farmboy

I have to leave very shortly, so I'll just give you a few basics, though not the answers. I'd have thought you know the basics of what a redox equation is etc so I'll just give a few clues on how to start. Right for the first part you have to recognise that if iron is being oxidized here then another species must be reduced in the process. Once you establish what this species is you can set up two half equations. The first will be of the form Fe2+ -> Fe3+ but you will have to add electrons to one side of that equation to show how electrons are being lost or gained. So in this instance it is..... Fe2+ -> Fe3+ + e- You then need to write the other half equation, this one will be more difficult but I won't tell you what it is exactly but ill give a couple of hints. There will be oxygen on one side of the reaction, which will need to be balanced on the other by adding water (I'm assuming you know about the need to balance atoms on each side of the equation). Now obviously this means that you are missing some hydrogens on the first which are then added in the form of H+. This will look something like.. XO4- + 5e- + 8H+ -> X2+ + 4H2O So you can see that the atoms have been balanced by adding the H+ to account for the waters, this is where the acid comes in. And then I think you know what to do from there. The process is the same each time. I've got no idea what the observations would be though sorry, thats something you really need to see I think.

Do you know the basics of setting up two half equations and then combining them? Also you mention using the acidifed one, what does this mean? You added acid to the experiment?

When Einstein said that I don't think the idea was to disagree with wave particle-duality as such. QM shows that sometimes in quantum systems you can essentially set up an experiment with the same conditions, and not get the same result each time. Thats not a great description lol, but I think an example they often use is that if you send a stream of photons through a piece of glass, some will be reflected some will be transmitted but we can't predict which will go through and which won't, we can only say how many will go through on average. Now this didn't sit well with einstein because he couldn't accept that the same experimental conditions could produce different results, even though all the evidence suggests that this is the case. He believed that there must be some unseen factor that was influencing the results. Not really how science should be performed in my opinion. We shouldn't let our personal beliefs about what we think should happen override what the evidence tells us happens. And yeah, I think that with the quantum mechanical world you really have to stop trying to think about it in ways that directly correlate to phenomena in the macroscopic world. Electrons aren't little balls of negative charge circling a nucleus in a way that can be described using classical mechanics. My understanding of it (which I admit is probably inferior to that of many of the physicists on this board) is that an electron in its natural state is more like an area of negativity which can be described using a wave equation. The exact nature of the electron is dependant on its environment, but it is only when we attempt to probe it that we change its nature giving it the characteristics of a particle. If that is inaccurate in anyway I'd be happy for someone to point it out, as this is undenibaly a difficult concept to grasp, and one which I could really do with understanding a little better myself.

Might have a pop at calculating this. Math seems fairly straight forward (since its been explained lol) but I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if I still butchered it.

I didn't say you were being rude dude, just that my post wasn't if it came across that way. I still don't get your point though. View it graphically how? As in say time on the X-axis, displacement on the Y with 0 being the centre of gravity? In that graph yeah you would have positive and negative displacement, but there is nothing wrong with that. You get the same thing if you say, swing a pendulum. The pattern decays with time obviously, but initially at least you have motion which takes you past the centre in both directions. I mean just thinking about it in energetic terms, by the time you get to the centre you would be travelling at extremely high speeds, why would you jusst stop as soon as you got to the centre?

I'm not certain about this, but I think sharks were around as a species in the same general time period as the dinosaurs, so they are absolutely not 'descended' from them. The same I think is true of crocodiles.

This is not science dude. Are for real, or just having a laugh at our expense?

Ah good point haha. I'm not sure there really is an absolute answer is there? I mean the genie is allow to interpret the wishes however he wants. Seems to me that any wish is almost certain to could be distorted to meet the needs of the djinn.

Apologies if this is totally wrong lol (I've mentioned before that this is not my normal subject area plus im a little drunk lol) but it just seems to me that the way you are thinking about ''wavlength decrease'' as if it is somehow analagous to redshift just isn't really correct. Perhaps it is because you are looking at light like a wave in this context, when it would be better to look at it like a particle? So for example the light coming from the source (in this instance the sun) may include all the wavelegths that constitute the visible spectrum, but when we consider how this interacts with the atmosphere I'm not sure we should look at it like a continuous spectrum with a mean wavelength which changes after it enters the atmosphere, but rather a series of discrete particles of different energies the mean/median of which will change after it has passed through the atmosphere Apologies if this is totally wrong lol (I've mentioned before that this is not my normal subject area plus im a little drunk lol) but it just seems to me that the way you are thinking about ''wavlength decrease'' as if it is somehow analagous to redshift just isn't really correct. Perhaps it is because you are looking at light like a wave in this context, when it would be better to look at it like a particle? So for example the light coming from the source (in this instance the sun) may include all the wavelegths that constitute the visible spectrum, but when we consider how this interacts with the atmosphere I'm not sure we should look at it like a continuous spectrum with a mean wavelength which changes after it enters the atmosphere, but rather a series of discrete particles of different energies the mean/median of which will change after it has passed through the atmosphere

Apologies dude, lol, thought you were making fun.

Yeah that is exactly what I said. Or were you agreeing?

Don't make a third wish?

Do you just mean that as a humerous observation, or is it meant to refute the point I made lol? That is a genuine question incase it reads as rude, I'm not sure what a graph has to do with it. It doesn't negate any of what I said.

I didn't say that they only read body language dude, I said body language and other subconsious indicators. For example speech pattern, tone etc. Try calling your dogs from another room some time, don't use their names or whatever command you normally use, but make sure to keep volume, tone etc the same. I know with every dog I've ever had there is no difficulty getting them to come from another room just calling out random words but in the way I have described. Also when you describe the different behaviour exhibited by your dogs relating to the mouse, did you simply say mouse and they went off and did all those things themselves, or did you perhaps give them any indication as to what you thought they should do? If it the former, I think you may well have a point dude.

If you jumped in at the north pole you would keep accelerating until you reached the centre, but I see no reason you would stop there, you would have converted gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy on the way down and if you don't hit something at that centre of gravity the kinetic energy would make sure you keep going past the centre towards the south pole. You would even make it to the other side (exactly) I can imagine, if you didn't have to deal with friction and the like.

What point is it that you are actually making dude, I'm not quite sure. Are you saying that it is wrong, or illogical, to build our knowledge from the ground up using symbols and that it is actually somehow more logical to just invent our theories without building on anything which has gone before? If so, can't you see that this is just fundamentally illogical? You asked ''what is the logical extrapolation?'' By this I assume that you mean no logic goes into the formation of mathematically grounded theories. Again if this is the case I suggest you go out and learn how some of these theories are arrived at. Every single step in a theory can be arrived at independently using logic. Symbols (like c for example or one of the other thousands that are used in maths) aren't just established and then accepted as fact never to be revisited. These symbols can still be derived logically and they can then be used as the basis to create more complex theories. This is an entirely logical progression starting with real world observable data. I can't see how you are managing to find a flaw in it.

I'm not sure that dogs really do understand what we are saying even if people like to think that is true. They have evolved to be good at understanding human body language amongst other subconscious indicators of mood and intent and they seem to act based on this rather than the words which are actually spoken to them. So assuming that is actually true, then I would say no it probably wouldn't be possible to a teach a dog this trick (not an old dog at least lol). Even if I am wrong and they can actually identify some words irrespective of how they are used, I still don't think they would be able to understand the abstract nature of a language like morse code. If say they recognise a word like ''walkies'' it is perhaps because they know that when it hears this noise it is often a precursor to going outside and playing, it isn't that it understands what a walk is and knows that walkies is the way it is described. Then of course morse would be taking that abstraction a step farther requiring the dog to know that some concepts can be broken down into a series of symbols which can be conveyed using a series of taps.

I did a quick search and found this data, which seems to indicate that survival rates are in fact increasing steadily. Taken from this page.... http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/survival/fiveyear/

Yeah can't imagine there being any problem, except that it won't look like nuclear fuel perhaps lol, but I'm sure that won't be an issue unless you need scientiic accuracy in your film or something.

No, it makes no sense at all. Even in the video you can see that they are massively distorting the shapes of the continents to make them fit together in the pacific. Also if the earth were growing in the way they are describing wouldn't it rip the continents up into little tiny pieces since the stuff under it is all apparently expanding. It would be like having every single inch of the planet as a fault line.

This is the point I was going to make. Surely (don't call me shirley lol) there is verified empirical data dating back over a century which shows that the speed of light is absolutely not variable. I'm not a physicist, so forgive me if some of this is wrong, but wouldn't we see a (relatively large) variation in observed values of c at different points in the earths orbit if the OP's ''theory'' were actually true. So far as I know there is no such variation and so his logic is fundamentally flawed, which I suspect may be a bad thing in a theory which is supposedly derived purely from logic lol. To the OP, you have made a lot of bold claims, but so far as I can see there is no evidence to actually back them up. You state that there is hard light and soft light for example, each with different properties, what is the evidence to actually support this? Your logic is fundamentally flawed in that you have identified (what you percieve to be) a problem in physics. You have then made up a theory which if true would perhaps solve this problem and then rather than using it to make predictions you insist that it must be true unless someone can prove otherwise. This is not a logical way to go about things though, there are many thousands of ''theories'' which could potentially solve such a problem but all are equally pointless without strong supporting evidence and a mathematical model which can be used to make verifiable predictions.

I've said this quite a few times recently since I've been posting here with greater frequency lol, but still I'm not an expert in this (toughest of) fields, and so what I say should be taken with a pinch of salt indeed. That said I'm not sure it is really right to imply that there is contention concerning the physical nature of quantum p henomenon, it is simply that they can't be related to anything we experience on the macroscopic world making them inherently difficult to picture/imagine. Prior to collapse the wavefunction has a whole load of differnt solutions (I think that this is maybe wave-particle duality?) and the act of observing it basically adds a new part to calculation allowing it to be solved or there abouts.

This is something has always interested me to, though from a sci fi type of perspective lol (at least one episode in every good sci fi show), so im not sure how accurate this is in real terms. Like is it really true that no info is really lost. Surely this can't apply to human information that we have created. It has something perhaps to do with quantum states of atoms in systems and the like? Also the multiverse thing, you hear every 'decision' occurs somewhere. But does that really mean human decision as is implied in sci fi or is it like a quantum state, or something to do with like the relative strengths of the fundamental forces? The human versin just seems arrogant to me lol.

Are you being serious dude haha, I genuinely think your posts so far could be included in a dictionary under the heading contradictory, and I really don't mean to be rude when I say that... but it is true all the same. I wouldn't normally bother pushing the issue, but you have been a little rude in getting your point across even though you are wrong lol. This was your first post in the thread.... Now I highlighted the important part (though the whole post makes an argument for your not really knowing what the feck you are talking about lol) and in my original post I said that you had contradicted yourself. How exactly can you read that back and continue to believe that your post is not a contradiction. You state plainly that homosexuality is an unexplainable peheomena which can be explained entirely by environmental factors ( it has everything to do with environmental conditions and influences). That is a contradiction if ever I seen one. Going back to the flying Spaghetti Monster stuff, the simple fact you used that term (in this barely relevant context) made me cringe. The fact you seemed to believe it appropriate made me feel a little bad for laughing. If I had said that ''God creates homosexuals no further info requred'' then yes this comment would have been fine, even a little funny. I didn't say that though. If I had even said that DNA definitely causes homosexuality you might have had some sembelance of a case. I did not say that though. I simply said that it was plausible that DNA (the source of a significant portion of our behaviour) could plausibly be a factor in incidence of homosexuality. The fact that the mechanism is likely to be beyond our understanding does not mean that we should automatically decide that it is something else. That is about as unscientific as it is possible to be. Again dude, you just simply have absolutely no idea what youn are talking about. You are the only person here dealing in definites, so therefore must have some hefty evidence backing your claims? If not then what you are saying is just poo-poo lol. Again I really do hate to get angry/be rude, but your arguments make no sense. Genetics cannot play a factor in sexuality becuase of the repercussions that might have on people who steal lol? You are starting with a conclusion and looking back and hoping to see the evidence that will support what you think is right. There is no grater ''crime'' in science (lol) but I'll try and respond coherently anyway pal. Firstly sexuality is a spectrum, it doesn't matter that you don't like it's implications, this is what any study into human sexuality has found. Some people like only men, some men a little bit and women lots, others like men lots and tentacle monsters and japanese school girls loads. There are as many sexual preferences in the world as their are people, ranging from one extreme to the opposite. That is a spectrum. No one in their right state of mind would say that emotions do not play a role here, but genetics could very easily be a factor too. I hope you can appreciate how ridiculous it is for you to absolutely insist that genetics cannot be a factor because there is no evidence to support it, whilst touting the alternative with absolute certainty despite its having the same inherent default. Basically you haven't made on reasonable suggestion so far in this thread. If you want to offer an alternative view point then trying adding some actual evidence, don't just insist the hardest that you are right others are wrong/

at the end.) Would the process responsible for this be the same one that atoms say undergo when losing energy from a lazer or heating or something, giving rise to very specific spectral emissions (something I've learned from chemistry) or is it something completely new to me? Apologies if that sounds silly lol.