talkmagic.co.uk

Antera wrote:I will be surprised if Humans will ever figure out why is there something rather than nothing. Like fish in a fish tank, maybe our neurons are not good enough and so maybe its not comprehendable

The smart money at the moment is on the assumption that everything that can exist deos exist in the multi verse and thats why our universe seem fine tuned for life

There was no beginning, the Universe is an ever expanding bubble bath

It's all to do with a strange man called Paul Dirac and his amazing equation.

Tomo wrote:It's all to do with a strange man called Paul Dirac and his amazing equation.

It appears that there is still some hostility between physics and myself. Had a look for Dirac and his equation, but it seems to have made my brain explode.

Madelon Hoedt wrote:

Tomo wrote:It's all to do with a strange man called Paul Dirac and his amazing equation.

It appears that there is still some hostility between physics and myself. Had a look for Dirac and his equation, but it seems to have made my brain explode.

He was a very strange man. I expect his brain exploded on a daily basis!

There are parts of physics that my brain refuses to let me understand. I always have problems with a mole of a substance, for example. I think it's like being able to roll your tongue into a tube. It's just one of those things you can either do or not do.

Personally I think that some kid is dreaming and we're all caught inside his crazy Broadway nightmare.

Tomo wrote:There are parts of physics that my brain refuses to let me understand. I always have problems with a mole of a substance, for example. I think it's like being able to roll your tongue into a tube. It's just one of those things you can either do or not do.

*rolls tongue into tube*

I feel so much better about myself now!

Tomo wrote:There are parts of physics that my brain refuses to let me understand. I always have problems with a mole of a substance, for example. I think it's like being able to roll your tongue into a tube. It's just one of those things you can either do or not do.

Moles are about the only part of physics/chemistry I managed to get my head round. It's just a number.

A "dozen" is another word for 12 of something.
A "mole" is another word for (6.02 x 10^23) of something.

So you could have a mole of anything, but in practice the number is so big it's only useful to use with objects on the atomic scale.

A sample of an element with a mass (in grams) equal to the element's atomic mass will contain one mole of atoms. For instance, carbon's atomic mass is 12.01, so a sample of pure carbon weighing 12.01g contains a mole of carbon atoms.

But I can't roll my tongue.

Yeah but I get what Tomo means.

Why a mole? Why? Why that specific seemingly random number?

And the tongue rolling thing, I refuse to believe that its "genetic". No one can roll their tongue into a tube without the use of the cheeks/lips. Try it. You physically have to make an O shape with your mouth.

Now the tongue is made of many muscles, but essentially the muscles are symmetrical on either side - the main muscle being the genioglossus FYI (not often you get to fire some anatomy wisdom into a convo ). So if you almost "relax" your tongue, make an "O" shape with the lips, and thrust the tongue out, voila. The tongue is rolled. Why? Because its the easiest way for it to fit through the space presented to it.

Please please please, if I am wrong, point me in the direction of some proper proof that I am wrong, a bloody Cochrane review would be preferable. I had an argument with my friend over this one time, and I refuse to leave it be!

And I think this because I cannot whistle. Not because I physically cannot, but because as a child I never put the time and effort into trying to whistle. Probably because I was always rolling my bloody tongue...

ace of kev wrote:Yeah but I get what Tomo means.

Why a mole? Why? Why that specific seemingly random number?

Ah, now, I do know that's Avagadro's number. I think I have such bother with moles because I'd just discovered drink and girls back in 1983, and the first few months of A-level physics (atomic physics - get the nasty sums in first) suddenly took a back seat to my own, ahem, research.

And that is how women will destroy science. You're welcome

ace of kev wrote:No one can roll their tongue into a tube without the use of the cheeks/lips.

I can. Put the tip of your tongue on the roof of your mouth, move muscles. No need to open my mouth or make a shape with my lips. I can do it without the roof of my mouth, but it's harder

Tomo wrote:I'd just discovered drink and girls back in 1983, and the first few months of A-level physics (atomic physics - get the nasty sums in first) suddenly took a back seat to my own, ahem, research.

And what are the conclusions of your research?

Which laws of Physics, or logic, would you use to explain women then ?

Discombobulator wrote:
And what are the conclusions of your research?

Which laws of Physics, or logic, would you use to explain women then ?

Definitely the ones covering quantum superposition but with more than two states and fewer cats. Yes can mean yes, no and "get off I'm reading" all at once.

<runs away quickly>

themagicwand wrote:Personally I think that some kid is dreaming and we're all caught inside his crazy Broadway nightmare.

I've got a theory it could be bunnies...

Tomo wrote:Definitely the ones covering quantum superposition but with more than two states and fewer cats. Yes can mean yes, no and "get off I'm reading" all at once.

<runs away quickly>

To make matters more complicated, test conditions are highly volatile and can change an infinite number of times for any value of t, where t = the amount of time.

Also, are you really sure about the fewer cats?

Madelon Hoedt wrote:To make matters more complicated, test conditions are highly volatile and can change an infinite number of times for any value of t, where t = the amount of time.

Also, are you really sure about the fewer cats?

And the error bars are usually wider than the data *

Cats are evil, as eny fule kno. <runs away again>


* Which is interesting because, to return to the original theme of the thread, the graph of the distribution of energy in the cosmic background radiation fits so well that you can't actually see the error bars for the data. In other words, there can be very little doubt at all that there definitely was a moment of creation, much to Fred Hoyle's eternal annoyance. The silly sod went to his grave denying it, which is a shame because he was a great scientist and communicator of science.