D H

The OP's version is deeply flawed in the use of the word "colours". The second sighted person knows the color of his own hat by virtue of the first sighted person reporting that he sees two colours. The second sighted person's hat must the opposite of the color of the blind man's hat. Since both sighted people can see the color of the blind person's hat, the second sighted person cannot say the same thing the first sighted person did. This fixes the problem: Three men, one of them blind, walk into a pitch black room full of hats. The men know that two of the hats are red and the rest are black. Each man puts on a hat and walks out of the room. The first sighted person looks at the hats worn by the other two and says "I don't know the color of the hat on my head." The second sighted person then looks at the hats worn by the other two, thinks a bit, and says "I don't know the color of the hat on my head, either." After hearing this, the blind man says "Well I do know the color of the hat on my head." What is it?

A lark, I think. From Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal_Zone#Citizenship In 1953, Congress passed legislation to specify the status of Americans born in the Canal Zone--and to exclude non-Americans born there from citizenship. Title 8, Section 1403 of the United States Code grants citizenship to those born in the Canal Zone with at least one parent who is a United States citizen. However, just before this, the same article states On July 28, 1904, Controller of the Treasury Robert Tracewell stated, "While the general spirit and purpose of the Constitution is applicable to the zone, that domain is not a part of the United States within the full meaning of the Constitution and laws of the country. The decision belongs to neither the Controller of the Treasury nor Congress. It belongs to the Supreme Court. It will become a real issue if (a) someone decides to press the case and (b) the case makes it all the way up to and through the Supreme Court with McCain as the loser. I do not doubt someone will press the case. I firmly doubt the latter is the case. EDIT: I intentionally left out the possibility that some lower court will decide against McCain and all intermediate courts and the Supreme Court will refuse to hear the appeal. The appeal would be inevitable; the Republicans have too many resources and would have too much at stake not to file an appeal. The Supreme Court does not like to let lower courts have the ultimate say on previously untested constitutional issues that have major ramifications. I suspect the Republican Party has fully vetted this issue with their constitutional experts.

Because the US has this thing called the First Amendment.

I agree. Using 42 kJ/mole and ignoring details such as heat absorbed by the candle, the glass, and the water leads to a temperature rise of more than 300 degrees. Memo to self: Never trust a random web site, and think before you post. I tried the experiment myself with a water bath at different temperatures, ice cold, tap temperature, hot, and scalding hot. (Hey, it's Saturday.) I observed miniscule quantities amounts of condensed wax on the glass. I observed some outgassing in the scalding hot water, but not in any of the others. The water level starts to rise immediately, but the pace picks up as the candle burns down. The amount the water rose differed significantly depending on the water bath. Ice cold water: ~2 cm; tap water: ~1 cm; hot and scalding hot water: ~0.5 cm.

You raised it as a complicating factor. For that to be the case, the amount of CO production would have to be significant. Carbon monoxide will be produced in some quantity, but if that quantity is only a tiny fraction of the combustion products this incomplete combustion can be ignored. Some agent is responsible for the rising water level. One thing is certain: this agent cannot be condensation of candle wax. Think about it. The candle wax starts as a solid. Any candle wax that vaporizes, fails to combust, and fails to condense represents a net increase in the molarity of the gas. This does not support the rise in the water level; it is in fact counterindicative. Any candle wax the vaporizes, fails to combust, and later condenses back as a solid represents a zero net change. This is neither supportive or counterindicative; condensed wax cannot explain the phenomenon. ====================== In this link, http://dc19.4shared.com/download/12762082/14547575/Incomplete_Combustion.pdf the authors (unknown authors, unfortunately) report on an experiment very relevant to the topic at hand. They burned a candle in an enclosed space and measured temperature and the quantities of O2, CO2 and CO. A summary: The candle went out when the oxygen level fell to 16.5%. The candle does not burn all of the oxygen in the glass. It goes out much, much sooner than that. Incomplete combustion occurs, but minimally. 1/1080 of the carbon combustion products are CO. The rest are CO2. Incomplete combustion does occur, but it is negligibly small. The temperature rises by a paltry 2 degrees C. Moreover, subsequent cooling is very slow. The small temperature rise and the long cooling period means this cannot be a temperature-related phenomenon. The last observation indicates that temperature is not the dominant factor in the rise in the water level. Without detailed measurements it appears in Mooey's video that the water rises about 1 up of the glass and the glass appears to be about 10 cm tall. That rise corresponds to a pressure difference of about 98 pascals. Using the ideal gas law, the temperature would have had to risen by 30 degrees C to account for the rise solely with temperature. The temperature rose by 2 degrees in the cited experiment. Even if gas does escapes from the glass during the burning (no bubble is observed in Mooey's video) and even if cooling is quick (which it isn't), a paltry 2 degree change cannot account for the drastic rise in water level. My hypothesis has been from the onset that the phenomenon results from a reduction in the molarity of the gas in the glass caused by condensation of combustion products in the water bath. A simple and safe test to falsify the condensation of combustion products in the water is to use a bath of very hot water instead of cold or room temperature water. The hot water has a much reduced ability to dissolve CO2 and to absorb water vapor. If the water level still rises significantly the condensation hypothesis is falsified. One final observation: Googling this phenomenon leaves me very saddened by the state of science education. Some teach the phenomenon results from to burning of oxygen. Mooey made this mistake herself, but later corrected it. While there is absolutely nothing wrong with a student making such an error, there is a lot wrong with a teacher making this error. Some attribute it to temperature, but don't do the simple analysis to show what kind of temperature change is needed and don't do the simple observation to see if gas bubbles out of the glass while the candle is burning. Nobody attributes it to a change in molarity.

No. It really incessantly comes from fundamentalists, not from the right. There are plenty of non-fundamentalists who have conservative points of view. Fundamentalists have hijacked the right, but that is a temporary circumstance (I hope).

These are known to be impossible: Finding a rational expression for [math]\sqrt 2[/math] or [math]\pi[/math] Squaring the circle Find a solution to [math]a^3+b^3=c^3[/math] in the positive integers Finding a generic method for solving quintic equations Proving that a computer program will stop. These are most likely impossible: Finding a polynomial-type solution to the traveling salesman problem Killing your paternal grandpa a year before your father was born Traveling faster than the speed of light.

I would say the contrary: The number of things which are even remotely possible is exceeding miniscule. The set of all things, possible or impossible, is a set of incomprehensible size. It is not just infinite; it has unbounded cardinality. Even given infinite time and resources, the set of possible things is a constructible set. It has finite cardinality. In comparison to the set of all things the set of possible things is a set of measure zero.

The gravitational attraction of the Sun on the Earth remains the same whether the sun collapses to a neutron star or swells to engulf Venus' orbit. An object with a spherically-symmetric mass distribution acts exactly the same as a point mass located at center of mass of the object. This is a standard result from freshman-level physics.

You can look for wax residue on the glass and floating on the water to confirm or reject the vaporized wax hypothesis. Look for signs of water on the glass to confirm or reject the glass condensation hypothesis. Some tests: Test of temperature hypothesis. Put the glass in the water bath, no candle. Heat the glass with a hair dryer for some time. This will raise the gas temperature, so you should see some bubbling from the glass. Let the glass cool. My prediction: The water will rise as the system cools, but not nearly so dramatically as with the candle. Temperature sensitivity test. Conduct the candle test multiple times with the water bath at different temperatures. CO2 solubility varies by a factor of 5.7 or so between 0C and 60C while H2O vapor pressure varies by a factor of 33 or so over the same temperature range. The carbon monoxide hypothesis: That's a good one. Since CO has negligible solubility in water, and increases the molarity of the gas, it does not explain the water rising. It certainly does make things more complex.

A temperature-based explanation simply cannot explain why no bubbling is observed while the candle is burning. Burning increases the molarity of the gas. The only explanations for the observed fact of no outgassing occurs (in fact, the water rises) while the candle is burning are that the temperature is decreasing even though heat is being added or that gas is being absorbed faster than it is being created. How can the temperature decrease while heat is being added? Add to this the fact that gases are very poor conductors of heat. The heat transfer rate to the glass and the water will be slow.

Watch the video. There is no outgassing. In fact, as Cap'n noted, the fluid level starts rising well before the flame goes out. Outgassing is required if this was primarily a temperature-related phenomenon. The burning of the candle wax increases the temperature of the gas and increases the molarity of the gas (thirteen net moles of gas are created for each mole of burnt candle wax if the wax is pure paraffin). Both of these factors argue for outgassing. The observed fact that there is no outgassing can mean only one thing: The molarity of the gas must be decreasing rather than increasing. The only way that can happen is by condensation of the H2O on the sides of the glass, condensation of the H2O into the liquid, or solution of the CO2 by the liquid. Which one? Some assumptions: The glass is a typical drinking glass with a volume of 0.5 liters. Mooey poured 0.05 liters of liquid into the plate. The gas in the glass starts out at 300K. The flame raises the gas temperature to 310K. 75% of the oxygen is consumed before the flame goes out. Some observations and facts: The sides of the glass remain clear throughout. Absorbtion doesn't start immediately, but does start before the flame goes out. The liquid rises about one centimeter up the glass. Air is 20.85% oxygen. The partial pressure of CO2 at 310K, 1 atm pressure is about 0.023 moles/liter. The water vapor pressure at 310K is 6300 pascals. Some calculations: The glass contains 0.0043 moles of oxygen molecules (ideal gas law assumption) Burning consumes 0.0032 moles of oxygen but creates 0.0021 moles of CO2 and 0.0022 moles of H2O. Ignoring condensation, the post-combustion partial pressure of the H2O is about 13,000 pascal, well over twice the partial pressure listed above. If the assumptions are correct, more than half of the generated H2O must condense. The water can dissolve 0.0011 moles of CO2, or about half of the quantity of CO2 produced. Bottom line: Temperature cannot account for the phenomenon for the simple reason that the temperature rise and molarity increase would make the gas expand, not contract. That the glass remains clear throughout argues against H2O condensation onto the sides of the glass. Both CO2 solution and H2O condensation into the water can account for the phenomenon. H2O condensation matches the observation that the water does not start rising immediately. The partial pressure must rise close to the vapor pressure before condensation commences.

Athiest: a picture of a pool with a deck: Zodiac: I picture is worth a thousand words, so draw a picture of the pool with the decks around it. Make the pool rectangular. Call the longer edges of the pool the "sides" and the shorter edges the "ends". (Or vice versa, but I think my nomenclature is in line with the vernacular.) Regarding the decks: You are hung up on the words "length" and "width". Each deck extends a bit from the edge of the pool. Suppose the pool has dimensions 100 feet by 25 feet (THIS IS NOT THE ANSWER, SO DON'T USE IT). Suppose you are standing on a deck alongside the long dimension. How wide is the deck? (Answer: 6 feet. It is 100 feet long). Now imagine walking to a deck along the end of the pool. That deck is 8 feet wide, not 25 feet. BTW, whether those four 6'x8' rectangular chunks at the corners of the decks count or don't count is irrelevant. They're total area is 192 sq. ft., a constant.

That is the lay interpretation of the uncertainty principle, and it is essentially incorrect. The uncertainty principle talks about measurements of a pair of canonical variables. Variables whose product has units of energy are canonical variables For example, position and momentum. You can know one to any degree of accuracy you want at the expense of the other. August, the answer does not lie in the uncertainty principle. It lies in noise, interference, bias, technique, perception, etc. Here's an experiment for you to conduct on experimental error. Put two black spots about six inches apart on a white sheet of paper. (Don't make it exactly six inches; this will introduce bias.) Get a ruler that has demarcations in tenths of inches on one edge and 1/8 inches on another. Your classmates are to measure the distance between the dots using a ruler that you supply and write their measurements down on slips of paper. Do not tell them details, such as how to measure the distance or which edge of the ruler to use. Some people will be sloppy, some precise. Some will measure from center to center, others from outer edge to outer edge, and so on. Some will use the 1/8" scale, others the 1/10" scale. All of these factors, plus the inherent limitations in using a ruler to estimate distance contribute to experimental error.

This is a red herring argument tossed out by creationists. Suppose some species live across some expanse of land. Something happens to the land that splits it into two parts. Examples are peninsulas separating from the mainland or the formation of an inhospitable desert or insurmountable mountain range that splits the population in two. Evolution does not have some action-at-a-distance principle. Evolution is local. There is no reason to expect now separated populations to follow the same evolutionary pathway. Just because one population within a species follows a certain pathway does not mean the entire species must follow that path. So, to answer the question, "if humans descended from apes and monkeys, the why are there still apes and monkeys? Wouldn't they evolve too?" Yes, they would and they did. They just didn't follow the same evolutionary path our ancestors took.

For simplicity, I'll assume the candle is paraffin wax, C25H52. Burning one mole of paraffin wax consumes 38 moles of oxygen molecules but produces 25 moles of CO2 and 26 moles of H2O, or a net gain of 13 moles of gas for every mole of paraffin wax that is burned. Not only is the quantity of gas increasing, it is getting hotter. Were it not for condensation, burning the candle would push the liquid level down rather than drawing it up. This doesn't happen because the water vapor condenses somewhere. My bet is on the milk for two reasons. First, I expect the milk is cooler than the glass, and second, water (milk) has a much greater affinity for water vapor than does the glass. So why does the majority of the liquid enter the gas after the candle has gone out? While the candle is burning, the condensation process fights against gas production. If the two processes are nearly balanced there will be little change in the liquid level while the candle is burning. Once the candle goes out there is no more gas production. The condensation process proceeds as there remains some remnant water vapor in the gas part of the glass.

I doubt the oil will rise the way the milk did because the milk is what absorbed the water vapor (that's my hypothesis). If you do decide to try this, please be careful. I will feel terrible if I find out the fire department had to be called to put out mooeypoo's house as a result of a poorly conducted science experiment.

Cooking oil doesn't absorb water vapor. Milk does.

... or be absorbed by the milk. Mooey, you might want to try the experiment with cooking oil instead of water. Use caution if you do attempt this; cooking oil is flammable.

It's not heat; heat would make the gas expand. I don't think it's CO2, either. A molecule of oxygen has two oxygen atoms, and so does one molecule of CO2. Hint: Candle wax is not carbon; it's a hydrocarbon.

A bit more directly related to Bigfoot, this drawing depicts yet another cryptozoological species. It too was only recently rediscovered because it lives in an area where people seldom live. However, no samples were taken so most scientists doubt that it exists. In all serious now, a recent videotape supposedly shows that the ivory-billed woodpecker is not extinct. The video is fuzzy and short; one frame might show distinguishing characteristics of the ivory-billed woodpecker. The Patterson video was made by a pair of non-scientists who were undoubtedly out to make a buck. The ivory-billed woodpecker video was made by trained scientists who have tenure. Nonetheless, the burden of proof remains on the scientists who make the claim that the ivory-billed woodpecker is still alive. Without sounds, feathers, or better videos the claim remains suspect.

I think this thread needs to be injected in the pseudoscience forum.

You are defining "real things" as physical substances and then claiming that because time and space are not physical substances they are not real. Take your sophistry elsewhere, please. Time and space are fundamental quantities in physics. They are defined in terms of measurements. The standard measurements that provide the scientific definitions of time and space are "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom" and "the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second," respectively.

You are coming across as one of the nutters who are saying exactly that, and saying so in lawsuits to attempt to prevent the startup of the LHC. You, like the nutters, are picking and choosing which parts of physics you agree with. You are choosing the physics that says we might create previously unseen particles with the LHC but you are ignoring the physics that says the Earth is being hit by particles with much more energy than the LHC can muster. You are choosing the physics that says we might create quantum black holes but are ignoring the physics that says such black holes will have a very short half-life and you are ignoring the very well established physics that says these quantum black holes are many orders of magnitude smaller than atomic nuclei. You are choosing the physics that says there is a non-zero chance of something bad occurring but ignoring the physics that says this non-zero chance is negligibly small, even after taking the consequences into account.

Just to hammer this home, it exists in exactly the same way space does. Bend your elbow and raise your hand to a foot or so in front of your face. There is air between your face and hand. Is there space itself between your face and hand? Is that real? It is not a material; I just took that away. (Hint: It's real.)