The Problem of the Missing Constant
Mpilot
The Bound Information Theory, which gives Information a central Role in
the World. "Information" because transfer of information is the
causation, "Bound" because causation constrains systems in a
hierarchical way according a specification hierarchy.
The book Information and its Role in Nature Information gives an
introductory discussion of the concept of information and its role in
the control of natural processes. After a short review of (classical
and quantum) information theory, numerous questions are addressed,
e.g.: Is Information reducible to the laws of Physics and Chemistry ?
Does the universe, in its evolution generate new information ? Is
information-processing an exclusive attribute of living systems related
to the definition of life ? What is the role of Information in Physics
? How are Information Processing and Self-Consciousness in the human
brain related ?
As an example application of the Bound Information Theory, which can be
used as a supporting Mathematical Framework for "Information and Its
Role in Nature" including support with automated software tools, the
issue of the "missing additive constant" in relation (5.7) on page 182
is solved. The missing additive constant is -1. A proof of this,
according The Bound Information Theory, I have given on the URL
http://picasaweb.google.com/mobilepilot/BoltzmannSLaw
Sorcerer
"Mpilot" <mobil...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1165838286.3...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
Here it is:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/untitled.GIF
Mpilot
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/untitled.GIF
What is the intention of this remark ?
Sorcerer schreef:
Sorcerer
"Mpilot" <mobil...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1165840034....@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
|> Here it is:
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/untitled.GIF
|
| What is the intention of this remark ?
You said it was missing, I found it for you. Surely you
don't expect anyone to decipher that ambiguous scrawl, do you?
Mpilot
> | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/untitled.GIF
This is a physics group. If you are "caching" the original, which I
posted, it is fine with me.
> You said it was missing, I found it for you. Surely you
> don't expect anyone to decipher that ambiguous scrawl, do you?
We have traced the reactions you have posted earlier and we do not take
your postings serious.
.-- .- -... -. .. --. @.-----.DOT.-- Helmut Wabnig
>> | > Here it is:
>> | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/untitled.GIF
>
>This is a physics group. If you are "caching" the original, which I
>posted, it is fine with me.
>
>> You said it was missing, I found it for you. Surely you
>> don't expect anyone to decipher that ambiguous scrawl, do you?
>
>We have traced the reactions you have posted earlier and we do not take
>your postings serious.
>
Sorcerer did not say he was serious.
Or did he?
w.
Sorcerer
"Mpilot" <mobil...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1165843966.3...@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
|> | > Here it is:
| > | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/untitled.GIF
|
| This is a physics group. If you are "caching" the original, which I
| posted, it is fine with me.
|
| > You said it was missing, I found it for you. Surely you
| > don't expect anyone to decipher that ambiguous scrawl, do you?
|
| We have traced the reactions you have posted earlier and we do not take
| your postings serious.
It is impossible to take your scrawl seriously since it cannot be even
proof-read, let alone be accorded the status of a proof. Why publish
your own handwriting anyway?
Mpilot
> proof-read, let alone be accorded the status of a proof. Why publish
> your own handwriting anyway?
I was asked by interested persons to make the proof public.
Since I have very little time at the moment for these kind of
activities, I decided to write down the proof on 1 page of paper,
because this is the fastest way to make it public. In the future, on a
moment when I have more time for these activities, I will make an
electronic paper in which I will explain the proof.
You can see this proof as an application example of the Bound
Information Theory, which could be used as a supporting theoretical
framework for the Book "Information and its Role in Nature", see e.g.
http://www.thattechnicalbookstore.com/b3540230750.htm
However, I am curious, how my handwritten proof was cached on
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/untitled.GIF with the
annotations.
Are these your annotations ? Did you cache it or did you just find it ?
Sorcerer
"Mpilot" <mobil...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1165860825.7...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
|> It is impossible to take your scrawl seriously since it cannot be even
| > proof-read, let alone be accorded the status of a proof. Why publish
| > your own handwriting anyway?
|
| I was asked by interested persons to make the proof public.
And I answered your question.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/untitled.GIF
Now all you need do is print around it to make the whole legible.
Mpilot
I will do this, as requested by interested people, when other
(commercial) obligations of a higher priorty level are ended, because
these complicatated derivatations will take some time to write down in
an electronic research journal paper format.
Mpilot
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/untitled.GIF
The answer you have given is incomplete and inadequate. Also a lot of
information which is available in the original is missing in your
"cached" gif version. Note that the embedded unvisible information is
only accessible if you are a member of the group which is authorized
for this information.
Sorcerer schreef:
Mpilot
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/untitled.GIF
You have not answered the embedded information. The concept for sharing
this embedded information is described on the URL
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dds86766_6hcspm2
Sorcerer schreef:
Mpilot
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/untitled.GIF
It seems the Sorcerer is not responding to the embedded proof in the
Orginal document of Mpilot, in which the missing constant in
Boltzmann's Law is proven to be -1. The Wizard therfore concludes,
Mpilot overruled the Sorcerer.
Sorcerer schreef:
Sorcerer
"Mpilot" <mobil...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1166442345....@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
|> And I answered your question.
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/untitled.GIF
|
| It seems
Never mind what it seems, it is what it is that matters.
Mpilot
What matters it that you give a verdict about the given statistical
derivation of Boltzmann's Law, based on Quantum Theory. The provided
information (including the embedded information) is enough to give a
positive or negative verdict.
Sorcerer
"Mpilot" <mobil...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1166462022....@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
|> Never mind what it seems, it is what it is that matters.
|
| What matters it
It matters it NOT, you are a snipping moron and an illiterate it.
Mpilot
The conclusion I draw from your reaction is that your knowledge of
Quantum Theory is not enough to understand the derivation I have given.
Since a valid specification hierarchy of our Universe is given with:
{statistical{physical{chemical{biological{social{legal{fiancial}}}}}}}
and I have given a {statistical} derivation of the {physical} Boltzmann
law, this derivation is applicable for all {physical} levels and above,
in the given specification hierarchy. You have to give a PROOF, the
derivation I have given is True or False, in order to convince me, you
understand Quantum Theory / Physics enough, to be a valid / valueble
member of a Physics Group.
Sorcerer
"Mpilot" <mobil...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1166467608.6...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
|> It matters it NOT, you are a snipping moron and an illiterate it.
|
| The conclusion I draw
is that you have no idea what you are babbling about. Fuck off.
Mpilot
This type of language can be seen in more reactions of you. That's why
you are not taken serious.
Sorcerer
"Mpilot" <mobil...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1166478092....@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
|> is that you have no idea what you are babbling about. Fuck off.
|
| This type of language can be seen in more reactions of you. That's why
| you are not taken serious.
I'm not taking you seriousLY, you are illiterate of you and incompetent of you.
Fuck off.
The Ghost In The Machine
<mobil...@gmail.com>
wrote
on 18 Dec 2006 09:13:42 -0800
<1166462022....@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>:
>> Never mind what it seems, it is what it is that matters.
>
> What matters it that you give a verdict about the given statistical
> derivation of Boltzmann's Law, based on Quantum Theory. The provided
> information (including the embedded information) is enough to give a
> positive or negative verdict.
No, Sorcerer is in fact correct. Theory is just that --
theory. Without physical experimentation one might as
well count the angels (or, if one preferes, bright green
flying elephants) on the head of a pin by closing one's
eyes and using one's imagination.
Of course without theory one ventures into empiricism,
which isn't all that useful either except perhaps to
replicate results.
All you're asking Sorcerer to do is a mathematical
verification or proof, which is fine (assuming he desires
to even bother) but that's all it is.
I should note for pedanticity (if that's a word) that there
is no such thing as Boltzmann's law -- the correct terminology
apparently refers to Stefan-Boltzmann Law, according to Google, and
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Stefan-BoltzmannLaw.html
gives a derivation thereof, resulting in
Phi = (2 * pi^5 * k^4 / (15 * h^3 * c^2)) * T^4
where pi is the mathematical constant we all love, Phi is
the total energy flux of the blackbody, k is Boltzmann's
Constant, T is the temperature, and c is the speed
of light. The derivation implies quantum theory by
placing exp(h*c/(lambda*k*T)) - 1 in the denominator during
integration, but that's as clear as mud without knowing
about such things as the "ultraviolet catastrophe" -- and
I know *of* it, but that's all.
(The value in parentheses is occasionally denoted lower-case sigma, and
called the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.)
I would hope this has been experimentally verified but am
unsure precisely how one measures temperatures at more
than a few hundred degrees. However, there is at least
one lab experiment that is specified to verify this law;
unfortunately accessing the page gave a "not found here".
Fortunately, redoing the search did cough up
http://www.eng.fsu.edu/~alvi/EML4304L/webpage/experiment_1.htm
which among other things features a high-temperature lamp.
>
> Sorcerer wrote:
>> "Mpilot" <mobil...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1166442345....@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>> |> And I answered your question.
>> | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/untitled.GIF
>> |
>> | It seems
>>
>> Never mind what it seems, it is what it is that matters.
>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Error 16: Not enough space on file system to delete file(s)
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Mpilot
based on the content of this discussion.
> No, Sorcerer is in fact correct. Theory is just that --
> theory. Without physical experimentation one might as
> well count the angels (or, if one preferes, bright green
> flying elephants) on the head of a pin by closing one's
> eyes and using one's imagination.
> Of course without theory one ventures into empiricism,
> which isn't all that useful either except perhaps to
> replicate results.
All major theories in Physics where first theories, before they could
be experimentally verfied. And there are many Physical Theories, which
can't be experimentally verified at all (eg String Theory).
> All you're asking Sorcerer to do is a mathematical
> verification or proof, which is fine (assuming he desires
> to even bother) but that's all it is.
If you look back in the posts, I haven't asked Sorcerer for a proof.
> Phi = (2 * pi^5 * k^4 / (15 * h^3 * c^2)) * T^4
>
> where pi is the mathematical constant we all love, Phi is
> the total energy flux of the blackbody, k is Boltzmann's
> Constant, T is the temperature, and c is the speed
> of light. The derivation implies quantum theory by
> placing exp(h*c/(lambda*k*T)) - 1 in the denominator during
> integration, but that's as clear as mud without knowing
> about such things as the "ultraviolet catastrophe" -- and
> I know *of* it, but that's all.
>
> (The value in parentheses is occasionally denoted lower-case sigma, and
> called the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.)
>
> I would hope this has been experimentally verified but am
> unsure precisely how one measures temperatures at more
> than a few hundred degrees. However, there is at least
> one lab experiment that is specified to verify this law;
> unfortunately accessing the page gave a "not found here".
> Fortunately, redoing the search did cough up
>
> http://www.eng.fsu.edu/~alvi/EML4304L/webpage/experiment_1.htm
>
> which among other things features a high-temperature lamp.
>
The above given derivation of Boltzmann's Law is basically different
from this derivation. The total number of possible physical energy
states of a physical system in the given derivation is derived by
constraining a Hilbert State Space with the laws of Quantum Theory. So
the laws of Quantum Theory are the only assumption for this derivation
to be correct. Quantum Theory has been experimentally proven to be
correct many times in the last century.
Sorcerer
"Mpilot" <mobil...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1166515769.2...@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| Thanks for this answer. You have to admit, the answer you have given is
| based on the content of this discussion.
|
| > No, Sorcerer is in fact correct. Theory is just that --
| > theory. Without physical experimentation one might as
| > well count the angels (or, if one preferes, bright green
| > flying elephants) on the head of a pin by closing one's
| > eyes and using one's imagination.
|
| > Of course without theory one ventures into empiricism,
| > which isn't all that useful either except perhaps to
| > replicate results.
|
| All major theories in Physics where first theories, before they could
| be experimentally verfied. And there are many Physical Theories, which
| can't be experimentally verified at all (eg String Theory).
[Pompous arsehole]:
| In the past years, I have developed a Mathematical Model with the name
| The Bound Information Theory, which gives Information a central Role in
| the World. "Information" because transfer of information is the
| causation, "Bound" because causation constrains systems in a
| hierarchical way according a specification hierarchy.
Bullshitter!
|
| > All you're asking Sorcerer to do is a mathematical
| > verification or proof, which is fine (assuming he desires
| > to even bother) but that's all it is.
|
| If you look back in the posts, I haven't asked Sorcerer for a proof.
No? Who wrote:
| The missing additive constant is -1. A proof of this,
| according The Bound Information Theory, I have given on the URL
| http://picasaweb.google.com/mobilepilot/BoltzmannSLaw
?????????????????????????
Who was that, huh?
If you look back in the posts, NOWHERE have you typed
exp(h*c/(lambda*k*T)) - 1. Ghost did that for you, you lazy git.
All you did was produce a back-of-the-envelope homework assignment
and a lot of whining about "where does the -1 come from?"
Learn to express yourself clearly, quit claiming YOU developed
Stefan-Boltzmann's Law and you might get help.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Stefan-BoltzmannLaw.html
Now fuck off, according to MY Bound Information Theory, BIT.
Entire bullshit post:
Mpilot
> | > verification or proof, which is fine (assuming he desires
> | > to even bother) but that's all it is.
> |
> | If you look back in the posts, I haven't asked Sorcerer for a proof.
>
> No? Who wrote:
> | The missing additive constant is -1. A proof of this,
> | according The Bound Information Theory, I have given on the URL
> | http://picasaweb.google.com/mobilepilot/BoltzmannSLaw
Where is the question in which I ask you to verify the proof ? This
proof is already peer-reviewed by Physicists.
> [Pompous arsehole]:
> Bullshitter!
This type of language will certainly not help in taking you serious.
> If you look back in the posts, NOWHERE have you typed
> exp(h*c/(lambda*k*T)) - 1. Ghost did that for you, you lazy git.
> All you did was produce a back-of-the-envelope homework assignment
> and a lot of whining about "where does the -1 come from?"
> Learn to express yourself clearly, quit claiming YOU developed
> Stefan-Boltzmann's Law and you might get help.
>
> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Stefan-BoltzmannLaw.html
If you have read my reaction to the post of Ghost, you will see I
dervive Boltzmann's law in a complete different way then the derivation
on scienceworld. The -1 in "exp(h*c/(lambda*k*T)) - 1" is completely
another -1 which can be found in the equation S = k( ln(n) -1 ).
> Now fuck off, according to MY Bound Information Theory, BIT.
This remark of you is just another motivation to continue with it.
Sorcerer
"Mpilot" <mobil...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1166520419.7...@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
|> | > All you're asking Sorcerer to do is a mathematical
| > | > verification or proof, which is fine (assuming he desires
| > | > to even bother) but that's all it is.
| > |
| > | If you look back in the posts, I haven't asked Sorcerer for a proof.
| >
| > No? Who wrote:
| > | The missing additive constant is -1. A proof of this,
| > | according The Bound Information Theory, I have given on the URL
| > | http://picasaweb.google.com/mobilepilot/BoltzmannSLaw
|
| Where is the question in which I ask you to verify the proof ? This
| proof is already peer-reviewed by Physicists.
|
| > [Pompous arsehole]:
| > Bullshitter!
|
| This type of language will certainly not help in taking you serious.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Mpilot
Everyone can see the only extra post you have made is the above
statement. Apperantly, you have run out of objective arguments and the
only thing left for you at the moment is using this type of language.
As said before, this is only an extra motivation to continue, because
all aguments you have used in this post have proven to be false.
Sorcerer
"Mpilot" <mobil...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1166522373....@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
|> Bullshitter, fuck off.
Read my lips:
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Bullshitter, fuck off.
Timo A. Nieminen
> No, Sorcerer is in fact correct. Theory is just that --
> theory. Without physical experimentation one might as
> well count the angels (or, if one preferes, bright green
> flying elephants) on the head of a pin by closing one's
> eyes and using one's imagination.
A misrepresentation of the angel/pin controversy, though. Firstly, it's
the _point_ of the pin. The whole question is whether angels are of zero
size, or of >0 size. If of zero size, can you fit more than one in a
volume of zero size?
The expected possible answers for the number of angels that can fit on a
pin-point would be 0, 1, and infinite. With hindsight, and the Pauli
exclusion principle, we might wish to add "2" to the list.
Lack of any working angel detection apparatus stymied physical
experimentation on the matter. Lack of an infinitely-sharp pin-point would
have been a problem, too!
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
Sorcerer
"Timo A. Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:Pine.WNT.4.64.0...@serene.st...
| On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
|
| > No, Sorcerer is in fact correct. Theory is just that --
| > theory. Without physical experimentation one might as
| > well count the angels (or, if one preferes, bright green
| > flying elephants) on the head of a pin by closing one's
| > eyes and using one's imagination.
|
| A misrepresentation of the angel/pin controversy, though. Firstly, it's
| the _point_ of the pin. The whole question is whether angels are of zero
| size, or of >0 size. If of zero size, can you fit more than one in a
| volume of zero size?
|
| The expected possible answers for the number of angels that can fit on a
| pin-point would be 0, 1, and infinite. With hindsight, and the Pauli
| exclusion principle, we might wish to add "2" to the list.
Ok... what is the speed of light; 0, 1 or infinite?
LHC - the aim of the exercise:
To smash protons moving at 99.999999% of the speed of light into each other and so recreate conditions a fraction of a second after the big bang.
http://lhc-machine-outreach.web.cern.ch/lhc-machine-outreach/
Can we add "2" to the list?
Beam Data
Injection Collision
Proton energy [GeV] 450 7000
Relativistic gamma 479.6 7461
https://edms.cern.ch/file/445830/5/Vol_1_Chapter_2.pdf
SOMEONE is bullshitting.
With foresight, Sorcerer is in fact correct.
Mpilot
> the _point_ of the pin. The whole question is whether angels are of zero
> size, or of >0 size. If of zero size, can you fit more than one in a
> volume of zero size?
The only preconditions for the proof are postulates of Quantum Theory
(modeling the physical state space as a Hilbert Space which is
constrained by laws of Quantum Theory) and the fact that the number of
states n is much bigger than the number of dimensions N. So the
physical size of the angels is not used in the proof and is not a
variable of importance in the proof.
Also the conversion 1 Bit = k.ln(2) Joule / Kelvin, the absolute value
of k is not of importance, since any size of k can be used, because the
proof is symbolic. The importance is that in 1 Bit = k.ln(2) Joule /
Kelvin, any value of k can be used.
> Lack of any working angel detection apparatus stymied physical
> experimentation on the matter. Lack of an infinitely-sharp pin-point would
> have been a problem, too!
The only physical theory which is used in the proof is Quantum Theory,
which is proven over a century to be correct.
Mpilot
The Ghost In The Machine
<ti...@physics.uq.edu.au>
wrote
on Wed, 20 Dec 2006 05:44:34 +1000
<Pine.WNT.4.64.0...@serene.st>:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>> No, Sorcerer is in fact correct. Theory is just that --
>> theory. Without physical experimentation one might as
>> well count the angels (or, if one preferes, bright green
>> flying elephants) on the head of a pin by closing one's
>> eyes and using one's imagination.
>
> A misrepresentation of the angel/pin controversy, though. Firstly, it's
> the _point_ of the pin. The whole question is whether angels are of zero
> size, or of >0 size. If of zero size, can you fit more than one in a
> volume of zero size?
>
> The expected possible answers for the number of angels that can fit on a
> pin-point would be 0, 1, and infinite. With hindsight, and the Pauli
> exclusion principle, we might wish to add "2" to the list.
>
> Lack of any working angel detection apparatus stymied physical
> experimentation on the matter. Lack of an infinitely-sharp pin-point would
> have been a problem, too!
>
An interesting point (ahem). I'll admit I've always
thought it was 'head'.
Best I can do regarding points is to refer to certain IBM
experiments moving around cesium atoms. Presumably the
approximate size of the area in question is
(4/3) * (Pi) * (140 pm)^3, assuming a steel pin. If the
tip happens to be carbon one gets (4/3) * (Pi) * (70 pm)^3.
(Admittedly, I have no idea how one would measure atomic
radius without measuring atom-atom bond radius, or
back-calculating it from gas behavior.)
Since angels are typically represented as winged hominids
(of either gender), or perhaps winged cherubs (babies),
and the height of a human is a minimum of a few inches
at birth, the pin is far more likely to fit in the angel
(resulting in a small wound at most) than the human fitting
on top of the pin. :-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #23291:
void f(item *p) { if(p != 0) delete p; }
Timo A. Nieminen
> In sci.physics, Timo A. Nieminen wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>
>>> No, Sorcerer is in fact correct. Theory is just that --
>>> theory. Without physical experimentation one might as
>>> well count the angels (or, if one preferes, bright green
>>> flying elephants) on the head of a pin by closing one's
>>> eyes and using one's imagination.
>>
>> A misrepresentation of the angel/pin controversy, though. Firstly, it's
>> the _point_ of the pin. The whole question is whether angels are of zero
>> size, or of >0 size. If of zero size, can you fit more than one in a
>> volume of zero size?
>>
>> The expected possible answers for the number of angels that can fit on a
>> pin-point would be 0, 1, and infinite. With hindsight, and the Pauli
>> exclusion principle, we might wish to add "2" to the list.
>>
>> Lack of any working angel detection apparatus stymied physical
>> experimentation on the matter. Lack of an infinitely-sharp pin-point would
>> have been a problem, too!
>
> An interesting point (ahem). I'll admit I've always
> thought it was 'head'.
>
> Best I can do regarding points is to refer to certain IBM
> experiments moving around cesium atoms. Presumably the
> approximate size of the area in question is
> (4/3) * (Pi) * (140 pm)^3, assuming a steel pin. If the
> tip happens to be carbon one gets (4/3) * (Pi) * (70 pm)^3.
A point which completely by-passed the original angel-theorists - well
before (modern) atomic theory, so why atoms?
> (Admittedly, I have no idea how one would measure atomic
> radius without measuring atom-atom bond radius, or
> back-calculating it from gas behavior.)
Measure atomic mass, measure density of liquid; this should give a
reasonable estimate. The cool thing about atomic radii is that they're
almost all the same - the biggest atoms are only about twice the radius of
the smallest.
> Since angels are typically represented as winged hominids
> (of either gender), or perhaps winged cherubs (babies),
> and the height of a human is a minimum of a few inches
> at birth, the pin is far more likely to fit in the angel
> (resulting in a small wound at most) than the human fitting
> on top of the pin. :-)
I think the lack of reliable reporting of physical manifestation of angels
had convinced many that they were not physical beings in the sense that we
are. What then? Given that some popular cosmological theories required
angels as intermediaries (Well, that's what they're for, right, even the
human-looking ones?), the question was considered worthy of thought.
Read up on neo-Platonism, and how it affected Christian, Jewish, and
Moslem theology. For a nice and readable single-volume source, you could
try Karen Armstrong, "A history of God".
Cherub=baby is a modernism. For some more authentic cherub pictures,
google image for "bull" and "assyria".
Mpilot
> had convinced many that they were not physical beings in the sense that we
> are. What then? Given that some popular cosmological theories required
> angels as intermediaries (Well, that's what they're for, right, even the
> human-looking ones?), the question was considered worthy of thought.
The result that the number of distinguishable states are proportional
to the geometric distance as measured by angle in Hilbert space,
suggests that the postulates of Quantum Theory (which are valid for a
century) may result not from a physical principle but are a consequence
of an optimal statistical inference procedure.
Sorcerer
"Timo A. Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:Pine.WNT.4.64.0...@serene.st...
Twice as many thin angels can dance on the head of a
pin as fat angels. Now we need the ratio of uranium
atoms to deuterium atoms.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>> In sci.physics, Timo A. Nieminen wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>>
>>>> No, Sorcerer is in fact correct. Theory is just that --
>>>> theory. Without physical experimentation one might as
>>>> well count the angels (or, if one preferes, bright green
>>>> flying elephants) on the head of a pin by closing one's
>>>> eyes and using one's imagination.
>>>
>>> A misrepresentation of the angel/pin controversy, though. Firstly, it's
>>> the _point_ of the pin. The whole question is whether angels are of zero
>>> size, or of >0 size. If of zero size, can you fit more than one in a
>>> volume of zero size?
>>>
>>> The expected possible answers for the number of angels that can fit on a
>>> pin-point would be 0, 1, and infinite. With hindsight, and the Pauli
>>> exclusion principle, we might wish to add "2" to the list.
>>>
>>> Lack of any working angel detection apparatus stymied physical
>>> experimentation on the matter. Lack of an infinitely-sharp pin-point would
>>> have been a problem, too!
>>
>> An interesting point (ahem). I'll admit I've always
>> thought it was 'head'.
>>
>> Best I can do regarding points is to refer to certain IBM
>> experiments moving around cesium atoms. Presumably the
>> approximate size of the area in question is
>> (4/3) * (Pi) * (140 pm)^3, assuming a steel pin. If the
>> tip happens to be carbon one gets (4/3) * (Pi) * (70 pm)^3.
>
>before (modern) atomic theory, so why atoms?
>
>> radius without measuring atom-atom bond radius, or
>> back-calculating it from gas behavior.)
>
>reasonable estimate. The cool thing about atomic radii is that they're
>almost all the same - the biggest atoms are only about twice the radius of
>the smallest.
>
>> (of either gender), or perhaps winged cherubs (babies),
>> and the height of a human is a minimum of a few inches
>> at birth, the pin is far more likely to fit in the angel
>> (resulting in a small wound at most) than the human fitting
>> on top of the pin. :-)
>
>had convinced many that they were not physical beings in the sense that we
>are. What then? Given that some popular cosmological theories required
>angels as intermediaries (Well, that's what they're for, right, even the
>human-looking ones?), the question was considered worthy of thought.
>
means "messenger" (the same word is used there for human messengers as
well). So yes, of course intermediaries.
>Read up on neo-Platonism, and how it affected Christian, Jewish, and
>Moslem theology. For a nice and readable single-volume source, you could
>try Karen Armstrong, "A history of God".
>
>Cherub=baby is a modernism. For some more authentic cherub pictures,
>google image for "bull" and "assyria".
>
Yeah, much better looking ones.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
hanson
news:rBYih.42$i5....@news.uchicago.edu...
> In article <Pine.WNT.4.64.0...@serene.st>,
"Timo A. Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> writes:
>>On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>>>>> No, Sorcerer is in fact correct. Theory is just that --
>>>>> theory. Without physical experimentation one might as
>>>>> well count the angels (or, if one preferes, bright green
>>>>> flying elephants) on the head of a pin by closing one's
>>>>> eyes and using one's imagination.
>>>>
>>>> physical experimentation on the matter. Lack of an
>>>> infinitely-sharp pin-point would have been a problem, too!
>>>
>>> experiments moving around cesium atoms. Presumably the
>>> approximate size of the area in question is
>>> (4/3) * (Pi) * (140 pm)^3, assuming a steel pin. If the
>>> tip happens to be carbon one gets (4/3) * (Pi) * (70 pm)^3.
>>> radius without measuring atom-atom bond radius, or
>>> back-calculating it from gas behavior.)
>>
>> Measure atomic mass, measure density of liquid; this should
>> give a reasonable estimate. The cool thing about atomic radii
>> is that they're almost all the same - the biggest atoms are only
>>
>>
[hanson]
Interesting! ... if so, then why is that so [1] when
their relative mass amount goes from 1 to ~250?
>
>
[Above posters]
>>> angels ... winged hominids ... winged cherubs
> The biblical (Hebrew) word for an angel is "mal'ach',
> Christian, Jewish, and Moslem theology.
>
Fuck theologies... All three of'em!... because ever since
Abe, the Arab, some 6 KY ago, gave birth to the 3 criminal
sociopathies of Monotheism: Judaism, Xianity and Islam, all
these fuckers do is to kill each others disciples and followers.
= Heresy, Blasphemy, Sacrilege, Irreverence & Profanity, in
any convenient sequence, are the 5 true paths to "heaven".=
Fuck "angels", "cherubs" & "mal'achs", incl. "messengers".
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahahahanson
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/18b241900337db54
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/8a8962ce2fcea3d3
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/616c30517c1f92c8
Timo A. Nieminen
> "Timo A. Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> writes:
>>
>> I think the lack of reliable reporting of physical manifestation of angels
>> had convinced many that they were not physical beings in the sense that we
>> are. What then? Given that some popular cosmological theories required
>> angels as intermediaries (Well, that's what they're for, right, even the
>> human-looking ones?), the question was considered worthy of thought.
>>
> The biblical (Hebrew) word for an angel is "mal'ach', which simply
> means "messenger" (the same word is used there for human messengers as
> well). So yes, of course intermediaries.
"Angel" is also directly from Latin/Greek "messenger". The modern English
meaning seems to apply strictly to supernatural entities. I wonder what
they called messengers in medieval European Latin writings? I only have
English language sources at hand, someone having already translated them
for my convenience.
>> Read up on neo-Platonism, and how it affected Christian, Jewish, and
>> Moslem theology. For a nice and readable single-volume source, you could
>> try Karen Armstrong, "A history of God".
>>
>> Cherub=baby is a modernism. For some more authentic cherub pictures,
>> google image for "bull" and "assyria".
>>
> Yeah, much better looking ones.
Ones much more likely to make you pee in fear as cherubs were supposed to
be inclined to do. I like the 5-legged Assyrian design. Essentially the
same idea as those tilt the card to see the two pictures "hologram"
things.
Timo A. Nieminen
> "Timo A. Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> writes:
>>>
>>> Measure atomic mass, measure density of liquid; this should
>>> give a reasonable estimate. The cool thing about atomic radii
>>> is that they're almost all the same - the biggest atoms are only
>>> about twice the radius of the smallest. [1]
>>>
> [hanson]
> Interesting! ... if so, then why is that so [1] when
> their relative mass amount goes from 1 to ~250?
What does mass have to do with size of atoms? Since Rutherford we know
that the nucleus, with essentially all of the mass, occupies an
insignificant portion of the volume. The size depends on the electrons,
not the mass of the atom. OK, the number of electrons depends on the
number of protons, which generally increases with mass, but what effect
would neutrons have on the size?
Anyway, just do it with a simple Bohr model. Find the radii of the
innermost circular Bohr orbits for H and element 92 (ie, uranium).
Consider a uranium nucleus with with 91 Bohr electrons orbiting it. On
average, the 91 electrons screen 91 proton charges. Do you expect the
behaviour of electron 92 to be that different from electron 1 in H?
The surprising thing is not that the heaviest atoms are only a little
larger than the lightest, but that they not smaller.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>>>
>>> I think the lack of reliable reporting of physical manifestation of angels
>>> had convinced many that they were not physical beings in the sense that we
>>> are. What then? Given that some popular cosmological theories required
>>> angels as intermediaries (Well, that's what they're for, right, even the
>>> human-looking ones?), the question was considered worthy of thought.
>>>
>> The biblical (Hebrew) word for an angel is "mal'ach', which simply
>> means "messenger" (the same word is used there for human messengers as
>> well). So yes, of course intermediaries.
>
>meaning seems to apply strictly to supernatural entities. I wonder what
>they called messengers in medieval European Latin writings? I only have
>English language sources at hand, someone having already translated them
>for my convenience.
>
for divine messengers only.
>>> Read up on neo-Platonism, and how it affected Christian, Jewish, and
>>> Moslem theology. For a nice and readable single-volume source, you could
>>> try Karen Armstrong, "A history of God".
>>>
>>> Cherub=baby is a modernism. For some more authentic cherub pictures,
>>> google image for "bull" and "assyria".
>>>
>> Yeah, much better looking ones.
>
>Ones much more likely to make you pee in fear as cherubs were supposed to
>be inclined to do. I like the 5-legged Assyrian design. Essentially the
>same idea as those tilt the card to see the two pictures "hologram"
>things.
>
Divine messengers are supposed to be awe-inspiring, not cuddly. Kinda
like a messenger from the IRS, nowadays:-)
hanson
news:Pine.WNT.4.64.0...@serene.st...
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006, hanson wrote:
>>>> give a reasonable estimate. The cool thing about atomic radii
>>>> is that they're almost all the same - the biggest atoms are only
>>>> about twice the radius of the smallest. [1]
>>>>
>> [hanson]
>> Interesting! ... if so, then why is that so [1] when
>> their relative mass amount goes from 1 to ~250?
>
> What does mass have to do with size of atoms?
>
ahahahahaha.. well, as you can see above, either you, Timo
or an earlier poster refered to a mass/size, radius relation [2]
>
[Timo]
> Since Rutherford we know that the nucleus, with essentially all of the
> mass, occupies an insignificant portion of the volume. The size depends on
> the electrons, not the mass of the atom. OK, the number of electrons
> depends on the number of protons, which generally increases with mass, but
> what effect would neutrons have on the size?
>
> Anyway, just do it with a simple Bohr model. Find the radii of the
> innermost circular Bohr orbits for H and element 92 (ie, uranium).
> Consider a uranium nucleus with with 91 Bohr electrons orbiting it. On
> average, the 91 electrons screen 91 proton charges. Do you expect the
>
> The surprising thing is not that the heaviest atoms are only a little
>
[hanson]
That's actually a pretty good take. So you are saying that in all cases
(where) we do have a 1:1 +/- charge relation ship, overall neutrality
in atoms, we should expect same size roughly [3], in which case the
empirical facts are NOT surprising. In that case I can accept and
live with the assertion of "little larger" or "about twice"... ahahahaha...
However, if we add or remove any electrons [4] the situation changes
drastically as seen in the wide range of ionic radii with different Z.
---- But that's a different story .... and it leads now to yet another,
different but related story/issue, I wish you'd pontificate on:
If atoms have the size we see them to exhibit, roughly a constant
vs a vast range in the other variable (mass), then....
....well, I'll back later on it, perhaps.... -- Take care and thanks,
Timo
hanson
Sorcerer
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message news:0D4jh.104$6_.76@trnddc07...
| "Timo A. Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
| news:Pine.WNT.4.64.0...@serene.st...
| > The surprising thing is not that the heaviest atoms are only a little
| > larger than the lightest, but that they not smaller. [3]
| >
| [hanson]
| That's actually a pretty good take.
How so?
Little solar systems with all the "mass" (whatever that is)
concentrated in a nucleus?
Why does ice float?
Bob Cain
[toxic spew snipped]
Stop changing your return address, asshole. You are infinitely more
tolerable when filtered out.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
Greg Hansen
Is it because ice atoms are bigger than water atoms?
hanson
news:emjo4...@enews1.newsguy.com...
>
"Timo A. Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
>> | news:Pine.WNT.4.64.0...@serene.st...
>> | > The surprising thing is not that the heaviest atoms are only a little
>> | > larger than the lightest, but that they not smaller. [3]
>> | >
[hanson]
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/8461cde2112afc86
>> | That's actually a pretty good take, Timo.
>>
[Andro]
>> How so? Little solar systems with all the "mass" (whatever
>
[Greg]
> Is it because ice atoms are bigger than water atoms?
>
.... ahahahaha... Greg, H2O... = atoms or molecules?....
Andro, your # [2] question may one day spurn the physics
establishment into action to really define what "mass" is,
if for no other reason then for pedagogic purposes.
But hey guys, on the eve of these merry X-Yule tidings
let Timo lave some moments in the sunshine too.
After all, we were taking about mass/sizes issues
in the range of orders of magnitude.
Besides, based on Timo's "take" ... I stopped my
post, because I relayed that pov immediately to the
Military Products Division Labs, as it lends itself
"nicely " to advances in the design of our IR targeting
devices and our radiation detection equipment.
Happy Y-X-H-K-E festivities to you guys.
hanson
hanson
>
"Bob Cain" <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:G6CdnfFY5_vFbhHY...@giganews.com...
> Sorcerer wrote:
> [toxic spew snipped]
>
> Stop changing your return address, asshole.
> You are infinitely more tolerable when filtered out.
> Bob
> --
ahahaha... Hey, Sponge Bob!... does Andro crank you?
Consider, YOU in retort have used toxic spew too: Pot/Kettle.
Happy Kwanzaa to you, Bob. Have a Candy-Cain instead
of cranking yourself! .....ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
[Sponge Bob]
> "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
> A. Einstein
>
That idiotic quote that you attribute to Einstein has about as much
depth as piss on a flat rock, as is virtually everything else that
you have to say.
Sorcerer
That's what I want to know.
Sorcerer
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message news:dwejh.1034$511.798@trnddc06...
| "Greg Hansen" <glha...@tcq.net> wrote in message
| news:emjo4...@enews1.newsguy.com...
| >
| "Timo A. Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
| >> | news:Pine.WNT.4.64.0...@serene.st...
| >> | > The surprising thing is not that the heaviest atoms are only a little
| >> | > larger than the lightest, but that they not smaller. [3]
| >> | >
| [hanson]
| "hanson" <han...@quick.net> w/i news:0D4jh.104$6_.76@trnddc07...
| http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/8461cde2112afc86
| >> | That's actually a pretty good take, Timo.
| >>
| [Andro]
| >> How so? Little solar systems with all the "mass" (whatever
| >> that is) concentrated in a nucleus? [2] Why does ice float?
| >
| [Greg]
| > Is it because ice atoms are bigger than water atoms?
| >
| [hanson]
| .... ahahahaha... Greg, H2O... = atoms or molecules?....
|
| Andro, your # [2] question may one day spurn the physics
| establishment into action to really define what "mass" is,
| if for no other reason then for pedagogic purposes.
Yeah, well, I'm inclined to take Greg's answer with a smaller pinch
of salt than Bohr's atom. He may have meant to be facetious,
but aren't ice atoms smaller when pickled in brine?
All this talk about bigger, smaller, heavier, light...
I'm serious about this, why does ice float?
|
| But hey guys, on the eve of these merry X-Yule tidings
| let Timo lave some moments in the sunshine too.
He's in Oz, his doctorate is from walkabout in the outback,
plenty of sunshine there.
http://www.crystalinks.com/dreamtime.html
The Dreamtime contains many parts: It is the story of things that have happened, how the universe came to be, how human beings were created and how the Creator intended for humans to function within the cosmos.
(Brought on by sunstroke.)
Fuck the tidings and fuck the merry virgin birth celebrations.
The Severn Bore is one of Britain's few truly spectacular natural phenomena. It is a large surge wave that can be seen in the estuary of the River Severn, where the tidal range is the 2nd highest in the world, being as much as 50 feet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WINUdDN1s9g
Enough tidings there for anyone.
| After all, we were taking about mass/sizes issues
| in the range of orders of magnitude.
Yeah, you were talking and Nemo Timo was taking.
Which is bigger, the chicken or the egg?
| Besides, based on Timo's "take" ... I stopped my
| post, because I relayed that pov immediately to the
| Military Products Division Labs, as it lends itself
| "nicely " to advances in the design of our IR targeting
| devices and our radiation detection equipment.
|
| Happy Y-X-H-K-E festivities to you guys.
| hanson
Solstice is over, happy new perihelion.
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/EarthSeasons.html
It was the damned xtians that shortened the festive season
by a week, hoping we wouldn't notice.
Sorcerer
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message news:EHejh.134$6_.40@trnddc07...
Hahaha! I'd never have seen that if you hadn't replied to it,
I have Boobie filtered out. Boobie doesn't know how to set
up a filter.
I change my email addie suit my purposes, fuck what
the arsehole wants, he doesn't exist to me.
Timo A. Nieminen
> "Timo A. Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>> The surprising thing is not that the heaviest atoms are only a little
>> larger than the lightest, but that they not smaller. [3]
>>
> [hanson]
> That's actually a pretty good take. So you are saying that in all cases
> (where) we do have a 1:1 +/- charge relation ship, overall neutrality
> in atoms, we should expect same size roughly [3], in which case the
> empirical facts are NOT surprising. In that case I can accept and
> live with the assertion of "little larger" or "about twice"... ahahahaha...
Don't just accept and live with the assertion! Atomic radii have been
measured. Look up the empirical facts and accept _them_. Theory summarises
and explains empirical facts; it doesn't replace them. Theory serves
experiment - eg, Dirac's statement on the purpose of theory.
exp(j*pi/2)
Bob Cain wrote:
> Sorcerer wrote:
>
> [toxic spew snipped]
>
> Stop changing your return address, asshole. You are infinitely more
> tolerable when filtered out.
> Bob
Given your record, asshole, you're hardly in a position to call anyone
an asshole.
> "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
> B. Cain
That idiotic quote, which you have fabricated, and which you attribute
to Einstein has about as much depth as piss on a flat rock, as does
virtually everything that you have to say.
Sorcerer
"exp(j*pi/2)" <som...@arcanemethod.com> wrote in message news:1166913842.2...@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to be "exp(j*pi) +1", given the thread title?
After all is said and done, the constant is 1 and that's the missing problem.
hanson
news:0_gjh.138854$bz5....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
------------- "why does ice float?" ---------
>
[hanson]
Right, an Iceberg has ~ 90+% of its mass under the waterline.
Water/Ice being molecules, H2O, where the single H2O molecule
is an O-atom to which the 2 H-atoms are attached at an angle
of IIRC ~ 118°. In addition the H-atoms can also share their single
electron with others H's from other H2O's. This is called a Hydrogen
bonding. Hence you can make the following allegory. Imagine your
H2O as being elbow macaronis, at the bend the O, and the H's at
the ends. Now you make "ice" by carefully constructing a 3D frame
with them wherein only the ends (the H's) are allowed to touch each
other. Now you do the height it ocuppies. Now, you shake the this
container and "melt" that M-ice-construct so that the individual elbows
can inter-twine, and cram each other, bu occupying the space at the
elbow-bend loci too. So, now you'll see that the height will go down,
because the packing has become denser... just like in water where
the liquid state has a denser packing then the crystalline ice. Naturally,
in reality a whole lot of other phenomena keep entering the game,
like disassociations (pH7) or IR rotational, translational etc movements
and displacements... .... .... AND speaking of displacement....
>
... we now cook'em real good, discard the real water and add the meat,
sauce and cheese to celebrate ... which you can see at the end of the
post below..... ahahahahaha.....
>
>
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:dwejh.1034$511.798@trnddc06...
| "Greg Hansen" <glha...@tcq.net> wrote in message
| news:emjo4...@enews1.newsguy.com...
| >
| "Timo A. Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
| >> | news:Pine.WNT.4.64.0...@serene.st...
| >> | > The surprising thing is not that the heaviest atoms are only a
| >> | > little larger than the lightest, but that they not smaller. [3]
| >> | >
[hanson]
| "hanson" <han...@quick.net> w/i news:0D4jh.104$6_.76@trnddc07...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/8461cde2112afc86
| >> | That's actually a pretty good take, Timo.
| >>
| [Andro]
| >> How so? Little solar systems with all the "mass" (whatever
| >> that is) concentrated in a nucleus? [2] Why does ice float?
| >
| [Greg]
| > Is it because ice atoms are bigger than water atoms?
| >
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_f> wrote in message
news:0sgjh.138836$bz5....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
That's what I want to know.
>
| .... ahahahaha... Greg, H2O... = atoms or molecules?....
|
Yeah, well, I'm inclined to take Greg's answer with a smaller pinch
of salt than Bohr's atom. He may have meant to be facetious,
but aren't ice atoms smaller when pickled in brine?
All this talk about bigger, smaller, heavier, light...
I'm serious about this, why does ice float?
>
>
------------- "why does ice float?" --------- see above
>
[hanson]
| Andro, your # [2] question above may one day spurn the physics
| establishment into action to really define what "mass" is,
| if for no other reason then for pedagogic purposes.
>
>
| But hey guys, on the eve of these merry X-Yule tidings
| let Timo lave some moments in the sunshine too.
>
He's in Oz, his doctorate is from walkabout in the outback, plenty
The Dreamtime contains many parts: It is the story of things that
have happened, how the universe came to be, how human beings
were created and how the Creator intended for humans to function
within the cosmos. (Brought on by sunstroke.)
>
>..... on the eve of these merry X-Yule tidings
>
[Andro]
Fuck the tidings and fuck the merry virgin birth celebrations.
The Severn Bore is one of Britain's few truly spectacular natural
phenomena. It is a large surge wave that can be seen in the
estuary of the River Severn, where the tidal range is the 2nd
highest in the world, being as much as 50 feet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WINUdDN1s9g
Enough tidings there for anyone.
>
| After all, we were taking about mass/sizes issues
| in the range of orders of magnitude.
>
Yeah, you were talking and Nemo Timo was taking.
Which is bigger, the chicken or the egg?
>
shshshshhh... not so loud. Timo may hear you. ahahahaha....
>
[hanson]
| Besides, based on Timo's "take" ... I stopped my
| post, because I relayed that pov immediately to the
| Military Products Division Labs, as it lends itself
| "nicely " to advances in the design of our IR targeting
| devices and our radiation detection equipment.
| Happy Y-X-H-K-E festivities to you guys.
| hanson
>
Solstice is over, happy new perihelion.
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/EarthSeasons.html
It was the damned xtians that shortened the festive season
by a week, hoping we wouldn't notice.
>
Well, yeah. Sad situation on the face of it, But there is
also concurrently the "Fastnacht" going on in Germanic
Lands lasting from 11-11-11:11 (Nov 11, 1111 hrs) on
to Ash Wednesday just before Easter, throughout which
they celebrate the Foreplay and the Afterglow and the
Hangover from the Yule-Sol-Xmas-New Year festivity
highpoints. -- So even the old timers with all there medieval
social rules and church regs knew how to enjoy their existence.
So, celebrate dudes and dudettes while the going is good!
ahahahaha.... ahahahanson
hanson
text sections while running the spell checker. It happened now 2x.
Once below *** and once in the post to Mehram.... ahahahaha....
But then it's not of any importance nor consequence. So, nobody fret!
ahahahaha.... ahahahanson
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:C0ljh.1873$%M1.546@trnddc08...
> "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_f> asked in message
> news:0_gjh.138854$bz5....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> ------------- "why does ice float?" ---------
>>
> [hanson]
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/6b69fc5cdc8f66f4
> Right, an Iceberg has ~ 90+% of its mass under the waterline.
> Water/Ice being molecules, H2O, where the single H2O molecule
> is an O-atom to which the 2 H-atoms are attached at an angle
> of IIRC ~ 118°. In addition the H-atoms can also share their single
> electron with others H's from other H2O's. This is called a Hydrogen
> bonding. Hence you can make the following allegory. Imagine your
> H2O as being elbow macaronis, at the bend the O, and the H's at
> the ends. Now you make "ice" by carefully constructing a 3D frame
> with them wherein only the ends (the H's) are allowed to touch each
> other. *** Now you place that construct into a tight fitting container
and you measure *** the height it ocuppies. Now, you shake this
> container and "melt" that M-ice-construct so that the individual elbows
> can inter-twine *** & cram into each other by *** occupying the space at
> the elbow-bend loci too. So, now you'll see that the height will go down,
> because the packing has become denser... just like in water where
> the liquid state has a denser packing then the crystalline ice. Naturally,
> in reality a whole lot of other phenomena keep entering the game,
> like disassociations (pH7) or IR rotational, translational etc movements
> and displacements... .... .... AND speaking of displacement....
>>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/6b69fc5cdc8f66f4
hanson
news:Pine.WNT.4.64.0...@serene.st...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/46a41e50151ca114
> On Sat, 23 Dec 2006, hanson wrote:
>
"Timo A. Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>>> The surprising thing is not that the heaviest atoms are only a little
>>> larger than the lightest, but that they not smaller. [3]
>>>
>> [hanson]
>> That's actually a pretty good take. So you are saying that in all cases
>> (where) we do have a 1:1 +/- charge relation ship, overall neutrality
>> in atoms, we should expect same size roughly [3], in which case the
>> empirical facts are NOT surprising. In that case I can accept and
>> live with the assertion of "little larger" or "about twice"...
>> ahahahaha...
>
> Don't just accept and live with the assertion! Atomic radii have
> been measured. Look up the empirical facts and accept _them_.
> Theory summarises and explains empirical facts; it doesn't replace
> them. Theory serves experiment - eg, Dirac's statement on the
> purpose of theory.
>
.... ahahaha... Don't overdo it nor backstroke about it. Your initial
comment [3] was important as it precipitated the induction to/for
my follow-up reaction. See [6] below.
We, the Biz and Production people who do MAKE things for the
real world, we are living in a different world then you teacher folk.
Once your lectures have been given the terminus of your function
has been reached, just as the Salesman is done with his work
once he has closed the deal. Example in here
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/f31e96fb01db9c7d
wherein it also says:
::: Eric too will see that he was a victim of such instruction, just like
::: I was, after doctoring for years in slave labor for academia, when
::: I got my first job in R&D in a defense industry establishment, where
::: the group toiled away in great detail at their work. After a few
::: days I suggested that the team could save itself a lot of time
::: and grief by simply applying relativity, upon which the boss-man
::: hollered at me with very beady eyes: "Fuck you and your theories,
::: punk. Here, we measure !!! Lives and Millions are at stake in this" ....
Still, Timor, I appreciated your comments greatly which is why I stated:
== If atoms have the size we see them to exhibit, roughly a constant
== vs a vast range in the other variable (mass), then....
== ....well, I'll back later on it, perhaps.... and then I continued in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/ca694ce54a59ca0d
== But hey guys, let Timo have some moments in the sunshine too.
== After all, we were taking about mass/sizes issues in the range of
== orders of magnitude. ---- Besides, based on Timo's "take" [6]
== ... I stopped my post, because I relayed that pov immediately to the
== Military Products Division Labs, as it lends itself "nicely " to
advances
== in the design of our IR targeting devices and our radiation detection
== equipment.
So, thanks again, Timo.
hanson
>
> --
[Timo]
Sorcerer
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message news:C0ljh.1873$%M1.546@trnddc08...
| "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_f> asked in message
| news:0_gjh.138854$bz5....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| ------------- "why does ice float?" ---------
| >
| [hanson]
| Right, an Iceberg has ~ 90+% of its mass under the waterline.
| Water/Ice being molecules, H2O, where the single H2O molecule
| is an O-atom to which the 2 H-atoms are attached at an angle
| of IIRC ~ 118°. In addition the H-atoms can also share their single
| electron with others H's from other H2O's. This is called a Hydrogen
| bonding.
Sounds more like one giant molecule to me. Isn't sodium chloride
just a huge crystal of alternating Na and Cl atoms in three
dimensions, angle 90 degrees?
| Hence you can make the following allegory. Imagine your
| H2O as being elbow macaronis, at the bend the O, and the H's at
| the ends. Now you make "ice" by carefully constructing a 3D frame
| with them wherein only the ends (the H's) are allowed to touch each
| other. Now you do the height it ocuppies. Now, you shake the this
| container and "melt" that M-ice-construct so that the individual elbows
| can inter-twine, and cram each other, bu occupying the space at the
| elbow-bend loci too. So, now you'll see that the height will go down,
| because the packing has become denser... just like in water where
| the liquid state has a denser packing then the crystalline ice. Naturally,
| in reality a whole lot of other phenomena keep entering the game,
| like disassociations (pH7) or IR rotational, translational etc movements
| and displacements...
Nah nah nah... That story line is no better than three navigators
coming all the way to Bayt Lahm to see a male aphid monarch
they'd never heard of, based on a single nova nobody else has
a record of. It's miraculous. If they were so sagacious they'd
have used the GPS constellation and not tipped off Herod.
It lacks the ring of truth, ahahanson, opening up more questions
than it answers. First we lay down a layer of macaroni shells:
(((((((((((((((((((((((((
))))))))))))))))))))))))))
(((((((((((((((((((((((((
Then a layer on top of that.
Bingo, we have graphite ice, not diamond ice.
Either kind should sink in water, where individual molecules
are playing like popcorn in a microwave.
The whole spiel grows out of trying to make sense of crystals,
we are far from answering that question.
hanson
in news:e0pjh.150826$Pk.6...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> w/i news:C0ljh.1873$%M1.546@trnddc08...
| "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_f> asked in message
| news:0_gjh.138854$bz5....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| ------------- "why does ice float?" ---------
| >
| [hanson]
| Right, an Iceberg has ~ 90+% of its mass under the waterline.
| Water/Ice being molecules, H2O, where the single H2O molecule
| is an O-atom to which the 2 H-atoms are attached at an angle
| of IIRC ~ 118°. In addition the H-atoms can also share their single
| electron with others H's from other H2O's. This is called a Hydrogen
| bonding.
>
Sounds more like one giant molecule to me. Isn't sodium chloride
just a huge crystal of alternating Na and Cl atoms in three
dimensions, angle 90 degrees?
>
| Hence you can make the following allegory. Imagine your
| H2O as being elbow macaronis, at the bend the O, and the H's at
| the ends. Now you make "ice" by carefully constructing a 3D frame
| with them wherein only the ends (the H's) are allowed to touch each
|container and "melt" that M-ice-construct so that the individual elbows
| the elbow-bend loci too. So, now you'll see that the height will go down,
| because the packing has become denser... just like in water where
| the liquid state has a denser packing then the crystalline ice. Naturally,
| in reality a whole lot of other phenomena keep entering the game,
| like disassociations (pH7) or IR rotational, translational etc movements
| and displacements...
>
Nah nah nah... That story line is no better than three navigators
coming all the way to Bayt Lahm to see a male aphid monarch
they'd never heard of, based on a single nova nobody else has
a record of. It's miraculous. If they were so sagacious they'd
have used the GPS constellation and not tipped off Herod.
It lacks the ring of truth, ahahanson, opening up more questions
than it answers. First we lay down a layer of macaroni shells:
(((((((((((((((((((((((((
))))))))))))))))))))))))))
(((((((((((((((((((((((((
Then a layer on top of that.
Bingo, we have graphite ice, not diamond ice.
Either kind should sink in water, where individual molecules
are playing like popcorn in a microwave.
The whole spiel grows out of trying to make sense of crystals,
we are far from answering that question.
>
[hanson]
AHAHAHAHA.... ahahahaha... for/to Andro 1 & 2 comments:
Right, but in that case then you must become your own pasta
maker master to soak, boil and freeze'em and see whether they
taste better your way and hope you get satisfied customers who
come for repeats... ahahahaha... .... Bon appétit... ahahahaha...
You remind me more and more of one of my favorite physicists,
Ernest Mach, who hollered at Einstein:
"That is NOT physics!... It is NOT radical enough!"
>
--------------- orig ----------
[hanson]
Sorcerer
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message news:hRpjh.1158$4e.842@trnddc04...
Yeah, but why does ice float? That expansion is pretty
radical, it breaks granite and is the leading cause of erosion.
This leads to the question of why ice is not plastic and malleable,
as iron is when heated. Yet glaciers flow...
Greg Hansen
Now, now, let's not have harsh words about Einstein. After all, as
discussed in that movie starring Yahoo Serious, he did figure out how to
split the beer atom. And he can't really be an isolated academic if he
dropped the soap and came out all right.
Greg Hansen
> "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_f> asked in message
> news:0_gjh.138854$bz5....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> ------------- "why does ice float?" ---------
>
> [hanson]
> Right, an Iceberg has ~ 90+% of its mass under the waterline.
> Water/Ice being molecules, H2O, where the single H2O molecule
> is an O-atom to which the 2 H-atoms are attached at an angle
> of IIRC ~ 118°. In addition the H-atoms can also share their single
> electron with others H's from other H2O's. This is called a Hydrogen
> bonding. Hence you can make the following allegory. Imagine your
> H2O as being elbow macaronis, at the bend the O, and the H's at
> the ends. Now you make "ice" by carefully constructing a 3D frame
> with them wherein only the ends (the H's) are allowed to touch each
> other. Now you do the height it ocuppies. Now, you shake the this
> container and "melt" that M-ice-construct so that the individual elbows
> can inter-twine, and cram each other, bu occupying the space at the
> elbow-bend loci too. So, now you'll see that the height will go down,
> because the packing has become denser... just like in water where
> the liquid state has a denser packing then the crystalline ice. Naturally,
> in reality a whole lot of other phenomena keep entering the game,
> like disassociations (pH7) or IR rotational, translational etc movements
> and displacements... .... .... AND speaking of displacement....
On a qualitative level, we might also think that when we shake them,
they'll bounce off of each other and fly apart. And ice does expand
when heated, until it melts. Other chemical are smaller when they
freeze, but I can't think of any others with the same sort of geometry
as water. Methane has more symmetries. I can't remember what CH2 is,
but I seem to remember it's linear rather than bent, and therefore
pretty boring.
hanson
> hanson wrote:
>> "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_f> asked in message
>> news:0_gjh.138854$bz5....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> ------------- "why does ice float?" ---------
>>
>> [hanson]
> Right, an Iceberg has ~ 90+% of its mass under the waterline.
> Water/Ice being molecules, H2O, where the single H2O molecule
> is an O-atom to which the 2 H-atoms are attached at an angle
> of IIRC ~ 118°. In addition the H-atoms can also share their single
> electron with others H's from other H2O's. This is called a Hydrogen
> bonding. Hence you can make the following allegory. Imagine your
> H2O as being elbow macaronis, at the bend the O, and the H's at
> the ends. Now you make "ice" by carefully constructing a 3D frame
> with them wherein only the ends (the H's) are allowed to touch each
> container and "melt" that M-ice-construct so that the individual elbows
> because the packing has become denser... just like in water where
> the liquid state has a denser packing then the crystalline ice. Naturally,
> in reality a whole lot of other phenomena keep entering the game,
> like disassociations (pH7) or IR rotational, translational etc movements
> and displacements... .... .... AND speaking of displacement....
>
> On a qualitative level, we might also think that when we shake them,
> they'll bounce off of each other and fly apart. And ice does expand when
> heated, until it melts. Other chemical are smaller when they freeze, but
> I can't think of any others with the same sort of geometry as water.
> Methane has more symmetries. I can't remember what CH2 is, but I seem to
> remember it's linear rather than bent, and therefore pretty boring.
>
Re: water. Water is a very strange bird indeed when compared
to behaviors of other substances. Water's unexpected properties
make Andro's objections and his route of inquiry entirely justifiable
IIRC, -CH2-, the single bond ethylene is angled with/for adjacent C
and H s'. The C's four s-electrons are reaching out tetrahedrically,
in/for single bonds. OTOH the C pi electrons in double -CH=CH-, and
in triple -C=-C- configs, they are straight/linear, which is why we see
cis and trans forms (i.e. in the current howling over trans fat) in chains
and especially in unsaturated olefins. Conjugated/alternating single
and double bonds like in benzene rings are flat.
hanson
hanson
news:wDqjh.163663$qd7....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> w/i news:hRpjh.1158$4e.842@trnddc04...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3af4e525b3c989d7
You remind me more and more of one of my favorite physicists,
| Ernest Mach, who hollered at Einstein:
| "That is NOT physics!... It is NOT radical enough!"
[Andro]
Yeah, but why does ice float? That expansion is pretty
radical, it breaks granite and is the leading cause of erosion.
This leads to the question of why ice is not plastic and malleable,
as iron is when heated. Yet glaciers flow...
|
[hanson]
of course, that's fact. But since you don't accept heuristic
explanations you are entirely welcome to push the
envelope and present your own pov. The wilder the better!
Take care, Andro
hanson
Sorcerer
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message news:E6zjh.530$Rc.228@trnddc03...
Sorcerer
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message news:7azjh.531$Rc.456@trnddc03...
I don't have a pov, I claim no expertise in chemistry. All
I'm doing is asking questions of those more versed in the art
than I.
I've seen Roberts, Nieminen and Davidson pontificating on
electrics when it is quite clear to an engineer they are clueless,
I've no intention of making their blunders when it comes to chemistry.
Yet chemistry is an integral part of physics and fascinating
for its geometry, otherwise it would bore me. It seems to me
that the drivel of cosmology, big bangs and string theory
has as much substance to it as angels dancing on the head
of a pin and can lead nowhere, whereas the inner workings
of the molecule are part of everyday life.
hanson
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> w/i news:E6zjh.530$Rc.228@trnddc03...
What I want to see is a polyacetylene bucky ball...
>
Now that ain't gonna happen. Here is why. The bucky
ball is [>C-C<]n, a 2 dimensional network enclosing
a sphere's surface. OTOH Acetylene is a linear -C=-C-
unit ( with =- being the triple bond). Hence this geometric
-C=-C- unit can only from more or less linear chains.
If these chains crosslink with each other then you can
obtain bucky balls, but the triple bond will open and be
used for these links and the acetylene character will
totally disappear. Actually, one of the industrial methods
to produce buckyballs is done by burning off the H
from Acetylene, H-C=-C-H, with oxygen, producing H2O
and excited .C=-C. radicals which polymerize into C60
and C78 etc ball type configurations, Buckyballs, that can
be extracted with Toluene from the resulting insoluble soot.
Here's more on buckballs and their beautiful colors:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/1141af4320c07612
and here is where they tried to use Nitrogen instead of
Carbon to make explosives:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/6b69fc5cdc8f66f4
Have fun.... ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
Sorcerer
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message news:ZMAjh.1569$511.108@trnddc06...
Hahahaha!
I figured the triple bond might be a slight problem, I did say
POLYacetylene. Didn't mean to crank you, guy, but even I know
you need a minimum of four three legged vertices for a polyhedron!
ahahahaha!
BTW, I found acetylene an effective deterrent on a wasp nest,
especially when mixed with a little life-giving oxygen.
One had stung the production manager, I was duty bound to
defend her honour as her knight in shining armour and chief
fire breathing dragon slayer. They seemed to die rather suddenly...
|
hanson
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> w/i news:ZMAjh.1569$511.108@trnddc06...
|| > or IR rotational, translational etc movements and displacements.
| http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/6b69fc5cdc8f66f4
| Have fun.... ahahaha... ahahahanson
| >
Hahahaha!
I figured the triple bond might be a slight problem, I did say
POLYacetylene. Didn't mean to crank you, guy,
>
BUT you did, because you gave me the impression that
you were serious for a change... ahahahaha... Good job!
>
[Andro]
...but even I know you need a minimum of four three legged
vertices for a polyhedron! ahahahaha!
BTW, I found acetylene an effective deterrent on a wasp nest,
especially when mixed with a little life-giving oxygen.
One had stung the production manager, I was duty bound to
defend her honour as her knight in shining armour and chief
fire breathing dragon slayer. They seemed to die rather suddenly...
>
BTW 2, the above link [1] is not the intended one, 'cuz I got
distracted by Esmeralda's and Pretty Woman's activities
under my desk as they busily manipulated & vacuumed
my plumbing as a pre-Xmas gift... ahahahaha.... Here is
the right link for the "Nitrogen instead of Carbon to make
explosives": [1]
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/607287872b875225
exp(j*pi/2)
Not withstanding your suggestion, I prefer to use the purely imaginary
nic exp(j*pi//2). The bottom line, irrespective of the nic that I use,
is that Bob Cain is a flaming asshole.
Sorcerer
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message news:%PEjh.1275$4e.503@trnddc04...
Ah well, you never know with me. A little knowledge and
and I'm dangerous, else I'm downright lethal. It's when I have
no knowledge that I'm completely safe. For the most part
I don't challenge the expertise of others... a lifetime isn't
long enough to do so... until it ceases to make sense,
a situation we are only too familiar with when the expert
Einstein is reverred.
Macaroni elbow water doesn't have the right ringtone, and
although I can see carbon atoms as little black balls with
springs sticking out of them, acetylene bending three springs,
it isn't a satisfactory model for water.
In a mixture of ice and water, no heat in, no heat out, why
doesn't it turn to jello?
| >
| [Andro]
| ...but even I know you need a minimum of four three legged
| vertices for a polyhedron! ahahahaha!
| BTW, I found acetylene an effective deterrent on a wasp nest,
| especially when mixed with a little life-giving oxygen.
| One had stung the production manager, I was duty bound to
| defend her honour as her knight in shining armour and chief
| fire breathing dragon slayer. They seemed to die rather suddenly...
| >
| [hanson]
| BTW 2, the above link [1] is not the intended one, 'cuz I got
| distracted by Esmeralda's and Pretty Woman's activities
| under my desk as they busily manipulated & vacuumed
| my plumbing as a pre-Xmas gift... ahahahaha.... Here is
| the right link for the "Nitrogen instead of Carbon to make
| explosives": [1]
| http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/607287872b875225
|
Yeah, it's time we abandoned carboglycerine and tetracarbotoluene
in favour of more xmas pudding pulling.
http://www.surpriseyourwoman.com/images/xmasbibs_main.jpg
Sorcerer
"exp(j*pi/2)" <som...@arcanemethod.com> wrote in message news:1167012597.9...@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
As we know... and he's totally ignorant of mathematics as well.
Einstein said it, he believes it, that settles it, and like any good
football team supporter he leaves the game screaming "WE won"
as if he'd been a participant. The word I would use is "bigot".
There are many of similar ilk.
Mitchell Jones
wrote:
> "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_g> wrote in message
> news:wDqjh.163663$qd7....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> w/i news:hRpjh.1158$4e.842@trnddc04...
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3af4e525b3c989d7
> You remind me more and more of one of my favorite physicists,
> | Ernest Mach, who hollered at Einstein:
> | "That is NOT physics!... It is NOT radical enough!"
>
> [Andro]
> Yeah, but why does ice float?
***{It floats because it expands when it freezes. The mass of the frozen
water didn't change, but its volume increased, when it froze. Result:
the weight of the water displaced by the ice is greater than that of the
ice, until the displaced volume is reduced by raising the surface of the
ice above the water line. Ice floats, in short, for the same reason
anything else floats: because its mass is less than the mass of the
water it will displace if fully submerged. In general, the water line of
a floating object is such that the mass of the object divided by the
displaced volume is equal to the density of water. Thus when cargo,
hence mass, is added to a ship, the waterline rises to the point where
the new mass--ship plus cargo--divided by the new displaced volume, once
again equals the density of the water. If you are asking why that
relationship holds, the answer is that as an object sinks down into a
fluid, the average upward pressure on its submerged surface rises, and,
if the average upward pressure times the area of the submerged surface
reaches equality with the mass of the object, it ceases to sink. It
floats, in short, at the point where the downward force due to gravity
equals the upward force due to the displaced water. --MJ}***
> That expansion is pretty
> radical, it breaks granite and is the leading cause of erosion.
> This leads to the question of why ice is not plastic and malleable,
> as iron is when heated. Yet glaciers flow...
***{Why ice floats is easy: because it expands when it freezes. Why it
expands when it freezes, on the other hand, is not an easy question at
all. Apparently the crystal lattice has voids that are not present in
the liquid state, but the mechanics which lead to that result are
unknown to me. --MJ}***
> |
> [hanson]
> of course, that's fact. But since you don't accept heuristic
> explanations you are entirely welcome to push the
> envelope and present your own pov. The wilder the better!
> Take care, Andro
> hanson
***{Hi there, Hanson. Sorry about using your post to respond to Andro,
but his questions seemed interesting, and his original post has rolled
off of my server, so I butted in here. :-) --MJ}***
*****************************************************************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. 貴J
Sorcerer
"Mitchell Jones" <mjo...@21cenlogic.com> wrote in message news:mjones-1C4D81....@news.thundernews.com...
| In article <7azjh.531$Rc.456@trnddc03>, "hanson" <han...@quick.net>
| wrote:
|
| > "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_g> wrote in message
| > news:wDqjh.163663$qd7....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| > >
| > "hanson" <han...@quick.net> w/i news:hRpjh.1158$4e.842@trnddc04...
| > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3af4e525b3c989d7
| > You remind me more and more of one of my favorite physicists,
| > | Ernest Mach, who hollered at Einstein:
| > | "That is NOT physics!... It is NOT radical enough!"
| >
| > [Andro]
| > Yeah, but why does ice float?
|
| ***{It floats because it expands when it freezes. The mass of the frozen
| water didn't change, but its volume increased, when it froze.
Yeah, we know all that kidy stuff, but why does it expand when it
freezes contrary to (say) gold or iron which contracts when it freezes?
http://images.heritagecoin.com/imagesnew/HNAI/75/414/414280001r.jpg
Look at an icecube in the freezer, it can LIFT a mass (say a pea) against
gravity by LOSING energy.
Is this entropy reversal or what?
The Ghost In The Machine
<Headm...@hogwarts.physics_h>
wrote
on Mon, 01 Jan 2007 13:02:36 GMT
<MD7mh.280278$Pk.6...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
As the ice expands, it gives up heat (heat of fusion). In any event a
refrigerator is not a closed system.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #23291:
void f(item *p) { if(p != 0) delete p; }
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Sorcerer
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message news:38pn64-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
Oh whoopee, Ghost has rediscovered cold fusion.
Maybe you didn't understand my question, fuckhead.
Let's try it with shorter words of the "See Spot Run" variety.
Why
does
H2O
get
fat
when
it
cools?
The Ghost In The Machine
<Headm...@hogwarts.physics_h>
wrote
<w1bmh.282487$Pk.2...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
Try again. Cold fusion is a different question.
>
> Maybe you didn't understand my question, fuckhead.
>
> Let's try it with shorter words of the "See Spot Run" variety.
> Why
> does
> H2O
> get
> fat
> when
> it
> cools?
>
It's not because it's violating the Second Law, if that's what you're
thinking. (Were that the case every refrigerator on the planet could be
adapted to become perpetual motion machines of the second kind. An
interesting notion, that...but highly improbable.)
A quick Google coughed up
http://www.iapws.org/faq1/freeze.htm
which is a simplistic but straightforward explanation as to why ice
expands as it freezes, at low pressures. (Higher pressure variants are
possible; 14 variants are listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice .
However, the vast majority of ice most people will encounter is
Ice Ih.)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
/dev/signature: Not a text file
Sorcerer
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message news:anun64-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
No way.
You said:
"As the ice expands, it gives up heat of fusion", fuckhead.
|
| >
| > Maybe you didn't understand my question, fuckhead.
| >
| > Let's try it with shorter words of the "See Spot Run" variety.
| > Why
| > does
| > H2O
| > get
| > fat
| > when
| > it
| > cools?
| >
|
| It's not because it's violating the Second Law, if that's what you're
| thinking. (Were that the case every refrigerator on the planet could be
| adapted to become perpetual motion machines of the second kind. An
| interesting notion, that...but highly improbable.)
|
| A quick Google coughed up
|
| http://www.iapws.org/faq1/freeze.htm
|
| which is a simplistic but straightforward explanation as to why ice
| expands as it freezes, at low pressures. (Higher pressure variants are
| possible; 14 variants are listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice .
Arghhh.... not wackypedia, that's full of shit. Any moron can write it.
The primary use of ice is to cool my scotch.
I'm thinking the second law of thermodynamics is violated,
and I'm not concerned with fuckin' fridges.
Why
does
H2O
get
fat
when
it
cools
and
gold
gets
slim,
fuckhead? (two four letter words joined up)
http://images.heritagecoin.com/imagesnew/HNAI/75/414/414280001r.jpg
| However, the vast majority of ice most people will encounter is
| Ice Ih.)
Who gives a flying fuck? My question is:
Why
does
H2O
get
fat
when
it
cools
and
gold
gets
slim,
fuckhead?
The easy way out is to say "I don't know".
The wrong way is to pretend you do, because
then I'll make a bloody fool of you.
The truth is I don't know either. It's a fascinating
problem.
The Ghost In The Machine
<Headm...@hogwarts.physics_h>
wrote
<M7fmh.236012$bz5.1...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
That is correct -- about 334 kJ/kg of ice created. The concept of "cold
fusion" is entirely different, requiring an electric current through
some water and a catalyst (platinum); the claim therein was that some of
the hydrogen was being fused into helium. Different problem.
Correct. The second law of thermodynamics is indeed violated.
You will now be charged with building a perpetual motion machine from
this violation. I'll expect results by next Tuesday. ;-)
>
>
> | However, the vast majority of ice most people will encounter is
> | Ice Ih.)
>
>
> Who gives a flying fuck? My question is:
> Why
> does
> H2O
> get
> fat
> when
> it
> cools
> and
> gold
> gets
> slim,
> fuckhead?
>
> The easy way out is to say "I don't know".
> The wrong way is to pretend you do, because
> then I'll make a bloody fool of you.
> The truth is I don't know either. It's a fascinating
> problem.
No, you *do* know (don't be coy now). It's a violation
of the second law of thermodynamics, you know why, and
you aren't telling us because it's covered under patent.
Good luck with your invention sir. I'll claim I knew you when at the
appropriate time -- probably in 2023 just before your patent expires.
:-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
Sorcerer
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message news:ccso64-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| In sci.physics, Sorcerer
| <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_h>
| wrote
| fusion" is entirely different, requiring an electric current through
| some water and a catalyst (platinum); the claim therein was that some of
| the hydrogen was being fused into helium. Different problem.
|
| >
| >
| > |
| > | >
| You will now be charged with building a perpetual motion machine from
| this violation. I'll expect results by next Tuesday. ;-)
|
| >
| >
| > | Ice Ih.)
| >
| >
| > Who gives a flying fuck? My question is:
| > Why
| > does
| > H2O
| > get
| > fat
| > when
| > it
| > cools
| > and
| > gold
| > gets
| > slim,
| > fuckhead?
| >
| > The easy way out is to say "I don't know".
| > The wrong way is to pretend you do, because
| > then I'll make a bloody fool of you.
| > The truth is I don't know either. It's a fascinating
| > problem.
|
| of the second law of thermodynamics, you know why, and
| you aren't telling us because it's covered under patent.
|
| Good luck with your invention sir. I'll claim I knew you when at the
| appropriate time -- probably in 2023 just before your patent expires.
| :-)
FWIW all your sarcasm is worth what you are. Zilch.