CaptainPanic

As far as I understood, we don't really know why the universe is expanding in an accelerated way. So, our understanding of just what kind of energy we have is failing. Also, we cannot seem to find the majority of the mass of the universe. We know there must be something else, but we're not exactly sure what it is. That's why our current models assume "dark matter" and "dark energy". We just had to give it a name... But from the observations made so far, there are no signs that the universe plans to return to its very dense original state. There are no signs that the universe wouldn't expand forever... and never return. And I have no idea what you mean by popping the fabric of space, or why nothing can be infinite. Why wouldn't something go on forever? As far as I understood, we don't really know if there is anything beyond the furthest point we can see. But I am no expert.

Yes, the (combined) laws of conservation of mass and energy apply to the whole universe. Unfortunately (or, actually, I don't really care), the universe seems to be expanding, and to do so in an accelerated way... so to our best knowledge, it seems there might never be a moment when all black holes come back together.

I dunno about the pesticides... the world consumption is about 2.5 million tons. That's a bulk product, made in large efficient factories. You might not be able to produce is sufficiently cheap to compete with the big industry. Typically, the margins are small, so you must work at high efficiency, or you will not have any money left for your own income (and you'll go bankrupt). I would avoid competing with any big industry. Since you want a workshop, I would look for a field where people pay not only for the chemical, but also for the manual labor that was put into it. Anything custom made will typically have a higher labor price...

Can I just say that there is a HUGE grey area between chemistry and physics? Especially when you're going to do something practical with it. In chemistry, you have a reaction, but physics describes how mixing works. But if you mix, you influence the chemistry. Trying to define the exact boundary is not just silly, it's also pointless. I mean, who cares? If you want to pull this idea off (and make it economically interesting), you're gonna need a chemist and a physicist. The physicist needs to fiddle with the nucleus of that iron (if that works at all)... but then the chemist needs to purify that gold. And they'd better cooperate and understand each other's work.

Both your posts make a lot of sense, if you make the assumption to discard the bottle immediately after the 1st use, and if you only look at the effect of the waste, not production. If you look at the entire life span of a bottle, it becomes complicated: Production I do not have the numbers, but my guess is that glass bottles require more (fossil) energy to make than a plastic bottle, simply because it's so heavy. A typical glass bottle may be somewhere between 10 - 100 times as heavy, meaning that 10 - 100 times as much material is used to make that bottle. Recycling A typical Dutch glass beer bottle is recycled up to 40 times before being melted down (source: Dutch wikipedia). But, it must be noted that in the Netherlands, we have plastic milk bottles which are apparently used 50 times before being discarded (or recycled? I don't know). And those plastic bottles are only a fraction of the weight, so they are easier to transport. Plastic bottles can be recycled just as easily as glass, if the bottles are made strong enough to withstand a beating. Germany, and a number of Scandinavian countries have a refund on plastic bottles. Their bottles are a lot tougher (thicker plastic) than in many other countries. They are made to be recycled. Each bottle is worth 25 cents, or more. And hardly any bottles are thrown away. Discard into the environment If we ignore that nowadays the majority of waste is burned and/or recycled, and we look only at the effects of bottles being discarded into the environment, then glass is the preferred option. Glass is essentially sand, and has very few drawbacks if dumped... Ok, so it's sharp. The sharp edges will not remain sharp forever... and it's a very local problem. So In summary, it's not so much the material you use, it's how you use it. I would prefer it if the answer is more simple, but it's not.

I propose: Chapter 1, Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Chapter 4, Chapter 5, Chapter 6, Chapter 7, Chapter 8, Chapter 9 and finally Chapter 10. Don't decide how many chapters you need before starting to write. You just write what you have to say. Order the information into categories. Each category becomes a chapter.

Don't put a graph in your post if you want to be ignored. That's a magnet for attention! Example: Figure 1 is not related to the topic Although the graph is not related to the topic, it still got your attention. You probably checked it out even before reading the first line. Anyway, let's get back on topic. I don't believe you. Men took their families to the city, so they stayed together. Women also got jobs in the factories of those days, and even children were employed. And that was exactly the same as the peasants in an agricultural society in the old days. They all worked long days. Yes. So, what you're saying is that Women's Rights were a result of how society developed. I do not think that we should list all developments of the 18th, 19th and 20th century here... but you're probably right. I disagree with a number of details you write, but I am too lazy to address them.

And likewise, it also wouldn't make sense going around counting all types of farms, without knowing which kinds of animals live in that farm, and then draw a conclusion about the amount of methane produced. As you pointed out, all animals are equal, but not when it comes to flatulence. So, it matters how many cows there are, not how many farms. If you want to make a mass balance (and we do), you have to realize that every carbon atom in methane that is formed in the belly of a beast comes from a plant. A brontosaur is only a chemical factory on legs, like every animal btw. If you want to know what comes out the back end, you need to start making a balance. And that means you need to know what goes in at the front. If you do not take that into account, you cannot get a balance. I'm sorry, but that's just how all engineers calculate what happens in a process (and yes, that last sentence is an argument from authority, which is actually a fallacy). If you want to make an assumption of the amount of methane produced (from plants) in the bellies of brontosaurs, you'd better start off knowing how much plants were being eaten. Then make an assumption on the percentage of the plants being converted to methane. And then you get a decent estimate. I have a problem with the entire method in that paper... not so much with the results, which might coincidentally be correct. But that would be luck, not science.

I know nothing about the process, sorry. It was just an idea. I've seen some people do such things in a relatively small workshop (on tv).

ewmon, Excellent post. Highly amusing. It's always a good idea to support a logical fallacy with an irrelevant graph! It fools most people. Obviously, the graph only shows urbanization, and does not support any theories about (1) the influence of women's suffrage, or (2) how they would take charge of the country. Still, it's cluttered with little pictures, and the vertical axis isn't even properly labeled, so it's unlikely that people will find out it's meaningless. Therefore, I can only accept it as a valid input. It's also always a good idea to totally exaggerate some sociological phenomena (all women are single mothers, men do all the work, and fill up the sperm banks). Obviously, the actual numbers tell a very different story. Most families are 2-parent families. And a very large majority of kids are conceived the normal way. Still, you chose your words carefully, and as a whole, you're quite convincing actually. Argument accepted. So, according to you, most men are here only to work, and to fill up the sperm banks. And it's all a big conspiracy by women. And it has actually succeeded! LOL! I never realized just how oppressive women actually are! It was women who invented the concept of cities and urbanization, just to take control! Those bitches. And they did it right under our noses. ewmon, I'm not entirely sure whether you were indeed joking. If you were serious, then maybe I should apologise for the tone of this post. It's an attempt to continue the humorous tone of your post!

What the internet often forgets to mention is that the approach of "a little space and a couple of drums" also reduces your life expectancy by about 40 years. I advise you to look into the dangers of each and every chemical you're about to use. Material Safety Data Sheets are available (through Google) for pretty much every material.

I doubt production of base-chemicals is going to be profitable at a small scale. And I doubt you have the financial means to set up anything larger. 5000$ is really not much! You might want to try some fermentations, like ethanol fermentation. It is relatively safe and easy... although it gets a little more difficult if you try to get it to >99% purity. Distillation is more dangerous already, and you don't get to the right purity. Personally, if I were determined to have my own company, I would look one step further downstream... like using resins+fibres to make some products (check out carbon fibre reinforced polymers, or fiberglass). Also, as an engineer, you can design processes, and be a consultant. I'm surprised that as an engineer, you have to ask the question actually. Sorry if that sounds rude.

The only mistake I see in this thread is that people take this idiot serious. I see it as a joke, and I see no reasons to discuss anything about it. It's funny because it's outrageously ridiculous.

I'll try again, since my point wasn't fully understood. We're talking about the following (overall) reaction: Plants --> Methane My problem is that the article concludes: Animals --> Methane, or specifically (quoted): Methane (litres per day) = 0.18 (body mass in kg)0.97 ... which is rubbish. It's like saying you can make cars from factories. No, cars are made of steel and plastics. So, you need to know how much steel is being produced. Likewise, it is far more important to talk about the growth of plants, than the estimated total mass of brontosaurs on a square kilometer. Exactly. In addition it would be important, as Arete just pointed out, to know what kind of "factories" (animals) you have. If you know the world's total steel production, you cannot estimate the number of cars produced - although it is important. You also need to know what kind of factories there are. The article says that in the dino age, there was a lot of sauropod meat walking around. So, there must have been a lot of methane. But they completely fail to address the type of digestive system of the sauropods.

The earth's land mass has been pretty constant throughout the ages. Therefore, there were an equal amount of plants growing in the dino era compared to modern times. Therefore, there should have been an equal consumption of plant material, either by large, small, or microscopic plant eaters. Therefore, I don't see why there should ever be any difference in methane production. The study pretty much suggests that cows and dinos fart more in comparison to other animals, and I don't see why. Why wouldn't elephants, or rabbits, or giant sloths or any other plant eater fart just as much? Also, I admit I didn't read the whole paper.

Exactly. That's what upsets me so much. This self fulfilling prophesy gives them enormous power. They just have to drop a warning into the mainstream media, and the interest rates follow. We always ask people to back up their claims on this forum. It upsets me that in mainstream media, nobody seems to ask S&P's to explain why they downgrade someone. So far, I haven't found them explaining which economic theories they've used, from which economic school of thought. I'm assuming they're followers of Keynes or something that descended from Keynes. But I'm not even sure about that.

! Moderator Note Dear BSC, Our forum rules say you shouldn't open a thread specifically to advertise your blog, or anything else for that matter (see the rules, section 2.7). I'm guessing you hadn't seen the rules yet, because you're new here, so I have removed the links for you. It's nothing personal. Feel free to put your non-commercial link in a signature. Back on topic... what's so fascinating about the passage of Venus in front of the sun? Doesn't it mean you can see less of venus, rather than more, because of the huge contrast? Is it just because it doesn't happen often?

The normal way is to take a broad Bachelor, a more specialized Master, and a highly specialized job. Employers know that you're gonna need to learn a lot when you're fresh out of university. It's not a problem. Better start broad. No matter which way you turn is, you're gonna need some physics and maths. The mechanical engineering departments around the world have educated huge amounts of good engineers. I don't see why you want to do it differently.

At least in the Netherlands, people have always had means to block alternative sources of information. Historically, people belonged to a so-called pillar of a certain ideology. We had a Protestant, Catholic, socialist and liberal pillar. They all had their own newspapers, their own tv-channels, radiostations. Since people often lived geograpically separated, either in different parts of the country, or at least different neighborhoods, they did not share ideas much. Similarly, historically in the UK, the political parties also had their own highly subjective newspapers. The papers were mostly either Whig or Tory (Labour didn't even exist yet). So, I conclude that it hasn't changed so much. The major change is perhaps that problems have become global... and this means that the problems are very complicated, and therefore most people (including myself) do not understand all the aspects, and cannot see a good solution. So, this in turn means that the solution to a problem is subjective, not objective. And that means people will just troll about it.

Both. Designing/building robots is team work. You need both mechanical engineers and electrical engineers. There are robots for pretty much everything. Welding, bending, pushing, shoving, picking up, putting down, etc. Robots can put stuff in boxes, or get it out. They can move 40 ton containers in harbors, or perform microsurgery.

Credit rating agencies have been hot news since the economic crisis hit. Three agencies in particular seem very influential: Standard & Poor's, Moody's and Fitch, sometimes called the Big Three. Some days, it seems that they practically rule the world. Influencing the short-term political agenda There are plenty of examples where a warning from one of the agencies triggered responses from the highest politicians in EU countries. (Links in Dutch (1, 2), and in English (3, 4)). Each article starts with a warning (not a real downgrade), followed by politicians who say something along the lines of "this shows that we need to take action", or "this shows how urgently we need to change our economy". The articles all say the same: the credit rating agencies warn countries to change, or else. And because a downgrade costs billions (the interest rate will shoot up instantly), the credit agencies have countries by the balls... and this way they can set the agendas of governments. Influencing the long-term political agenda Even more worrying is that lately, the agencies have been influencing the democratic processes of countries in Europe (elections). In the Netherlands, our government collapsed rather unexpectedly. In the same week, S&P had warned us that our AAA-status could be downgraded (article in Dutch) if the government couldn't reach an agreement on budget cuts, or if the political differences would obstruct a healthy economic policy. In response to these warnings, our interest rate shot up. And although I cannot prove it, I have a feeling that this bullied some politicians into agreeing with new cuts... because our parliament reached an agreement very soon. And that's surprising given the fact that the government had just collapsed, and a new majority had to be found among parties, including the opposition. They also responded to the French elections of last weekend, saying: I'll summarize that for you: They say that they take no position regarding individual candidates, but the results matter for the rating. In even simpler words, they say: "We don't care what you vote, but some votes may cost you your status, and therefore many billions of euros". At least they have the decency not to be actively against socialist leaders (like France's new president)... but they already gave their warning. And the markets responded. It seems that the agencies accept higher taxes in combination with higher expenses... they still actively speak out against anti-cyclic spending. The big worry There are many different economic schools of thought. Differences between for example Europe and the US show that there is not a single perfect system. Europeans tend to be far more socialist, with a larger government, higher taxes, and larger government expenses... But we're equally rich as the US. It worries me that three American agencies can influence our economies so much, and apparently decided for us which economic school of thought is the correct one. They seem to actively discourage anti-cyclic government spending. They simply say that they will lower the rating if the debt increases in the relatively short term... which is a clear message. The Dutch debt is only 66% of our GDP (compared for example to the USA's 103%). What do they care if our government decided to spend a bit more, to achieve some long-term goals, which is typically what anti-cyclic spending is meant to do? Also, I seriously doubt that they have complete models for their predictions. Our governments might for example be encouraged to privatise some parts of the government. Do the analyses of the agencies take into account that this might not always be effective? Or are they only happy with the short-term inflow of cash into the national treasuries? And do they rate a euro spent on education the same as a euro spent on the military? After all, education can be called an investment, with (hopefully) a kind of payback time. The military, while necessary, is an expense. It's not gonna generate more money in the future. In short: how do we know that the agencies are right? The even bigger worry The rating agencies are companies. They make a profit. How objective are they? What are their economic interests? Can they be corrupted? Can someone influence them to give a warning? Some prior knowledge of a press release by one of the agencies can be used to earn millions. In short: can we trust them? So... I just wonder how it could happen that these three agencies can set the agendas of nations, influence elections, and make a nice profit at the same time?

From a European: Americans don't have ANY socialist candidates. If Obama would participate in our elections, he would probably be among the right wing capitalists... not the left wing socialists. Firstly, it's ridiculous that people call Obama or Newt a socialist. Secondly, it's ridiculous that the word socialist is used as a kind of swear word, as if socialism is bad. Note to Americans: most of your European allies over the last century were socialists... at least, more socialist than any of your presidents ever was. Sorry if this derails this thread, but it didn't really have a clear topic to start with.

! Moderator Note Free advice: The best way to do that is by making sure your final conclusion of your post is back on topic. It's ok to bring in all kinds of ideas/arguments... as long as you get back to the main topic at the end. Then other members can discuss your individual ideas/arguments... but they too should finalize their posts going back to the main discussion topic. Writing an on-topic conclusion assures that the discussion does not slowly drift off topic, discussing only a small aspect of the larger topic. For us moderators, it is pretty difficult to keep such a long thread like this on topic. Some arguments are obviously off topic, and some are on topic. And then there's the large grey area in between... If you're wondering if you are on/off topic, then just read the opening post (post #1) again. (And yes, there are probably still some posts off topic in this particular thread... if you spot some, then feel free to propose that we split it off).

The asteroid did not wipe out everything. Smaller animals could survive easier, because of several reasons. One reason is that they certainly need less food.

Oh well, I'm done with this. We've asked a couple of times, and I guess DimaMazin is just too smart for us. I certainly have no idea what he is talking about.