CaptainPanic

You are right that the traders look to the future... but the stock market that we read about in the news today looks at the very near future: a couple of weeks, days, hours or in case of panic just minutes or seconds. So, because they look at such a short term, and you can win or lose several percent in a matter of minutes, the value of the stock market is quite disconnected from the real economy. Indexes such as the DOW-Jones are almost back where they were before the big crash you talk about. Banks still trade debt. The whole system never changed. The stock markets overestimated the value of the economy in 2008... now, while the real economy has not really recovered, stocks (average indexes, like the Dow) are back at the value of those days. I believe that it's too high. And I personally believe (it's a belief, not science) that there is a connection between the real economy and the stock market, no matter how abstract they've made it, and no matter how the trade works. Once in a while, the reality corrects the stock market... and that's what we're seeing now. There's nothing better or worse with the actual economy. It's just the stock market that has its numbers is seriously wrong sometimes.

I do not think it is disrespectful. The ancient pharaos believed in an afterlife, and their burial was intended to make it easy/comfortable/happy in the afterlife. In these days however nobody believes in those rituals anymore, and the idea of the afterlife has been completely disconnected from any personal posessions or even your physical body. Some people don't believe in an afterlife at all. So, given the modern beliefs, and combine that to the fact that nobody has an emotional bond with someone who is dead for over 3000 years, and I conclude that this is OK.

The total value of the stock market is only supposed to represent a real economy. It represents investments in real goods, and real factories/people/knowledge/etc. So, what I wonder is whether the stock market has just overestimated the health of the economy (I think so), or whether this is just a moment of panic and we'll get over it soon enough. I think that the stock market has been ignoring some serious problems, and has created a bubble. The real economy's bubble has burst a while ago, especially the housing bubble. And it has not recovered yet. Prices are still lower than before. But the stock market which should normally follow this trend has largely ignored it. The stock market is a funny thing. As I wrote: its value should represent a real economy, but if all the traders are just greedy, they can make themselves believe that the value can be a bit higher. And this common disbelief of problems can have driven the prices up a lot.

If the dome is a perfect sphere, and if we assume that most furniture would be 25% of the height of the highest point of the ceiling, then (using simple maths: cos(sin^-1(0.25)) = 0.968, and the resulting surface is pi*0.968^2 = 0.9375, meaning we lose 0.0625) we can calculate that you still lose 6.25% of your total surface area. This percentage increases quickly as you get taller furniture. It's not a show stopper, but you cannot totally dismiss it either. 6.25% of the total area is a lot more than just a little space behind the couch.

With a theoretical unlimited power you can overcome all friction. There are no fundamental limitations other than the speed of light itself. Every limitation is practical (and there are lots). I suggest that you read up on a couple of definitions, because I get the feeling that you are mixing up some words (like power, velocity, friction, viscosity).

So, you actually thought that all this time (in this thread, and the other one about melting wood) we all suggested that you must always (in every individual instance) prove that you can freeze the molten material? We all know that it's pretty difficult to "prove" that an ice cube has molten when it was in your drink, and is now in your stomach. So, no, if you talk about science, you do not have to prove every word you say there and then on the spot. It's alright if someone else has done the work for you, and you are confident that it has been proven sufficiently. Like in the case of water, we can all agree that it can melt and freeze, and that this is reversible. So, if the ice cubes in your drink melt, you can say they melt, without having to show for these individual ice cubes that they will freeze again. But if needed, there exists literature which can backup your remark. And with that literature, you can show that it's a reversible process, and not a decomposition reaction.

Maybe it's just a matter of leaving the safety of your friends behind once in a while? Try to meet new people. I mean, from what I read (I hope I do not offend you) I get a picture of a relatively limited group of friends who you know quite well, living in a relatively small town (or at least, the places you visit are quite limited). Even if those would all be world-class philosophers and scientists, that would get boring. Everybody has a rather limited list of things that really interest them... talking with the same group of really intelligent people all the time can become quite monotonous too! So, while you say that you're interested to meet people who aren't such a social butterfly, fluttering from one little topic to the next, I propose that you actually flutter around a bit yourself, searching for a couple of other people who might be interesting. It will take time, and it takes effort, and it might even take you to another town if your own place is too limiting... But it might just work, or at least it's an experience in itself. It's a big world... and although there's certainly an optimum, it doesn't hurt to have more than 1 group of friends. I don't really agree that the two are necessarily opposing.

Ok, so viscosity can be reduced (not vanish), or increased... It depends on the reaction.

With the risk of being wrong (I'm no expert), I propose an answer: I do not think the flagellum gives the cell the ability to move in a specific direction. It just allows to to move somewhere else (which is already better than being stationary). If single cell organisms deliberately move up and down in the ocean at all, I think they do it by slight changes in overall density (buoyancy). I cannot provide any links, because I admit that this is just an educated guess instead of an answer. A quick search btw suggests that the phytoplankton doesn't move up and down. It's zooplankton that moves up and down. Again, just a couple of Google hits that told me that... not years of study.

All airborne diseases are dangerous, because they can spread easily. A deadly flu virus without a cure is just as lethal and dangerous as an airborne zombie virus. The only difference is in the symptoms of the disease. The fact that you become a zombie does not add much to the danger. In fact, I would say that the whole zombie part is no more relevant than any other symptoms of other diseases. So, quite irrelevant (although being a zombie is obviously quite disgusting, and therefore good television).

Why would viscosity vanish? All liquids and gases have a viscosity. Viscosity never vanishes.

I can only repeat things from here on. Everything has been said. So, you do things different than everybody else. I cannot agree to disagree on a definition, but I can agree that we use two definitions in parallel. There's melting, and there's "Hal.'s melting" from now on. Congratulations. We can now "Hal.'s melt" wood, sugar, and many plastics.

First of all, I think it's nice to be challenged sometimes, so you need at least some people around you that are capable of doing that. But not only such people. Heck, people of a lower IQ are quite capable of challenging me... they might have far better social skills, are better on the dancefloor, better at sports, and might in general have more life experience than me. That said, I think that being really dumb is far more socially awkward than being intelligent. Obviously, both extremes can be awkward if you fail to adapt to a situation, but it's a lot easier to step down a level than to go up a level. Being smart, the easiest way to dumb yourself down is to grab another beer... after a couple, you're all on the same level. Boobies! (Girls, for some reason have a less obvious boobies fixation, but will suffer from similar IQ-equalizing effects from booze).

Building a cellar / basement has been done for millenia. And mixing small stones, sand or clay into cement or concrete has also been done for ages (literally, since the Romans have invented cement and concrete). Until that point, history seems to agree with you. However, I think one of the main reasons that people like to live above ground, rather than under it in Hobbit-style houses is daylight. Windows are really important. And, more recently also because we stack multiple houses on top of each other in large apartment buildings to achieve sufficient population density. You can't do all that under ground. Then there is the issue of ground water. Building a basement is not so much a matter of digging a big hole in the ground. Far more important is to keep the groundwater out. In the Netherlands for example, groundwater is typically less than half a meter below the surface... sometimes as little as 20 cm. Finally, one practical problem with an igloo is that you don't have straight walls to put something against. The curvature would require custom made (expensive) furniture... unless all igloos in the world would have the same size and shape (and therefore the same curvatures).

Yes, but the question was not whether in your opinion, wood can melt. The OP did not ask "Hal., do you think that according to your personal definition wood can melt?". The question was asked on a science forum whether according to science, wood can melt. And that's not an opinion. And it can't. Because although it turns to a liquid, it also decomposes and cannot reversibly be turned back into wood (and partially also because it also forms a solid, and also some gas).

Such behavior is not welcome... but it still happens. At this forum, the level 3 and up dicks are suspended or even banned. Still, there's something to be said to congratulate people being a huge dick. The bottom level of the chart that mooey posted really seems like an achievement. Something that's worth telling your friends and family. Maybe we should congratulate banned / suspended users with their ban?

You can look up the "relative roughness" of a tube (it's not uncommon that producers know such a parameter), and you can estimate (calculate) the pressure drop. Read more here: http://www.efunda.com/formulae/fluids/calc_pipe_friction.cfm

ZOMG! This needs to be stickied pinned somewhere!

Using dictionary definitions for scientific things can be quite misleading. Sugar dissolves in your mouth. In fact, sugar is one of those components that decomposes before it melts. It has no melting point. So, in short, the dictionary is wrong from a chemical point of view. But the dictionary doesn't care. The dictionary describes the language... and language has a lot of sayings that are wrong from a scientific point of view. In language, weight and mass are considered synonyms (in science, they're not). In language, you can suck something up, (in science, it's the pressure gradient that causes movement). In language, the sun rises (in science, the earth rotates). This is a science forum. So, sugar does not melt in your mouth. And the mist evaporates in the morning sun.

In fact, it does. Although for water/ice we can accept that it melts/freezes because we're completely familiar with water so it would be a bit unnecessary to prove it every time again. However, if you want to construct a phase diagram (and freezing and melting is all about phase diagrams) then it is vitally important that you show that it is a reversible process. A material may not have been in its equilibrium. Some materials have multiple solid forms. For example, water has at least 15 different forms of ice (where individual molecules are arranged differently). And some decompose when you heat them (like wood).

I'm afraid I am no nuclear engineer either... I reply only because I am fascinated by fusion reactors (and because I know a little about ordinary chemical reactors). Do you mean that you operate the fusion reactor in pulses? Short reaction period, followed by a certain period where no reaction takes place? What is the gradient actually across the plasma? Is it only temperature? Or is there also a pressure gradient? I would assume that it's impossible to keep the plasma in a fusion reactor completely stable, and that you will need a controller anyway. I guess what really matters here is the "reaction rate" of the hydrogen as a function of the temperature/pressure. You would want the same power per time (on average), and preferably no runaway reaction that can destroy any equipment

It's a heat pump, and heat pumps work with something that is called the Coefficient of Performance (COP). It means that for every Joule they heat or cool (it's the same), they must put in X Joule of energy, usually in the form of electricity. A good air conditioning (AC), or a good refrigerator have a COP of more than 4. Heat pumps either heat up something, and must 'dump their cool' somewhere (more correctly: they must find a source of heat somewhere). ACs or refrigerators remove heat from something (they cool it), and must dump that heat. And in all cases, you have 2 temperatures: the target (which either needs to be heated or cooled), and the 'outside', where you have heat available, or where you can dump heat. What really matters for the efficiency of the system is the temperature difference between the two. If you use an AC to make hot water, then obviously, one temperature goes up (the place where you can dump the heat is now hot water). That will reduce the efficiency of the AC. However, it does give you hot water for free. It might be argued that if you live in a hot climate where ACs are used all the time, that you might as well build a solar boiler to allow the sun to heat your water. Those have no limitations to how hot the water can get (they can reach almost the boiling point). InigoMontoya correctly says that heating a swimming pool means the hot side remains relatively cool (unless you're making a hot spring)

Reading all this, I would call the poor people "victims", rather than the responsible for the economic collapse.

LOL I am pretty sure that swansont not just meant african americans and hispanic people, but also all other immigrants - which include all those of European descent (white people). Many Europeans also once arrived in the US completely broke and empty handed, hoping for a better future.