Leaderboard

Yes. It's another word for that particular isotope. If you just say hydrogen, you are not specifying an isotope, and the implication is you are talking about whatever natural mix that you have.

You do not need any formulas. How about you think about what you are asked: how many times do you have to multiply .5 = 1/2 to itself to get 1/32? How would that work? Like 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4 does not quite get there, neither does 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/8. You need to multiply a 2 together with itself enough times to get 32 as the answer.

https://phys.org/news/2018-08-scientists-exoplanets-life-earth.html the paper: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/8/eaar3302 The origin of RNA precursors on exoplanets Abstract Given that the macromolecular building blocks of life were likely produced photochemically in the presence of ultraviolet (UV) light, we identify some general constraints on which stars produce sufficient UV for this photochemistry. We estimate how much light is needed for the UV photochemistry by experimentally measuring the rate constant for the UV chemistry (“light chemistry”, needed for prebiotic synthesis) versus the rate constants for the bimolecular reactions that happen in the absence of the UV light (“dark chemistry”). We make these measurements for representative photochemical reactions involving and HS−. By balancing the rates for the light and dark chemistry, we delineate the “abiogenesis zones” around stars of different stellar types based on whether their UV fluxes are sufficient for building up this macromolecular prebiotic inventory. We find that the light chemistry is rapid enough to build up the prebiotic inventory for stars hotter than K5 (4400 K). We show how the abiogenesis zone overlaps with the liquid water habitable zone. Stars cooler than K5 may also drive the formation of these building blocks if they are very active. The HS− light chemistry is too slow to work even for early Earth. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My question/statement concerns the last paragraph from the article..... extract: According to recent estimates, there are as many as 700 million trillion terrestrial planets in the observable universe. "Getting some idea of what fraction have been, or might be, primed for life fascinates me," said Sutherland. "Of course, being primed for life is not everything and we still don't know how likely the origin of life is, even given favourable circumstances—if it's really unlikely then we might be alone, but if not, we may have company." OK, 700 million trillion, a large number by anyone's definition. So how likely or unlikely are the chances of abiogenisis? I have always been of the opinion that given the large astronomical numbers involved, and the stuff of life being everywhere we look, that it is far more likely than unlikely. In fact I have stated many times that if the examples of life we have were confined to this fart arse little blue orb, it would raise far many more questions then any knowledge/evidence leading to a positive answer. Let me give my own unsupported "guess work"estimates re life elsewhere. NOTE: Estimates purposely slanted towards a negative aspect. Basic bacterial microbial life > 99% More complicated life forms such as plants, > 50% Basic Animal life forms > 5% Advanced life forms analogous to humans > 0.1% What do others think.believe?

I bow to your mathematical prowess. Noting that the numbers involved are astronomical and that the stuff of life being everywhere. As I have said previously, time and distance are great barriers to inter-planetary contact and revelation. A nice article anyway imo.

Agreed, if we do find a second genesis of life in our solar system it says a lot about the general inevitability of life. Even if only one in a billion stars have civilization then we could be talking about 150 to 300 civilizations just in our galaxy...

Obviously it goes without saying, that if we were to find signs of basic bacterial/microbial life in our own solar system, that chances of life even beyond and at all stages, would be significantly increased.

Pretty sure that's EXACTLY what we've been doing here. Why do you think the idea is plausible after so many reasons why it's not were given? You're bitching about why nobody wants to ride in your shiny new car, but the problem is you haven't gotten it to start yet, so where would we go anyway?

The chip on your shoulder is causing you to react emotionally to every reply. Mainstream science is simply the best we've got, waiting for something better to come along. IT'S QUESTIONED ALL THE TIME. That's how science progresses. But the new ideas have to be better than the old ones, Sam, and you haven't shown that. Not even a little bit. And you've shown some misunderstandings as well, so that's why the mainstream is still the mainstream. It's got the evidence behind it. That's what your problem is, lack of evidence. So please, stop with the scientists-are-hidebound garbage. There's no evidence for that, either.

I learned the Kermode bear is a rare subspecies of the American black bear living in the Central and North Coast regions of British Columbia, Canada. Most Kermode bears are black but there are about 100-500 white individuals. So they are white Black bears...often called spirit bears. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermode_bear

If you have not already done so, you can first go and read retractionwatch.com/2013/11/25/want-to-report-a-case-of-plagiarism-heres-how/

That's wasn't the question. I asked where the equation came from. What physics you start with, and how you get from that physics to the equation. Otherwise, it looks like the answer is "I pulled it out of my a$$" But, as a side note, your equation for frequency does not have the units of frequency me usually denotes the mass of the electron, and mp for proton. I'll assume that you meant these particles, rather than their masses There is nothing for them to decay into. No way to release energy spontaneously and create more entropy. It is analogous to asking why a ball at the bottom of a hill does not continue to roll downhill. There is no point that is downhill from the bottom.

Humanism allows us to focus on the value of the information we get studying evolution in our various environments, without either anticipating or requiring god(s) to interact in observable ways. Critical thinking takes precedence over superstition, but god(s) aren't denied agency, and are free to become observable actors in those environments. It's not so much a belief in god(s) as it is leaving an empty chair at the table, allowing one to show up if she so chooses. Until then, evolution is much more interesting.

This is irrelevant to my point in response to your question about whether or not it would be better. I said, at a societal level, yes... Letting evidence inform our conclusions instead of the other way around and dismissing nonsense appropriately as such WOULD be better. This remains valid whether or not we mostly hairless apes are capable of doing it.

It (the giraffe) grew tall to reach the food that other animals couldn't I suspect - that would be more to do with a shortage of food. The sauropods probably grew so big because it gave them a better chance of surviving against the big predators as well as the reasons koti listed. I have some sauropod bones - the limb bones were solid for extra strength, where as the vertebrae were honeycombed like other dinosaur bones.

I don't believe that can be the (only) reason. A great many very thoughtful people (theologians, philosophers and, yes, even scientists) have varying views on the contents of the bible.

It's probably more to do with the predator-prey relationship, the giraffe didn't grow tall because of more food.

Most probably a combination of a few factors - Lots of vegatation and high temperatures fueled their big size because there was a surplus of food available, their cold blodness was most likely a factor too and an evolutionary race towards size for self defense probably played a role as well.

I agree, it was a cheap red herring on my part but just over 50% is still not "love". Let's hold a similar poll for a country that is less full of itself like Croatia, New Zealand, Canada. I'm sure (just speculating ) that they will have better results.

Because they take the god of the gaps and don't care that the gaps are closing. They don't really believe it - they assume there are things we don't understand. But the bible CLEARLY states it was 7 days... if you start saying oh hold on, it doesn't actually mean 7 days, we need to interpret it to mean 7 billion years... then they are lying to themselves imo. When they want to press a point it's 'but the bible says this...' when you point out 'hold on - the bible says 'this' also, which is clearly untrue' you get, 'well you can't take it literally'. If you can't take it 'literally' then you are left with a work of fiction. You can't do that with a book and claim it as the unfailable word of god. It is a work of fiction. There is some beauty and wisdom in it, sure. But a fictional work none the less. The only reason one can believe in both evolution and god (of the bible or religions from books) is to suspend their own reasoning and lie to themselves... if they 'think about it very deeply' as you put it Strange, then it is obvious - it doesn't even need 'deep' thought it is so obvious.... Took me decades though! lol.

Trump seems to enjoy a fairly consistent base level support. No matter what he does, says, screws up, or lies about, he can reliably count on about 40-45% of the electorate to bolster him, many blindly and tribally. They WILL turn out. It gets a bit uncertain with more moderate republicans, many of whom are disgusted and turned off by his antics. Many of them will simply choose to stay home, but I suspect many will also switch and vote Democrat to make a statement, especially in light of recent trade wars, tariffs, embarrassment in front of Putin in Helsinki, and policies separating children from families at iur border. We can safely assume independent voters will largely fall into this same camp. Either don’t show up at all, or vote Democrat to make a statement. Few who didn’t previously support Trump will be converted into supporting him now. He’s not picking up new voters to expand his base. Quite the opposite. People are peeling off. Regarding your question: Democratic intensity is certainly way up, at least relative to their past numbers. There’s a movement akin to what we saw from the right with the tea party in 2010. Young people who rarely voted in the last, and nearly never in the midterms, are registering in droves and coming out for special elections. There is a palpable surge in anger, and anger drives people to the polls. It’s perhaps the single strongest animating factor in all of modern politics; anger. Where I’m most unsure is how passionate die hard Trump voters are feeling, what their intensity level is. Many are extremely amped and ready for war, seeing “their guy” as being “unfairly attacked” by the “fake news” and the “library’s” in the vast left wing conspiracy. They’re itching for a fight, and fight they will. How that ultimately compares to democratic turnout and electoral wins very much remains to be seen, especially in light of the fact that Russian influence campaigns are already beginning to spike across social media like Facebook and Twitter. The wedge social issues are being intentionnaly dredged up to the surface to turn us all against each other. But democrats are certainly seeing positive trends on the generic ballot (“would you rather vote for the republican or the Democrat to represent your district all other things being equal?”), so there's hope. That advantage on the generic ballot is somewhat consistently in the double digits lately, but we need to get our heads out of our asses and recall that the election is still 100 days away and that could easily change / that seeming advantage could quickly evaporate in this world where the news cycle seems flip every 100 seconds.

That joke has just clicked...DUH!

Genesis is the start and from then on everything the Bible says about the natural world can be shown to be wrong. From the account in genesis of a six day creation of everything just the way it is today to Noah's flood and the animals two by two, to allowing farm animals to mate in front of striped sticks to make the offspring striped.

Reality is not reflected in the Bible, for a person to believe the Bible and science requires interpretational twists of both. If you take the Bible at face value one of the first things that should stand out is that nothing.. and I mean nothing, the Bible asserts about reality that can be tested is true. Why should we believe in any of it? Without interpretation the Bible does indeed contradict evolution.

It is not obvious that any science tells us anything about "reality" (whatever that is, if it even exists).

But that is a different thing. You are moving the goalposts or changing the subject. They are religious and accept the theory of evolution. That was your original question. The fact that they try and use the science to rationalise their beliefs is irrelevant. Nonsense. That would only be true the "supernatural stuff" included contradictions of evolution. As the Church officially supports (*) and accepts the science, that can't be true. You are, in effect, saying that because they believe some supernatural things that they can't believe anything non-supernatural. That is completely illogical. You seem to be letting your dislike of religion cloud your thinking. Again. I'm not sure how that is relevant. There isn't really much connection between the two theories. But they are both accepted by most mainstream churches and by many religious people. So what. We know there are people who deny various scientific theories. Sometimes because of what they believe. Sometimes because they have come up with their own pet crackpot theory. But that is irrelevant to the question you asked. That is true of science but not scientists. Some Christians think like that and some don't. Again, not really relevant to the question you asked. Your question is, I think, answered. (The answer was "yes".) Is this now just going to turn into another irrational "Itoero Hates Religion" thread? If so, we can ask the mods to close it now.

But there is real data supporting the fact that people DO believe in the Bible and evolution. The Pope for example. The Bible does NOT contradict evolution unless you interpret the Bible to contradict evolution.

First, I don't know what you mean when you say "the evolution that started at the Big Bang". Nowhere in Evolution does it say you cannot believe in anything supernatural. How would believing in ghosts make it impossible for me to believe in Evolution?

If I have three objects, for example a red ball, a blue ball and a green ball, there are 3! ways I can arrange them. RGB RBG BRG BGR GBR GRB With just two objects there are 2! ways RG GR And with 1 object there's only 1! way to arrange it G There's only 1 way to arrange zero objects And that's why 0! =1 It's adopted as a convention so the maths gives sensible answers for things like probability.

is titration process in determing Iodine in CCl4 is iodimetric or iodometric?

It’s called iodometry, so the second one (iodometric) would be appropriate.

Hubble's Law = the velocities of recession of galaxies are proportional to their distances from us. Do we see galaxies following Hubble's law (distant galaxies moving faster and faster away from us) ot do we observe the (light of the) past, where galaxies further away are closer together? (because the further we look, the further we look in the past). Are far away galaxies closer together (the further we look in the past, the smaller the expansion of the universe back then) or are far away galaxies been observed further away (following Hubble's law)? Thank you for answering these questions.

Too bad u quoted that Carl Sagan. I could not care less what he thought. So he wrote a lot of books and got on TV, so what. So he got himself well known and famous We should therefore all bow down to him.

Really? Oh my goodness. You sound like an alcoholic or someone who wants nothing but to tear others down. This shows u have inadequatecy feeling about yourself. I am already Quite proud of things I have done. I don't think I've done anything noteworthy in physics though. Math maybe; that's my field.

Don't let PETA find out, they are one of the big backers of Veganism and are about as truthful about veganism as they are about their goals around hunting, fishing, pets and farm animals. Eating meat is a controversial issue in many circles but the issue is complex and is not easily broken down into black and white sections. I see you are already a member of my unauthorised version of PETA, hang in there!

A clear understanding of what space is, is required to answer the question, I do not think one exists. space time includes ER / EPR bridges which have wormholes around space time. Inside a wormhole distance/volume are not an issue. Could an absence of spacial volume be regarded as the inside of a wormhole, or another dimension where space and or time is not required. Could the universe exist inside a wormhole or another none spacial dimension. ? As a kind of superposition thereom could we exist inside a wormhole which exists as a result of a MECO BH / WH interaction.

To wit: Oh my, now I understand what my problem is, …. and that is that “mainstream science” is not to be “questioned”, …….. but only to be “queried” by those such as undergraduates who are “prepping” themselves for “testing” in/of their enrolled subject matter. Iffen one “departs” from the orthodox theories that define the “subject” being studied, then they will surely be given a “failing” grade.

Hi, There is now a very simple way to calculate Hubble's Constant, by inputting to an equation, the numerical value of Pi and the speed of light (C) from Maxwell's equations and the value of a parsec. NO space probe measurements (with their inevitable small measuring / interpretation errors) are now required. Hubble's Constant is 'fixed' at 70.98047 PRECISELY. This maths method removes the errors / tolerances that is always a part of attempting to measuring something as 'elusive' as Hubble's Constant. The reciprocal of 70.98047 is 13.778 billion light years. as 70.98047 never changes, 13.778 is the 'Hubble Horizon Distance' only, and NOT the age of the universe. The equation to perform this can be found in ?

Hi, There is now a very simple way to calculate Hubble's Constant, by inputting to an equation, the numerical value of Pi and the speed of light (C) from Maxwell's equations and the value of a parsec. NO space probe measurements (with their inevitable small measuring / interpretation errors) are now required. Hubble's Constant is 'fixed' at 70.98047 PRECISELY. This maths method removes the errors / tolerances that is always a part of attempting to measuring something as 'elusive' as Hubble's Constant. The reciprocal of 70.98047 is 13.778 billion light years. as 70.98047 never changes, 13.778 is Not the age of the universe, but the 'Hubble Horizon Distance' only. The equation to perform this can be found in ?

Big bang and evolution is incompatible with The Word of God. Therefore big bang is fake. When the Torah was Written by Moses under Jesus' instruction, The Creation was very carefully worded so as not to allow 'insertion' of extra time. So there was evening and morning dividing each of the six 24 hour days of Creation. Ask yourself, "How did The Lord know that in the 20th Century, Satan would trick 'scientists' into believing the big bang and evolution nonsense?". The Lord knows all things past and future, and clearly states that anyone who does not accept Jesus as their personal Saviour will have eternal death. So being a very 'clever' big bang secular scientist believer is actually proving they are 'fools'. That's why nothing works out for the cosmologists who merely become tangled in Satan's web of lies. Satan wants you DEAD to Jesus, and as Jesus is the Life, you are therefore 'lost'. So are the scientist clever?? No they are simply 'lost fools'. David 70.98047

The equation that gives that' fixes' Hubble's Constant at 70.98047 is :- 2 multiplied by a meg parsec then multiplied by the speed of light (C). this is then divided by Pi to the power of 21. This is the one and ONLY value of Hubble. If you do not understand this, I will be happy to email you in a sensible way. My email address is in Some Book on Amazon Kindle Books. Hubble's Constant is actually as 'fixed' in value as Pi. To believe anything else is fake. This simple fact actually proves the 'big bang' hypothesis is fake. A universe 'explosion' joke was put forward by Rev. Lemaitre around 1927 as a wind up JOKE in the Hubble revelations of that time -and the 'so called' scientists ('suckers') have believed it ever since -an even BIGGER joke!! The Very Rev. Lemaitre had a rather 'twisted John Cleese' type sense of humour, and was ridiculing all those who do not believe our Father, Lord Jesus Created the universe in 6 of 24 hour days. Lemaitre saw his joke backfire, and tried in 1936 to retract it for the total rubbish it is. Of course, the secular 'fools' are still fooled by it to this very day!! It was Fred Hoyle who gave the 'big bang' that 'insulting' name through his utter contempt of it. Rev. Lemaitre simply called it an explosion (for fun). Rev. Lemaitre was a devout Roman Catholic Christian Priest, who believed the truth of Creation as described in the K. J. Genesis account. You should do too, David. Meet the only alien you will ever find. He was spotted lurking in the dark shadows of Harrow Bus station.