Iota

I'm using an educated guess... so, physics professionals out there, if I'm talking rubbish, please warn OP. I suppose in that case (assuming the balloon material has negligible weight), a very sensitive set of scales could give you a value for the upwards force exerted by the helium in the balloon, given in grams. The same way if you had Xenon gas in a balloon (material of negligible weight), rested on a set of scales correct way up, it would give you it's weight. So I guess that could work yeah. I personally can't see the flaws. I'm not sure what it would be worth, having weight in grams, though I guess that depends on the experiment's purpose, because gravity is still affecting the He atoms in the balloon; meaning it's not measuring some form of reversed mass.

No it would not reflect the true negative value. In terms of this being a practicable experiment, no: 1) Normal scales do not measure negative values, therefore zeroing the scale will not make a difference in terms of recalibrating. 2) According to point 1, above, additional force must be applied to the upside-down scales to achieve the same gram for gram value, to overcome/compensate for the gravity affecting the scale's strain gauge technology.

Acceleration/deceleration effect isn't official terminology that I've heard of. There was a programme on the Discovery Channel not too long ago, where these two scientists drove their car approximately in the direction of the earth's spin. They calculated that, relative to the Earth, they were travelling much faster than what they were relative to themselves. If you get what I mean. If the Earth's vector is travelling around the Sun in the same direction as our galaxy is spinning, the speed of the Earth relative to objects outside of our galaxy is moving faster than what the Earth is moving relative to our Sun, which is also inside the same galaxy/environment. Look into vector calculation methodology to understand this better.

I see what you're getting at, but you have the wrong idea. In the same way you wouldn't 'feel' the earth spinning, you can't detect the spin of the galaxy relative to our movement around the sun. I think you are imagining a theme park ride, that we are all sat on where there is strong G force and momentum (mass and velocity) affecting our persons. It doesn't work in that way for whole planets... for many reasons.

The BBC's report: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18867643 Some might say fair play to them; if people are hacking "UK Networks" why shouldn't they return in kind? Although to me, it's a worrying idea, that the UK government will be hacking it's "enemies", who, as usual, have not been specified sufficiently. As if it's not bad enough with the current police-state-like monitoring of the internet, but now, the UK will be attacking-actively defending- as they worded it, anyone it deems as a threat. Which I will stress again, is only ever loosely specified. It's giving too much power to the government, yet again, and by my book it is them trying to police the world; in the same sort of way America's SOPA, PIPA and so on, have tried to. And this isn't a case of guilty fear, but rather, concern expressed by someone who believes in privacy and freedom. Your views?

Just thought I'd correct my shameful attempt at terminology, once again... 'figurative'... as opposed to hypothetical.

That pointless story has been written in the form of a HYPOTHETICAL debate between a religious believer and an atheist scientist. Clearly, an opportunistic religious fanatic thought it contained undeniable logic of some sort and so slapped across the top, thinking that statement alone was proof of the debate actually happening. The type of person you could expect to spell 'conversation' wrongly. The debate itself is completely flawed, and it just so happens somebody else posted this on my Facebook news feed recently. I'm not passing you ridicule, or your belief, rather just what you posted. ...I'm an undecided Christian myself.

That tree house looks like it belongs in Ewok village... kind of. That's awesome.

It sounds similar to cases where pet chimps have attacked their owners, because the owner changed their appearance significantly, and it angers/scares the chimp. I suspect the McDonald worker's brain processed the situation in a similar way.

In most cases, people do put a face on overwhelming problems they don't understand. So why not just put the correct face on it? Why not just learn to deal with the fact that problems exist, instead of living like they're not there?

I'd agree to an extent, yes. Far right-winged politicians often use the argument that 'their' culture is being destroyed/diluted by immigration of people from other countries and other cultures. I think culturalism can exist without having said racism though, especially considering the current emergence of multiculturalism in many Western countries. I also agree with what you said about labels and categories, because they do, inevitably, form divisions between the peoples of a given population. Given that we are all human, we are all very similar, and small differences e.g. language, accent, skin colour... are creating big divisions, and for no good reason. It's the sort of behaviour you would expect from a pack of wild, brainless animals; not the supposed master race. I think these factors play greater importance: Lack of Education Bad Role Model Parents Patriotism Mass Media Basically, anyway. Many things cause it. I think there is a lot of confusion about racism in a lot of Western countries too, where the 'minorities' are over-protected by the law, to the point where double-standards begin to exist. Where, for example, the nursery rhyme 'bah bah black sheep' was almost eradicated from commercial uses in the UK, because it could be seen as racist, even though it's nothing to do with people or skin colour. Main 'cure' for racism; better and more wide-spread education... and mass media needs to condemn racism and reinforce multiculturalism as a good thing. Seeing as most people listen to their TVs more than anything else today.

That'll be it! I sat there for a while trying to think of the correct term... I even wiki'd the term and thought it was the right one, oops. Thanks for the correction!

The internet wouldn't be the same without FES. I love a good laugh. SO much effort put into proving something that is so obviously not the case... And to think they could be researching new cancer treatments or something else... that is of course, assuming they believe cancer exists...

Social conditioning, where one feels the need to behave in the same way as the majority of people around them. They begin to feel as though they are saying words wrong, and everyone else is right, and are pressured more and more into tweaking their own accent more along the lines of the people everywhere around them.

That doesn't explain anything really. The entropy is decreasing when NH3 forms, making the reaction less likely to spontaneously occur. The answer to your question is that N2 and H2 do stay as they are, UNLESS they are fed the deliberate conditions to make them react to form ammonia (NH3). Simple Explanation: Hydrogen gas and nitrogen gas are very inert gases. They are both diatomic molecules with stable, non-polar bonding. In fact, nitrogen has a triple bond within each N2 molecule, which creates a higher stability (more energy required to break/separate the bonds). The 'Haber Process' is used in industry to make nitrogen and hydrogen to react in order to form ammonia. This reaction is reversible, meaning, the reaction exists in equilibrium. The conditions used in the Haber Process are: 450oC, 200 atmospheres and the use of an iron (Fe) catalyst. These conditions make it possible for a spontaneous reaction to occur between nitrogen and hydrogen gases. More Detailed: The conditions 450oC and 200 atmospheres are approximate... they may not be exactly what is used. We MUST remember that the Haber Process is an industrial process, and industrial processes strive for speed, as well as reaction efficiency; so the conditions used are not only for the spontaneous reaction of hydrogen and nitrogen gas with each other, but it's also been tweaked to speed up the process. Just bare in mind that the conditions encompass those two factors. The gas molecules are adsorbed to the iron catalytic surface, weakening the intra-molecular bonding within the gases, making it easier for their bonds to break. In other words, lowering the activation energy of the reaction from a higher energy (Ea) down to a lower energy (Ec). More Advanced: The theory of spontaneously occurring reactions can be expressed as the 'Gibbs' Free Energy' (ΔG) equation: ΔG= ΔH-TΔS [Free Energy Change equals Enthalpy Change minus (Temperature multiplied by Entropy Change)] If 0>ΔG = SPONTANEOUS If 0=ΔG = NOTHING HAPPENS If 0<ΔG = NOT SPONTANEOUS Temperature and pressure needs to be adjusted in accordance to the laws of thermodynamics. (Shown, in part, above.) The reaction conditions are not the optimum conditions for the best reaction efficiency. The Percentage Yield of the reaction could be increased if the pressure was higher (shifting equilibrium to the right according to Le Chatlier's Principle), and a high temperature is used, which is bad, because the forward reaction is exothermic, so a high temperature will shift the equilibrium to the left hand side (away from ammonia production). See below: Equation: N2(g) + H2(g) ⇌ NH3 High Pressure: N2(g) + H2(g) ⇌ NH3 shifts equilibrium to the right, because there are less molecules on the product side of the reaction, so this lowers pressure, hence resists change made to the chemical system. High Temperature: N2(g) + H2(g) ⇌ NH3 shifts the equilibrium to the left, because the reactant side or left hand side is endothermic, so shifting that way reduces temperature. Hence the forward reaction (right hand side) for the equation is exothermic (releases energy in the form of heat).

I recently saw an experiment done by Cambridge University students, unfortunately I failed to retrieve it for you to see. Perhaps somebody can test it out? They first placed highlighter pen marks on their skin, then shone a UV light at the area. The reflection was strong and highly visible. They applied some sun screen over the highlighter marks, then shone the UV light at it again. The highlighter no longer reflected and was not visible in the dark room. This test was merely to demonstrate it works. Maybe someone could try it, then try it again; first on skin and then on a non porous/organic material, to see whether or not its effect wears out, at the same time, determine if its wearing is due to human skin or due to UV interaction with sunscreen ingredients?

Seems you're looking for an answer that isn't known, or maybe just one that will convince you enough to believe it. Maybe it should be approached in a quasi-scientific way. First, by reviewing what we know: We reach an age where we are able to comprehend our surroundings/reality, based on experience or what we have been told. We realise we have life; we have no reason to believe we had life (based on what we know), before our physical birth. Based on science or just plain analysis from our human standpoint, nothing appears to necessarily happen to our concious selves after decease, i.e. our body will stop working and decompose back into more basic star dust. To review so far: we are born, we become concious beings, and we die. Our experiences and knowledge (as mankind) are limited when trying to explain why we live. Why would we be able to understand that we are alive, but not understand why? The idea makes human life seem a bit cruel... at least fish don't know any better... can't go insane trying to work it out, right? Or maybe we are the lucky ones. Either way, science will never work out why we exist- at least not in the way we want to know- just how we come to be alive, within scope. The question itself could be impossible. It could be impossible for reasons the human mind is too limited to see. Or it's improbable for the human mind to work out, ever; like a dog trying to work out algebra. It couldn't understand the calculation given to it, even if it understood that the concept of a question or how to read maths or to comprehend numerical values or paper or shapes with meanings or meaning itself. ^ rambling like this could go on infinitely without coming anywhere close to working out why we can't work out why we exist, let alone working out why we exist. Matter of fact, simple questions lead to a thousand more questions, so this is hopeless to look at with human logic.