation that forms rust *edit* with the exception of rust making more metal exposed to oxidizing elements

...and yet they impact when they both reach the same point? which would be sooner than if you were to just look at object B's speed relative to object A? what i don't understand how they both can be heading towards some unknown point at x and will arive at z but if you look it through relativity they won't meet at the point...? can someone make a diagram of this explaining the effects of relativity with additional points.... a---x---b if speed of a= speed of b = C and -light second will the objects collide in 3 secs or in 3 sec a and b have reached point x but not reached each other?

so if object A is moving at some fraction of C (lets call this x) and object B is moving at some fraction of C (lets call this y) and if you were to view from one of the objects (with the assumption that it is stationary) and assuming that x+y>C the other object would be moving faster than C relative to the 1st object and that's kewl if they are far enough away...?

IK i have been asking a lot of questions on this thread but i have another one sry... i have heard that blue headlights are brighter than white headlights but why is that? is the blue light more coherent so it goes further or something?

so how can space in between 2 objects expand faster than c? is that not saying that they are moving apart at greater than C? space is just ...space it can't really expand because it isn't really anything space is just an area where nothing is so if we say "the area where nothing is can expand faster than c" does that not imply that the objects themselves are moving?

the one compelling idea was that they discovered some kind of chemical in the pyramids suggesting hydrogen production had taken place there once (some salt residue) and that if u pumped some kind of chemicals in it would leave salt like that there. and the thing is I AM watching it in a skeptical way and it sounds like a valid hypothesis (not really enough evidence to prove it but enough to not sound like TOTAL BULL)

has anyone seen this show Ancient Aliens? the show is about the idea that aliens have visited earth and assisted in construction of ancient buildings etc. and they provide enough evidence to make it sound like a sincere hypothesis but still sounds a lot like nonsense what do you all think?

and of course there is some possibility that there is some kind of exception to relativity (as unlikely as that is) i'm just saying that we shouldn't say ANYTHING is imposable until we know everything about the universe

the more advanced the slower it's population growth hopefully the advanced nations will begin to have a negative population capable of making the world population growth 0 or even negative then HOPEFULLY the population will shrink to the point that the whole world will be able to have the standard of living as the US does now at this point i would like to see a 1 child policy in the US (perhaps cutting tax breaks for multiple children born after the making of the law) but strategies of cutting global population deserves its own thread

but the funds would be taken from something (such as getting involved with every conflict in the world) i really doubt that it would change the economy much. it would just change what money is being spent on not how much is being spent

I think the problem is that people are trying to understand relativity in a a general way and unfortunately most modern physics is about as counter intuitive as it gets. don't ask questions just believe Einstein's squiggles they work as long as not sounding like BS isn't it's goal i think the whole idea of FTL being imposable is going to far. there isn't much that scientists say that certainly and i think there should be an admission that there may possibly be an error somewhere that we are as of yet unaware of if for nothing more than to preserve intellectual credibility after all i thought I heard somewhere on this site that science does not produce facts only theories that are almost certainly correct? how about "FTL is imposable by today's understanding of physics" -that sounds a little more optimistic doesn't it?