Scientific Theories

If you have one post it here.
I'll start:
My theory, since it is a topic everyone loves, is about beer. I hypothesize that there is a higher concentration of alcohol in beer (as in most drinks) closer to the glass than in the drink itself. My reasoning is thus. Glass is mainly composed of silica (75%) and as such is mainly non-polar. The majority of the ethanol molecule (or rather the alcohol in "booze") is an alkyl group which is also non-polar. In chemistry, like attracts like so the alkyl chain portion of the ethanol molecule should adhere to the surface of the glass. This would mean that the majority of the glass should be coated by alcohol. Now since the rest of the molecules not adhering to the glass should be governed by the rules of molecular diffusion, the rest of the alcohol is distributed evenly in the drink. But since there may be a higher proportion of alcohol is on the glass, make sure you lick your glasses after drinking to make sure you get wasted.
Courtesy of your friendly Analytical Chemist. :D

I kinda hoped this was a spam thread but nope :bigsmile:

Schrödinger's cat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

just to play along

I meant that you post your own theories, Matt!
Not just re-quote other peoples. Beside nobody like dead cats except Ted Bundy! :D

That's not a theory, it's a hypothesis.

And a very sketchy one at that, seeing as the glass is drained, surface tension plays a far greater role than polar bonds.

But then again, it is a chemist's hypothesis, so what do you expect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

That's not a theory, it's a hypothesis.

---

My post is not a hypothesis. It has viability in pactice as I have sampled 40%v/v alcohol in a lab in cork using a micro-pipette, a number of sterilized beakers. And a GC-MS for safety. So no not a hypothesis. A basic Theory. Just not published.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight

And a very sketchy one at that, seeing as the glass is drained, surface tension plays a far greater role than polar bonds.

But then again, it is a chemist's hypothesis, so what do you expect.

---

Hey Chemistry is as much an intrinsic science as physics. And even in bead form, inter-molecular forces play a role so alcohol directed polarity will still exist in a drained glass. As you should know if physics was so important to you!

Hypothesis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

Hypothesis.

---

Hypothesis contains no testing whatsoever. I will admit greater testing would be needed for international recognition of this theory. But since I have scientific evidence it is no longer a hypothesis.

It's a working hypothesis, granted, but still a hypothesis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

It's a working hypothesis, granted, but still a hypothesis.

---

So do you wanna do the correlating work and make it a theory? Because I'm far too drunk to do it now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caboose

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight

And a very sketchy one at that, seeing as the glass is drained, surface tension plays a far greater role than polar bonds.

But then again, it is a chemist's hypothesis, so what do you expect.

---

Hey Chemistry is as much an intrinsic science as physics. And even in bead form, inter-molecular forces play a role so alcohol directed polarity will still exist in a drained glass. As you should know if physics was so important to you!

---

I never said it didn't exist. Chemists do great stuff, polymers and everything, just wonderful. But one thing they just can't do is put everything in a perspective of orders of magnitude. It exists, but the cumulative effect is so small compared to all the other forces, it hardly makes a difference, especially on a glass substrate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

It's a working hypothesis, granted, but still a hypothesis.

---

Caboose will argue this point until doomday be warned lol

I have this theory that if you cut all her hair off, she'd look like a British man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caboose

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight

And a very sketchy one at that, seeing as the glass is drained, surface tension plays a far greater role than polar bonds.

But then again, it is a chemist's hypothesis, so what do you expect.

---

Hey Chemistry is as much an intrinsic science as physics. And even in bead form, inter-molecular forces play a role so alcohol directed polarity will still exist in a drained glass. As you should know if physics was so important to you!

---

I never said it didn't exist. Chemists do great stuff, polymers and everything, just wonderful. But one thing they just can't do is put everything in a perspective of orders of magnitude. It exists, but the cumulative effect is so small compared to all the other forces, it hardly makes a difference, especially on a glass substrate.

---

But an undeniable force exists. No matter how small, it will always have an effect. Depending on the volume of the liquid, the force will become less and less but the force will forever have an effect. Even the graviational pull of the smallest particle of dust has an effect!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caboose

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

It's a working hypothesis, granted, but still a hypothesis.

---

So do you wanna do the correlating work and make it a theory? Because I'm far too drunk to do it now.

---

No, that's your job, Mr. Hypothesizer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shattered Dreamer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

It's a working hypothesis, granted, but still a hypothesis.

---

Caboose will argue this point until doomday be warned lol

---

Too late, I already won.

FOR SCIENCE! *fist*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackmage_nuke

I have this theory that if you cut all her hair off, she'd look like a British man.

---

Hypothesis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caboose

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

It's a working hypothesis, granted, but still a hypothesis.

---

So do you wanna do the correlating work and make it a theory? Because I'm far too drunk to do it now.

---

No, that's your job, Mr. Hypothesizer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shattered Dreamer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

It's a working hypothesis, granted, but still a hypothesis.

---

Caboose will argue this point until doomday be warned lol

---

Too late, I already won.

FOR SCIENCE! *fist*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackmage_nuke

I have this theory that if you cut all her hair off, she'd look like a British man.

---

Hypothesis.

---

You propose it was a hypothesis. It is a working hypothesis. You must now find partially refutable eveidence to push it back to a hypothesis so I win! For Science!!!!!!!!!

*awaits Caboose's rebuttal*

Edit: Too Late :bigsmile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caboose

You propose it was a hypothesis. It is a working hypothesis. You must now find partially refutable eveidence to push it back to a hypothesis so I win! For Science!!!!!!!!!

---

I assume that "so" is supposed to be an "or." Either that or you just confused the :bou::bou::bou::bou: outta me.

You proposed that you had a theory; I corrected you to say it was a hypothesis. A "working hypothesis" is, shockingly, a hypothesis, and not a theory. You have conceded that your experimentation has gotten you as far as working hypothesis, not theory.

Though I appreciate that you're trying so hard to emphasize my win. Most people would just make a pathetic attempt to save face and move on (Raistlin: "Oh I was just doing it to piss you off ohohohohoho!").

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caboose

You propose it was a hypothesis. It is a working hypothesis. You must now find partially refutable eveidence to push it back to a hypothesis so I win! For Science!!!!!!!!!

---

I assume that "so" is supposed to be an "or." Either that or you just confused the :bou::bou::bou::bou: outta me.

You proposed that you had a theory; I corrected you to say it was a hypothesis. A "working hypothesis" is, shockingly, a hypothesis, and not a theory. You have conceded that your experimentation has gotten you as far as working hypothesis, not theory.

Though I appreciate that you're trying so hard to emphasize my win. Most people would just make a pathetic attempt to save face and move on (Raistlin: "Oh I was just doing it to piss you off ohohohohoho!").

---

Ah but if you look back you said "Granted, a working hypothesis". This statement meant that you conceded ground and therefore no longer have the right to say you win as you lost your original stand point! So the best I can give you is a middle ground Détente.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caboose

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caboose

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight

And a very sketchy one at that, seeing as the glass is drained, surface tension plays a far greater role than polar bonds.

But then again, it is a chemist's hypothesis, so what do you expect.

---

Hey Chemistry is as much an intrinsic science as physics. And even in bead form, inter-molecular forces play a role so alcohol directed polarity will still exist in a drained glass. As you should know if physics was so important to you!

---

I never said it didn't exist. Chemists do great stuff, polymers and everything, just wonderful. But one thing they just can't do is put everything in a perspective of orders of magnitude. It exists, but the cumulative effect is so small compared to all the other forces, it hardly makes a difference, especially on a glass substrate.

---

But an undeniable force exists. No matter how small, it will always have an effect. Depending on the volume of the liquid, the force will become less and less but the force will forever have an effect. Even the graviational pull of the smallest particle of dust has an effect!

---

Not enough to make me lick my glass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caboose

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caboose

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight

And a very sketchy one at that, seeing as the glass is drained, surface tension plays a far greater role than polar bonds.

But then again, it is a chemist's hypothesis, so what do you expect.

---

Hey Chemistry is as much an intrinsic science as physics. And even in bead form, inter-molecular forces play a role so alcohol directed polarity will still exist in a drained glass. As you should know if physics was so important to you!

---

I never said it didn't exist. Chemists do great stuff, polymers and everything, just wonderful. But one thing they just can't do is put everything in a perspective of orders of magnitude. It exists, but the cumulative effect is so small compared to all the other forces, it hardly makes a difference, especially on a glass substrate.

---

But an undeniable force exists. No matter how small, it will always have an effect. Depending on the volume of the liquid, the force will become less and less but the force will forever have an effect. Even the graviational pull of the smallest particle of dust has an effect!

---

Not enough to make me lick my glass.

---

Doesn't deny the evidence. You, my friend, are not a true alcoholic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caboose

Ah but if you look back you said "Granted, a working hypothesis". This statement meant that you conceded ground and therefore no longer have the right to say you win as you lost your original stand point! So the best I can give you is a middle ground Détente.

---

I was being generous. It's a working hypothesis to you, but to the scientific community I'm sure it's just some amateur hypothesis.

Regardless, your attempt to hide that you were completely wrong by highlighting my generosity is not going to fly. Bow, before I rename you Fail.

It not an amateur hypothesis and only people who don't respect a scientific postulation until its popular would agree. It is one and your generosity is not an issue. Both of us are, unfortunately, not able to bring our original argument to finality. So as such, I am willing to let it lie. But I would appreciate if you would present a scientific theory or (as you like to point out) hypothesis in this thread.

Regardless, a working hypothesis is a type of hypothesis, and so falls perfectly in line with my original argument. Being such a generous person, though, I will let you pretend that a working hypothesis is not a hypothesis so that your 0% correct looks better next to a 99% correct rather than my more accurate 100% correct. I'm just that nice.

I don't have any hypotheses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

Regardless, a working hypothesis is a type of hypothesis, and so falls perfectly in line with my original argument. Being such a generous person, though, I will let you pretend that a working hypothesis is not a hypothesis so that your 0% correct looks better next to a 99% correct rather than my more accurate 100% correct. I'm just that nice.

I don't have any hypotheses.

---

So make one. At least I have aspirations of being a better scientist. An I am not letting the topic go! I'm just to tired to argue. Besides, I have to go feed cattle. Damn farming background!

ShlupQuack and Aerith's Knight, you're both banned for derailing this completely fine thread.

Not really, but come on. Look at yourselves. :roll2

I have better things to do than lick pilsners and call it science. :expee:

ETA: You are no fun, Rantz.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantzien

ShlupQuack and Aerith's Knight, you're both banned for derailing this completely fine thread.

Not really, but come on. Look at yourselves. :roll2

---

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/myl...duty_calls.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

I have better things to do than lick pilsners and call it science. :expee:

---

Like licking for money.

*hi5 AK*

Rantz just isn't used to seeing intelligent discussion outside of his beloved EoEO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

*hi5 AK*

Rantz just isn't used to seeing intelligent discussion outside of his beloved EoEO.

---

Dear diary,

A woman touched me today. It was glorious. Not to mention science prevailed.

It was a good day.

I thought I would like this thread and I don't really care about it at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

Though I appreciate that you're trying so hard to emphasize my win. Most people would just make a pathetic attempt to save face and move on (Raistlin: "Oh I was just doing it to piss you off ohohohohoho!").

---

Says the person who did exactly that in the first grandma incest thread. Stop projecting your own intellectual deficiencies onto my brilliant wit. Fatty.

For the record, she is right (for once). A scientific theory is not the same as a lay theory, and requires much more rigorous testing and consensus.

Predictable thing about this thread:
AK is a high-and-mighty physicist

Unpredictable things about this thread:
Amanda demands rationality
Wes in agreement with Amanda

My world has turned upside-down :S

Here's my only contribution to 'science':
Our model of the universe doesn't work unless we invent dark matter. It would seem more in keeping with scientific rigor and Occam's Razor to look for flaws in our model, rather than inventing 80% of the physical universe.