Leaderboard

Money is not a conserved quantity. National banks create money all the time, without creating energy. I could also drop a stash of money in the ocean without energy expense anywhere. Bitcoins could even be created by anyone with a computer. You could also relate money to toilet paper. There is a link between the amount of money you spend and the amount of toilet paper consumed while making the product or service you bought. At least neither money, nor toilet paper are conserved quantities.

The irony of this is that I wrote a first post sympathetic to your 'outlandish claim', but not entirely supporting it. You chose the direction from there. First by asking "Can I tell you something...... " But since that something you asked for had altered my words in more than one way I had to answer No . I could have added I am unable to do so, but I did chose to suggest you reread my exact words so you could rephrase your questions. Instead all you have done since is attack me. So why should I help you realise that you are asking about the present and I deliberately set my society in the past. Furthermore you kept demanding countries, ( a word I did not use) whilst the society I talked about existed in a region of Africa that did not have formal countries at that time. Finally I mentioned the word surfeit, which is crucial to my examples since they had a surfeit of energy, which still exists today as I noted in the present tense.

My occupation sometimes involves my working in the location of new construction where the ground surfaces have been altered to a certain degree, thus giving me a wonderful opportunity to look for any interesting rocks that catch my attention. Several weeks ago I spotted one while on a site that had been slowly filled-in for years with trucked in materials from around the region. There had been a bowling center there since the fifties and it was recently demolished with the total removal of the old parking lot pavement. The rock was just lying with its most reveling side exposed at the ground's surface. This little rock contains an amazing amount information about its past travels. First, a little detail about its structure. It has thin bands of gold bearing quartz running its length. It was formed very deep within the earth where super heated water carried the dissolved gold and its other minerals upwards where they collected together as the materials cooled and the quartz crystals formed. The side seen in the image above and below is the one I saw exposed at the ground's surface. It has been shaped into a double, side by side concave surface through the process of being transported by glacial movement over a very hard sub-straight. I have designated the various sides that have certain distinguishing features as A,B,C,D,E and F. If you notice at location C in the image above and below, the surface has been planed very smooth. Referring to the image above; A ,B and C all have planed surfaces. The ridge at G (below) does not appear to be parallel to B but this is an optical effect caused by the quartz banding. The ridge is actually parallel to B so this means they were likely formed during the same time period as the rock was moved by the glacier. Both F and B show weathering after being shaped while A and C are both remarkably smooth with sharper transitional edges as compared to F and B which show worn edges. It appears they are from two different periods of glacial interaction! That seems almost impossible to have been able to occur given the time span between glacial periods. This is more likely the result of glaciation on nearby Mt. Hood (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Hood) that is 80 km to the east where glaciers have advance and retreated since the end of the last glacial period at which time this whole region was covered in Ice. Well worn side B that matches F in weathering (below). Side A (below) that matches C in smoothness and sharp edges. Another interesting feature is this broken chip on side F (below) It appears that as the rock was being moved down the mountain and the double concave surface was being shaped the rock became caught on a fracture in the sub-straight causing the rock to stop and the glacier to continue on moving above it. At some point another rock being carried by the glacier began carving out the top side opposite of F. (below) Eventually the strain was great enough to break that chip off the rock's leading edge. The glacier then at some point retreated and allowed the rock to be weathered by rain, wind and stream flow from the melting glacier. When the glacier advanced again it was once more transported and planed on sides A and C when the rock repositioned. Such a wonderful little rock.

Am I the only one who has heard of sit/ stand desks? https://sit-stand.com/desk-risers/123-yo-yo-desk-90.html?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI78W-kr3i2QIVBTgZCh35sQWzEAQYASABEgKs1_D_BwE Many other designs and brands are available

NortonH has been suspended for 3 weeks for continuing to soapbox his points in conversation. When you don't bother to address valid arguments in the discussion, you're just preaching, or soapboxing, and that's against the rules. People are taking the time to deconstruct your arguments intellectually, the least you could do is reciprocate, instead of just repeating yourself ad nauseam.

Well, for example, you buy the machinery needed to fulfill the contract (and countless others) if only you get paid in full. My point is when it's your own business you don't get paid by the hour, there is a level of trust inherent in the contract; too small and the customer can't pay, too big and the customer doesn't have to pay. Success is finding the balance.

I never made hundreds of millions so I consider myself unsuccesful. Goals and timeline depends on many factors, its all subjective to a particular business. Sure I failed and tried again, Im in the trying again phase now actually But starting is the main factor of success regardless of the type of business you want to run. Also your skin thickness is important, if you fail you need to know how to get up and start over.

My business was landscaping/general building and the majority of my customers came from a retailer that sold garden buildings and conservatories. The same customers often wanted more work doing or had friends that did. The problems came from large jobs/contracts and how to structure the payment.

Don't worry John, given your political views, you'd probably get in; although It may have a few questions about why you're so determined to piss on their parade.

Physical overlap isn't the restriction. Pauli means the states have to be different. Energy, spin, orbital angular momentum. Position is not a quantum state.

Mushrooms, onion, and bacon make my kiddo smile, ergo my own lips turn upward from that combo, too

I haven't had a n omelette for ages, but I usually had cheese and/ or ham. I am now feeling hungry.

Great source! Searching that led to this (Trinity College Dublin) PDF of a university class on the topic of "Planetary interiors." Sources include "Thermodynamics of the Earth and Planets," such as the graph of “Radioactive heating of Earth since formation,” on page 27. Pages 21-27 cover "Heating of the planets," which then leads into the section on “Cooling of the Planets,” starting on page 28 (of 47). I did not know about the significant "Heat of Differentiation" involved with planetary formation, but it makes sense. ~

For those who want solid Science can I bring to the attention of the Forum this recent book by Alberto Patino Douce Thermodynamics of the Earth and Planets and published by Cambridge University Press. This hefty book contains much discusion, modern data, Maple presentations and references all for the current subject and other appropriate aspects of planetary geophysics/geochemistry ranging between undergraduate and postgraduate level and linking them together in a coherent way.

In any case Uranium is non replenishable. And will start to get scarce soon.

I have corrected my earlier post, but, alas, I was not quick enough.

Yet another way to misinterpret it.. MWh is not unit of power, but energy..

! Moderator Note This is irrelevant to the discussion. Focus on defending your outlandish claim.

I've heard several people here in Belgium that agree with this...it was on the radio a couple days ago. They consider believing in God the rational choice, regardless if he exists or not. My problem with Pascal's wager is that that implies believing in a personal God.(a deity who can be related to as a person) I deny the existence of a personal god since it rise countless more questions. I do think the belief in an impersonal force which can be called Ietsism (Somethingism)i is more a rational choice.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ietsism

What about neutrino radiation and heat flux mismatch? The mainstream hypothesis suggest otherwise: https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/4798/what-percent-of-the-earths-core-is-uranium I will look for more reliable link if you want.

Why do you expect I suppose to argue with you? Do you think I'm an expert to prove if you are right or wrong? You expressed your opinion so I'm OK with this. If other users don't then they can contribute. The new measurements suggest radioactive decay provides more than half of Earth's total heat, estimated at roughly 44 terawatts based on temperatures found at the bottom of deep boreholes into the planet's crust. The rest is leftover from Earth's formation or other causes yet unknown, according to the scientists involved. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/nuclear-fission-confirmed-as-source-of-more-than-half-of-earths-heat/# Well, you believe, it seems, that all heat produced inside of Pluto is caused by radioactivity. Then without radioactivity temperature inside of Pluto would be equal to that on the surface. It would loose any primordial heat long age. So, what I meant is that it suppose to bring temperature of entire planet from -230 to 0 if we assume that radioactive elements are distributed more or less evenly. And create a subsurface ocean. Even if the core is 2/3 of entire Pluto by mass, it doesn't make much difference as entire planet is tiny. Also, 2/3 by mass is even much less than that by volume, taking density in account. Presently, the geologists believe that radioactive decay takes places in Earth mantle and crust, not much (if any) in the core. Do you need any links for this? I don't know if the same thing is applicable to Pluto, but still you argument have to be taken cautiously.

Being fair I think this is a strawman argument. Captain Kirk isn't a magnet (except for the chicks) and the planets he beams to aren't usually vacuums... lol.

What is this 'table' that you speak of?

I did not give you an opinion. I gave you facts that directly contradicted your statements. Despite this you continued to make the same assertions, yet made no effort to dispute the facts I had outlined. If all you want to do is to spout opinions that are contradicted by the facts then perhaps you would be better of speaking to drunks. On a science forum you are expected to support your assertions or to recognise when they are mistaken.

I did actually try starting a new thread, saying just that. Unfortunately I wasn't allowed to post it. Thanks Swan

Gas and electricity are different products and so I contend that the cost of each of them is a good measure of the energy that has gone into getting them to you house. Not sure why you think you have refuted that.

Pavel Cherepan, if indeed that really is your name, you seem to have made exactly the same mistake as John Cuthber. That is sad because I have already explained once where John went wrong. If you order a dozen bottles of Perrier Water and try to burn them like gas you will get ZERO energy. Are you saying that that means that there was NO ENERGY consumed in the process of making the bottles, filling them with purified aerated water and delivering them to your doorstep? For the second time on this thread I point out that the cost of the product is related to the energy that went into producing the product not what you can later extract from it. If you are providing a service and someone wants that service provided then they have to pay. What they pay you ends up being consumed as energy. Eventually even strippers and psychologists need to eat. Good psychs can earn top dollars and buy expensive cars etc. ALL the goods consumed represent energy consumed. Of course if i am wrong then surely someone can show me how it is possible to produce things without consuming energy. Your best bet might be to try and point to the vast sums paid for a couple of brush strokes by Picasso but that is as close as you can get to refuting what I write and even that is not immediately clear. Energy is a conserved quantity, that is all that matters.

That's quite a far cry from turning food into an art-form or family/community bonding ritual. Still not quite the same thing as fine art or family/community bonding. Playing with one's food doesn't usually have a procedure to it. The cat whatever you want with the food until you're ready to chow down. A family sitting at the dinner table, meanwhile, has a set of rules to it. It's not as strictly enforced as, say, a jury trial in a courtroom, but there is still some formalities that need to be observed. Everyone sits down before anyone takes a bite. Everyone usually says grace before they begin eating. You keep your lips closed when chewing, and don't reach across the table for a plate, but instead ask someone to pass it to you. Now, if cats had a set procedure for playing with their food - e.g. they usually began by swinging it around by the tail, then gave it a chance to run away before catching it again, and usually in that exact order - that would constitute a ritual.

This seems like a blatant contradiction to your last post. You say devloping rituals requires consciousness (aka self-awareness, aka sentience). Well, setting aside the fact that you offer no evidence that sentience is a pre-requisite to developing rituals, you still make the implication that, because animals lack this consciousness, they are incapable of developing rituals. Your 2-sentence arguments rests on the unspoken assumption that animals lack sentience. Otherwise, you don't actually address the matter because, by our own admission, animals are still capable of the prerequisite you say is lacking. But now you say that they do have rituals ... just not when it comes to mealtime. So they must have at least some primitive form of self-awareness. Are they eating them for food, or hygeine?

Well this looks to me like a claim that money is being measured in camels somewhere. Outlandish? Is that an opinion or a fact? Are you here to debate or moderate? Anyone one who thinks that my claim is 'outlandish' is welcome to explain why. So far that does not seem to be happening.

Because he's clearly trolling. He's saying that, because he, personally, doesn't usually use the dinner table, that alone means that these ritual tropes are not in fact tradition in any way.

Ok ... that just seems like the arbitrary determinations of some philosopher (such as a religious zealout) rather than well-researched theory that actually has any backing in science. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. But then again, the way you convey your thoughts to me in only two sentences suggests that you consider this to be a cut-and-dry case. It almost seems like there should have been a third sentence in your message, considering of only a single word: "Period." That's definitely how your message comes off as. Science is never cut and dry. For 90% of human history, everyone just assumed that heavy objects fall faster than lightweight ones ... because of course they do! But then Galileo went and actually tested that belief, and lo and behold, it ended up being false.