Leaderboard

That's quite an assumption. Perhaps they simply had an epiphany before you did.

Very well said. I don't use faith as a form of belief, but I understand why some do. My objections are when people of faith insist they're using trust and reason, the very things that separate faith from hope from trust in my mind. To me, it looks like they do it to make their faith seem less blind. I grew up hearing religious folks talk about how their faith is unshakeable. I've seen evidence here that many people of faith can't be persuaded from their views. I trust in explanations derived using the scientific method, because I know they're constantly being updated to be the best current explanations for natural phenomena. My trust will also be updated and changed, and that's something else that makes adaptable trust stronger than unshakeable faith. Faith never figures out when its wrong.

Think of shooting arrows. Accuracy means you are hitting or close to a target, on average. Precise means your arrows are closely bunched. Shoot an arrow 1m to the left, 1m to the right, 1m high, and 1m low. On average, you are spot on. You are accurate. But missing by 1m every time means you are not precise. Shooting arrows that are always within 1mm of each other is precise. But they might be hitting anywhere. You can only claim accuracy if you are near the bullseye. Similarly, in experiments you could be getting the wrong answer because of some bias, but you have lots of zeroes after the decimal. That's being precise without being accurate.

If I understand correctly, you appear to be advocation the existence of a higher power or intelligence as an essential component faith and why you have it. Although I agree that some responses here haven't been as tactful or civil as they could have been (e.g; equating faith with clinical delusion), scientific discussion demands critical and rigorous evidence for the ideas we espouse. As I stated previously, I don't believe people of faith are all deluded; however, I do believe in evidence for our ideas that can withstand withering criticism. Though some comments in this forum make it seem so, it isn't personal--it's just science.

My thinking is that it wouldn't be faith if it tried. The strength and weakness of faith is ignorance of truth--it's that miraculous pill that seems to cure our ills until we learn it's just sugar.

Agreed...That's exampled by the fact that it was a Belgian Jesuit priest who first proposed the BB, and also the fact that the Catholic church recognise the BB along with the theory of the Evolution of life. But of course from those points the road diverges with science still looking for answers based on the scientific methodology and empirical evidence.

Ultimately, what sells are things that maximize convenience and minimize errors, as the latter can skyrocket costs in the medical field. While there have been pushes toward reducing carbon footprint, the increasing danger of resistant infections have pushed some to go the "better safe than sorry" route.

Yes, I would say that I accept science in my faith. Faith and science can certainly work together.

! Moderator Note Please, no more of that. This is NOT a conspiracy site. If you have evidence, we have time to discuss it in another thread. But we will not allow unsubstantiated assertions in mainstream sections, and conspiracy isn't welcome anywhere on SFN.

Probably. It seems perfect for some situations. But it's also a profit-maximization strategy I dislike and distrust in other sectors. When you care more about the convenience of using the product than what it's actually supposed to do for you, and ignore how much trash you're generating for the landfills, you end up with Keurig coffee.

You've been here long enough to know how this place works. Just remember: you are not Galileo.

Next morning...Now that I think about it, of course you are right. Acclerometers measure forces like when an object suddenly stops but does not read during motion. It's interesting that the only was we have of measuring the speed of a galaxy is the Doppler shift. Edwin Hubbles great contribution that changed everything. Mordred. " Now in order for inertia change to occur ie acceleration force must be applied. However the distribution around galaxies is uniform, so the force due to pressure surrounding galaxies are also uniform. There is no net force in any direction as the pressure is uniform surrounding the galaxies. Hence those galaxies gain no momentum due to expansion. Instead the volume between the galaxies expand without causing an inertia change to the galaxies themselves." If there is no net force in any direction (which I agree with) Then why are to galaxies moving with the expansion of space? With all the conventional examples given here there isn't one that accurately describes whats happening in space. Raisins move because atoms push against atoms. Dots on a balloon because they are anchored to the fabric of the balloon. There is no friction in space. Epiphany I just had a thought. I have been thinking about this all wrong. The initial conditions of the BB set everything in motion. Gravity caused dust particles to come together forming rocks and rocks formed planets etc. Everything was already in motion. Space is expanding for some reason no one understands but it does not affect the galaxies motion. And since there is nothing to slow the galaxies they continued to expand along with space. Now this makes sense to me. But wait.. this does not explain the Hubble constant. Why are galaxies accelerating? I was going to say now I know how Copernicus felt. But I don't want people to think I am special in any way. I respect as moderator your responsibilities regarding personal theories which are not accepted by mainstream science. Respectfully, what I said is mainstream science. I won't visit this topic again. Now I don't understand...if the BB is in question because there does not appear to a center from which everything is expanding then whats going on?

Typically you give the fractional frequency stability. So you might report that a clock is stable at 1 part in 10^15. From that you could estimate that e.g. after 10^6 seconds (just under 12 days), the clock would be off by no more than a part in 10^9, or 1 ns. (In truth the calculation is slightly more complicated, but that gives a reasonable estimate) Yes. If it's ticking slightly fast or slow the time will be off, and get worse, but the frequency isn't changing very much, so whatever the reading is, it's precise. Running fast or slow can be corrected with calibration, if it's predictably doing so — i.e. if you know your clock is adding or losing time, you can compensate. If your clock is adding 1 ns every 10 days, you can add in a 100 ps "steer" every day (in the other direction) and keep it on time. You don't have to physically adjust the clock's frequency, either - the time can be added with an external device, or just kept track of, and the output manually computed.

It supports knowledge and understanding. The only support for this is the viscosity of the midden. Does it matter? The only thing about the faithful that matters to me is the moment they stop telling me I should have some.

Science is a field. An environment. The space occupied by a set of conditions. They aren't fixed conditions, they evolve and change according to what brings greatest value and meets the method expected, and accepted, at a given point in time. Science does not support anything. We support science by what we apply to its practice . Evidence is what is required for its application. Evidence supports what we apply to science. Without evidence, science can not be applied. Or supported. It has no position with out evidence. It can't be applied. Science is conditional. On evidence, yes. Not positional. Identity is positional. When science is allowed a positional perspective, its no longer an unbiased set of conditions or possibilities but has accepted an Identity. A positional perspective that limits its possibilities.And space. As far as I can see, you are demonstrating a faith in science as an identity. Giving it a fixed perspective on conditions beyond its reach. Not perceiving it as a set of conditions that can either be supported by application of another condition, or not. Endercreeper, Do you accept science in your faith? If so, is it conditional on your Gods position not being in conflict? Or are you saying that you give all that science can be applied to and more the identity of 'God' ? And if so, wouldn't that require a disregard what of humanity has written and believed of god in the past, because you can't presume to know gods position?

Every 6 hours a 10 man road crew doubles the distance of a 1,100 mile road between Orlando and New York. What is Orlando's acceleration?

It doesn’t need to “make sense” (a purely subjective perception!), it just needs to fulfil the requirements of a scientific model. Which the laws of gravity demonstrably do very well. The situation is the exact same as when you jump off a board into a swimming pool - a stationary bystander can measure your motion from afar, and will argue that you undergo acceleration, based on what he measures (9.81m/s2). But if you yourself carry an accelerometer with you as you jump off, you will find that it reads exactly zero at all times during your free fall. This is not just some theoretical speculation, but something you can actually try out yourself. In fact, I would encourage you to go ahead and do this experiment, if you are really in doubt over the differences between coordinate and proper measurements. Just make sure your accelerometer is waterproof Alternatively, you can just recognise that this funny feeling you get in your tummy while you are in free fall is just precisely this - the absence of any acceleration (i.e. force) acting on you. And yet you fall under the influence of gravity.

Again, you need to remember that space is not any kind of mechanical medium, and that there is no motion involved, in the sense that no forces act on anything. If you were to attach an accelerometer to any of these galaxies, it would read exactly zero at all times, so there is no acceleration and hence no forces that act on anything. All that happens is that the distance between galaxies increases, because space there expands - so there is relative/apparent motion due to the increase in distances, but no local motion that involves forces or the transfer of energy. It’s purely a geometric phenomenon.

Oh cool, I thought that looked like an old gov ID but wasn't sure. Really helps to place it historically. Appreciate you translating the titles. Was exactly what I was hoping for here!

Although the thing with the NHS I pointed out was under a Labour government. So too was Gordon Brown's selling off our gold at record low prices (presumably to his mates or with a massive kick back) just before they quintupled in price. It was hailed as a success - it was a success for 1 hospital (probably a few others too being fair). What they should have done was just given the budget directly to the hospitals or at least asked them for a wish list. I do not believe they did not know this was a totally stupid idea and a waste of billions. I bet many retired or have amazing retirement nest eggs for their extended families from it. C###s.

And so they should.... but properly and without abusing it. There is so much waste it is untrue. That Jeremy Vine BBC short film a few years back about the wastage of BILLIONS in the NHS under Blair/Brown was heart breaking... it was a good idea to inject billions into the NHS at the time.... but it was a bad idea to let incompetent prats decide how it was to be spent. They revamped ONE hospital to the tune of millions and made it great. Everything they spent was tailored to that one hospital - great. They then rolled out the EXACT same purchase package for every other hospital - regardless if that hospital had already been revamped, regardless of whether that hospital actually needed the kit that was in the package they got it all any way at the tune of billions of pounds being spent on unwanted and unneeded kit. It was devastating - there were hospitals waiting for kit they had requested for years being delivered with totally irrelevant kit that they did not need. Total waste and the majority of places did not receive what they actually wanted and needed - they all got the same. Total incompetence and waste of Billions. They should have asked the individual hospital managers what each hospital needed. They had hospitals that did not deal with oncology being given expensive machines that they did not need and hospitals that had already been kitted out with the top end kit being given stuff they already had. I can't believe it could possibly have been through incompetence - no one can get a job THAT high up and be so incompetent surely - I can only assume they made a pretty billion or 2 out of selling large amounts of unwanted medical kit to the public, passing it off as a cash injection to the NHS - it wasn't - it was a cash injection to the companies that make medical equipment. As Vine said in his documentary, with tears in his eyes, 'The level of incompetence with how our money was spent would be highly laughable.... except we could have done SO much more with that in the NHS if each hospital had the same tailored expenditure as the first one'.

I'm unconvinced an improved NHS is a simple function of funding. The amount of inefficiency and corruption is obscene, and while successive governments have paid lip service to streamlining the service nothing has changed. But this is beside the point to how the NHS should be funded in lean years. Is it too simple to rely on the wisdom that you save during the abundant years to see you through the lean years?

If I may comment on this previous post, the legitimacy of faith resides in its psychological effect, which isn't dissimilar to the effect of delusion. Faith is a quality of mind that isn't based on anything considered scientifically legitimate or tangible. It emerges, IMO, as a stopgap for lack of knowledge, insight, or understanding most often amid exigent circumstances. Delusion, conversely, is distinguishable by its established association with mental illness. I don't think it's fair to suggest that all people of faith are all mentally ill and, frankly, I don't believe they are. They are, I feel, mostly misguided or unwilling to investigate beyond their Eden of ignorance that so comforts them or to which they've grown so accustomed.

It is something about American-Vietnamese relations - Schultz (US Secretary of State) meeting ASEAN members - my Japanese is too rusty (and always found newspapers hard to read) to get much more out if it.

Gosh your thought empire has expanded greatly. But you still haven't offered anything for others in your new proposed property you call direction. Here is an example. I propose a new property called squiffyness. This is what you can do with it. When you are making a jelly (Jell-O), measuring the squiff allows you to tell if the jelly will stand up as a rabbit or slump to a sloppy mess, when turned out of its mould. You measure the squiff by taking a sample in the bulb of a squiff meter, filling to the set-one line in the measuring tube. Squeezing the bulb causes the contents to rise up the tube, the distance up the tube being graduated from 1 to 10 in squiff. A reading of 3 squiff of less means that the turned out jelly will stand and wobble. Greater than 3 squiff will result in a slump.

My ears were burning. Enthalpy's calculation looks about right. Most of the alkali present may be carbonate and silicate rather than hydroxide. Good luck with getting good mixing on that scale. Since you can't be sure what the stuff you are trying to neutralise actually is, the calculation is a bit suspect. I'd try adding 6 litres of 33% HCl and stirring it, waiting a day or so and then measuring the pH again. It's perfectly possible that the pH will still be about 11 That's because the water will dissolve some silicates and carbonates from the concrete and that will raise the pH again. Essentially, whatever calculations we come up with, you are going to have to do the experiment with the actual tank full of water.. It might be easier to try with 1 litre of the water and titrate that with the acid - say 1 ml at a time- until it's near neutral. That will give you a good idea of where to start. Do you, by any chance, have a plastic lined pond you can put the stuff in, rather than the concrete? If you can, then at least you won't be trying to neutralise all the concrete. Even working 1 tonne at a time in an IBC might be a better bet than trying to work on the whole pond full.

Hello ! I am doing some research on thiazole chemistry. I have to brominate 1-(2-(pyridin-4-yl)thiazol-5-yl)ethanone to obtain the corresponding bromoketone. I've tried this with elemental bromine in CCl4 (stirring, r.t) and obtained a red powder after vacuum filtration . The problem is that this molecule has to 2 aromatic N atoms and the bromine is actually incorporated into the molecule (probably like in pyridinium tribromide?). The 1HNMR spectra shows that there has no bromination occured. I have tried to brominate it with NBS/CCl4 + 2 drops HCl conc under reflux. TLC shows that the bromination is incomplete. I don't like CCl4 at all-it is toxic and it doesn't work so I have to try some other system like NBS/MeCN or NBS/DMF with an appropriate catalyst. One of them is HBr but I don't have HBr so I have to make it. TsOH might also be a very good idea but the problem is that can form salt with my haloketone complicating isolation. So my questions are: Which is the best method to brominate this molecule with pronounced basicity ? (no Br2 please ! ) ) and how to isolate the product (in base form not pyridinum salt) ? I really need the oppinion of an expert....

There are fundamental rules (Pythagoras and plane trigonometry) that are associated with 2 dimensions. Moving from R2 to R3 simply adds an additional set of these exact same rules, arranged orthogonality, to the single set of rules that already exists. Do you understand this? Also, it can be and has been shown mathematically that a completely new set of rules applies to R3 that cannot exist in R2. This set of rules are in addition to Pythagoras and plane trigonometry. Do you understand this? I'm trying to drill down on some way to explain this to you. Either you follow me this far, or you don't and I'll have to back up even further. Close, but using your analogy the transition to Euclidean 3-space adds an additional physical attribute or quantity. It's analogous to adding color to your 2D(+1) construct, in addition to your usual geometric relationships.

Swansont. " No, it doesn't push the atoms. Space expands, and two objects would tend to get further apart since there is more space between them. But there is no push. " This is exactly my problem. What physical properties are involved in "two objects would tend to get further apart since there is more space between them" Why would they? What force makes them get farther apart? Markus Hanke It makes perfect sense. There is no other force involved in gravity. It's not an undiscovered force. Do you honestly think that modern science could not detect a gravitational force if it existed? I am not here to talk about gravity. I just can't accept the premise that matter will go with space as it expands. How could it do that without some mechanism to make it happen?

Oh I see so someone in the membership is not pleased with my thinking. I don't always accept the current dogma, its sad that other blindly do.

I am not taking about conspiracies. It's just that so much of what is known in science isn't published to the main stream. I will comply with your rules.

Koti. No gravity is not a separate force. Gravity wave A is the strong nuclear force and gravity wave b is the weak force. Scientists have know this for some time now but keep it under wraps.