Leaderboard

My old rugby jersey has never been seen in a lab. God has also never been seen in a lab. They have this in common. But of course trying to draw conclusions about something based on the commonality of whether or not a human has observed it by now is a foolish endeavor.

The chemical shift is determined by the magnetic environment the atoms are in, which is related of course to their electrostatic environment and therefore, the electronics of the molecule. When determining how many signals you expect to see, you are looking for chemical equivalence - i.e., how many distinct chemical environments there are. For example, if we take this molecule (pentane-3-one): I have drawn a line through the centre of the molecule to show where there is a plane of symmetry. You can see the first and last carbon see exactly the same thing as one another, as do the second and fourth. They are in the same environments, and therefore you expect them to occur at the same chemical shift in a 13C NMR spectrum. In this case, we would expect to see 3 peaks; one representing C-1 and C-5, one representing C-2 and C-4, and one for C-3. Some molecules can have multiple planes of symmetry: In this case, all of the -CH carbons (C-2, C-3, C-5, and C-6) are all identical, and would all occur at the same chemical shift. Likewise for C-1 and C-4 (the ones bonded to the methoxy groups), as well as the methoxy carbons. In this case, we see three sets of equivalent carbons, and so we expect three peaks in a 13C NMR. Have a look at phenol, and ask yourself if there is a plane of symmetry, and how many chemically equivalent carbons there are:

That's us, silly and hilarious. D Trump doesn't represent me, I'm Canadian. And as an objective observer, I know who is the bigger whack job of the two. Lets try to keep that in mind.

You're overthinking something that is fairly simple. Nobody is perfect, and typically people, in general, lean towards more selfish behaviors rather than ones that help others.

I find it hilarious that you would single out D Trump as vacuous and untrustworthy in a meeting between him and Kim Jong Un .

Unintended humour (I hope): Yesterday, Secretary of State Tillerson blamed Russia for the attempted murder of an ex-spy in Britain with nerve agent. Today, Trump fired him and said the reason is "chemistry".

Both twins would hear their own transponder at 1 ping/second and that never changes. When the ship is on the return leg, the earth twin would be recieving the ship’s twin’s signal at three pings per second and the ship’s twin would be recieving the Earth twin’s signal at three pings per second. So it’s still symmetrical. Both would be due to relativistic blueshift, but when frequency increases, it doesnt just mean in pitch, but in cycles per second which in this case a cycle is a ping. That doesn't mean that time would actually be sped up, for anybody. it’s only a timelag illusion where the ship is kind of racing its own light. Another words as the ship is leaving Alpha Centauri at 80% c, the light and radio signal is leaving Alpha Centauri at 100% c. So from the Earth FoR the light takes 4 years to reach Earth while the ship takes 5 years to reach Earth. With only 1 year inbetween the two. That means the ship must transmit 3 years worth of pings received in only 1 years time. On the other hand at the turn around, the ship has experienced only 1 year of pings from Earth due to that same lag time because the “now” time is still four years away back on Earth. So now the ship is racing opposite that light coming from earth from 4 years in the past plus the 5 years experienced by the Earth for the second leg of the trip so 4+5 or 9 years of Earth’s pings are crammed into 3 years of travel time for the twin on the ship. It’s confusing, I know, but I hope that makes sense.

2nd Bill passed, still needs our governor to sign off on it, but I think we can call it a win at this point. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/377834-florida-passes-ban-on-child-marriage

No, I agree - but outlawing this behaviour seriously reduces the cases of it happening I would think. If rape was legal then more people would do it. It isn't and that is deterrent enough to stop some people. Personally I despair at the state of people's psyke that they would get off on it let alone carry out such an act. (maybe it is an evolutionary hang over for propagating genes). Maybe I am guilty of moral snobbery, I used to be a Christian and cannot think how someone could hurt someone physically and mentally in such a way and take pleasure in doing so - I really think it is disgusting. So in short - outlawing it was a good thing in my book!

As a teen, I moved away from the stricter religious orientation of my youth, because being a heathen was much easier. Heathen had fewer restrictions. It was easier to take the low road, especially when there as a lot of peer pressure, in public schools, which trained you to discriminate against religion. This peer pressure adds even more work, to hard work of walking the high road. The high road was hard enough with a support group. The option of less effort combined with the group hug made the low road took better and easier. After being a socially acceptable heathen for many years, I went back to religion, because I had appeased that side of me, but I still did not find what I was looking for. This new resolve back to religion did not change the peer pressure, to stay on the low road. For example, in most science forums if you "preach" you will be punished, but if you attack preachers, you get a group hug. The deck is stacked, not to live and let live, but to torture anyone not on the low road. This bottleneck in terms of social equality, led me down a middle path. The idea was too see if there was scientific way to support religion. Proving God to those of no faith is not easy, especially with the dual standard in science. For example, dark energy has never been seen in the lab. Dark energy has s many lab data points as seeing God in the lab. Yet only dark energy is accepted as fact. It's existence is based on secondary affects, which is the same type of proof offered for God but only one will be accepted by the dual standard. If there is a miracle of healing, not explained by science, how does this differ from dark energy, not seen in the lab, expanding space-time? Since I was not dealing with rational consistency, I needed to address religion in a different way; connected to mind and brain. One science based observation is that the invention of written language, coordinate in time very closely to the story of Genesis in the bible. Is there a parallel between these data? The answer is yes, Written language altered the human mind so a new type of human appears.

They should also split isotopes to Deuterium for future fusion plants..

No but the effects have. Wrong. There is zero evidence for gods but lots of evidence for dark matter. God is a myth. Dark energy is an observed fact. Nonsense. Can you point to a set of observations and a mathematical model for your god or gods? No. So you comparison is wrong, idiotic and slightly offensive. The only dual standard here is yours, trying to elevate faith and opinion to the same level as objective measurement. Because there are no such miracles (just stories) whereas there is copious objective, quantitative evidence for dark energy. I don't really know what that means. You think writing was invented in 7 days? Or you think writing was created by Adam and Eve? Or you think writing was invented the same time as Genesis was first written down? All of those are wrong, so there doesn't seem to be any science here. Bollocks. That doesn't make much sense but sounds like nonsense... Are you saying that General Relativity is wrong? If so, perhaps you should start a new thread to argue that.

Dark energy has never been seen in the lab. God has also never been seen in the lab. They have this in common. Science is still trying to see dark energy, close and personal, via super colliders. Dark energy is inferred from secondary affects. Dark energy is being used to close the energy balance for the universe. This was not a problem a decade ago. Again, we need a concept, we can't see in the lab; like God, to explain a new observation. Dark energy is based on faith in theory. A miracle; secondary observation, is based on faith in the theory of God. There is another logical explanation for the energy balance problem. This connected to Special Relativity; SR. In SR reference is relative to observer. Each reference will see the other references relative to itself. This is only true of space and time references. It is not true for mass references, which is the third variable of SR. Mass is an invariant and is not relative. Many physicist have attempted to get rid of relativistic mass so this will not poise a problem. For example, say we had two rockets, one with mass M and other with mass 2M. They are in empty space with no way to know who is moving, They have a relative velocity of V. Both references will see the same relative velocity. Each will see the other moving at V. However, the kinetic energy is not the same for both references. The rocket with 2M mass has twice the kinetic energy; 1/2MV2, as the one with mass =M. If we assume relative reference in distance and time, we can underestimate the kinetic energy. This is the real source of the energy imbalance we attribute to dark energy. In other words, if we are on rocket M and we assume we are moving, but the other rocket 2M is moving we shot change total energy by half. We measure the parameters of the universe using energy signals. Energy is composed of frequency and wavelength or time and space. This approach is very useful but is leaves out mass and is not accurate with mass. We know relative motion, but we do not know for certain, in terms of momentum=MV needed for a universal energy balance. We have assumed too little energy based on our relative earth reference. Now we see data that suggest we need more energy. We can either speculate the unprovable in the lab; dark energy, or we can use well established criteria of mass and then simply alter relative references into reference criteria that can close the new energy balance. Faith has not decreased, rather the objects of faith have changed. Now we have rational polytheism instead of symbolic monotheism.