Leaderboard

I see you have now used up your 5 posts in the first 24 hours limit. Hopefully you have enough info to complete this and your other similar questions. Come back tomorrow and say how you got on.

Hello Sarah, Emily Violet. When using mathematics in any sort of technical equation it is really useful to be able to say to yourself in plain words what the equation says in symbols. Now your proposed equation in symbols says 4 moles of zinc plus 1 mole of potassium dichromate plus reacts with 7 moles of sulphuric acid to produce 4 moles of zinc sulphate plus 2 moles of chromium plus 1 mole of potassium sulphate plus 7 moles of water. This proposed equation does indeed balance. It forms your master recipe. So the first thing to do is to calculate how much of each sulphate is produce by 1 mole of sulphuric acid. That is the equation right through by 7 4/7 moles of zinc plus 1/7 mole of potassium dichromate plus reacts with 7/7 moles of sulphuric acid to produce 4/7 moles of zinc sulphate plus 2/7 moles of chromium sulphate plus 1/7 moles of potassium sulphate plus 7/7 moles of water. Keep these as fractions for the moment. Now fill in the quantities for 4 moles of sulphuric acid That is multiply the equation right through by 4 4*4/7 moles of zinc plus 4*1/7 mole of potassium dichromate plus reacts with 4*7/7 moles of sulphuric acid to produce 4*4/7 moles of zinc sulphate plus 4*2/7 moles of chromium sulphate plus 4*1/7 moles of potassium sulphate plus 4*7/7 moles of water. You can now ignore the fractions you don't need and work out how much chromium2 sulphate you can get. What do you think will happen to the other reagents, are they in excess?

Apologies in advance on being a little disconnected in my thinking here - emergence does that to straight thinking I find. I've not been convinced by the typical definitions of life trotted out for students (such as myself). As you say CharonY they tend to describe features of life as we understand it here on earth. [That in itself is somewhat incomplete.] Which is somewhat limiting. I'm also not convinced of definitions which exclude virus ( on the basis of not passing on hereditary information, and I guess, homeostasis/metabolism). It seems to me that if we find an extraterrestrial virus scientists would not just be excited but would be reconsidering those definitions. I can imagine an electronic AI that I would be tempted to call life, that wouldn't meet any currently recognised definition. Suggests a potential problem with the definition. The topic of emergence borders on the metaphysical but that does not seem to bother theoretical physicists at all. Though Science Philosophers seem to mostly to start with a position of the topic being junk. There is a boundary being used, especially in areas such as quantum foundations, that does not seem to robustly fit Popper. Emergence seems based on "well, we can't rule it out!", rather than any deeper foundation. I find it hard to simply accept as tabled. On another note, the earlier OP, seemed without stating it to be talking not just life but conscious life - which is another step entirely.

Try a dictionary. I will report this for trolling and suggest the thread is closed.

For example, imagine you look at Anna on the other side of the room and you think she is about 1.60m tall. That is a guess. (Or, perhaps, an estimate based on the size of things around them. If I asked you how tall my cousin Bob was, then that would have to be a complete guess.) On the other hand, we could get several people to measure how tall Anna is. We might get numbers like 1.72m, 1.71m, 1.69m, 1.71m, etc. From this data (ie. actual measurements) we can can calculate not just her height, but also the errors or accuracy of the measurements.

No. The data available at this time does not tell which it is: dimming, brightening or staying the same. Please read the interpretation above.

No.

Studiot is such a nice person. Helpful and so kind for everybody. Sarah. Don't forget to award him with upvotes.

First they came for the Socialists... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_... "First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me." Ye see Dim...in the end it's all about me...

So then you agree... Inflicting inconvenience/harm on one group in an effort to affect another separate group, IS unethical and wrong ? Thanks Dim, I just hit 5000 posts. WHOOHOO ! ( that was my mission for this morning )

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter; it depends, in general, on which side of the poverty line he resides. Well fed and content people don't tend to riot.

That is not a new theory. And not really a theory, just the meanderings of a philosopher. Also, you shouldn't link to such appalling examples of "journalism" (blogging). Note the complete lack of proper references, for example. And no mention of the fact that Dr.Skow made these statements when promoting a book he wrote.

And have all of the other dioxanes make fun of her?

In the 90s, Clinton was unelectable. In 2008, Obama was unelectable. In 2016, Trump was unelectable. Every one of them became president. Point being? I find these conversations about electability and continued prognostications about who can beat Trump rather silly. We just don’t know.

You said: Which heavily implies that it is a common occurrence to have families wiped out and that in at least one case someone only escaped death because they were abroad. Yet you provide one example in which all the folks (perhaps except wife, not sure) were above fifty. It is silly to extrapolate from this one case, while WHO and involved researchers provide different numbers. Of course that is true. And of course the death rate especially in Hubei are likely to be higher than elsewhere since the medical situation is worse. But how does it lend credibility to your claim that the disease is far more lethal than reported? If anything the rate will be higher specifically for Wuhan and Hubei than elsewhere due to the critical situation which are also exacerbated by the quarantine. There was at least one report that a disabled person died due to lack of care. So you are conflating the severity of the disease with what you believe the infrastructure issues are. Whether it will ultimately break (further) or hold (to some degree) remains to be seen, but so far you have not provided any data one way or another as far as I can see. So far in Hubei 62031 cases were reported in total. Of these 2029 have died and 10521 have been reported as cured. These are among the highest mortality rates (with decent N) reported, no doubt confounded by the bad situation there. AFAIK that are the numbers that are available. What data sources do you have that apparently are in direct contradiction to claims made by health professionals? Other numbers are available and have been reported in various threads here, but I would like to highlight again that currently we have ~56 ongoing cases worldwide (most being in Wuhan) compared to ~19k cases with outcomes. Of the latter 16.9k were recoveries and 2.1k were deaths. So there is still a while until actual mortality and other information can be calculated accurately. While the numbers especially in Hubei could become worse , it should be noted that from all collected data about 79% only have mild conditions, who therefore should be fairly unaffected from overcrowded hospitals, unless they get sick otherwise, of course. Is it ideal or even good? Certainly not. Just to re-iterate, it is a serious disease, especially for the elderly. It created a lot of local strain (exacerbated by the unprecedented quarantine enacted) and folks suffer, we should not forget that. But that is different from running wild with speculations of what could be. Right now those at the sidelines can only wait for the actual development. The internet has been running hot with misinformation which at best is annoying for the professionals and worst can seriously put people at risk. This is especially true if that panic does not lend to any beneficial actions. Remember the knee-jerk reaction from an US lawmaker who suggested euthanasia of folks coming into contact with Ebola?

Have a read of this Telegraph article: It gives a summary of the current situation and presently recommended actions: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/coronavirus-symptoms-treatment-uk-guide/

this is exactly the kind of reasoning why the world is a polluted mess. 1. you tell me not to worry then give me false information 2. you make the false conclusion that because i'm not drinking pond water it's not harmful any toxins put into the environment when we can avoid it is bad. you need to develop an attitude of zero tolerance to pollution

... and might end with an unjust law being changed. I don't know about Canadian law, but in the US, the courts don't overturn bad laws on their own, they need people to break them and then argue in court why it was the right thing to do.

My right to do something everyone recognizes as illegal starts when I claim I'm protesting...

"Chloroquine might be getting new life as an antiviral treatment for the novel coronavirus that emerged in Wuhan, China in late 2019 and has infected some 25,000 people in more than 25 countries. For decades, the drug was a front-line treatment and prophylactic for malaria. In a three-page paper published Tuesday in Cell Research, scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s State Key Laboratory of Virology write that both chloroquine and the antiviral remdesivir were, individually, “highly effective” at inhibiting replication of the novel coronavirus in cell culture. Their drug screen evaluated five other drugs that were not effective. The authors could not be reached for comment." Quoted from www.asbmb.org/asbmb-today/science/020620/could-an-old-malaria-drug-help-fight-the-new-coron It suggests an inhibition of phosphorylase by quinine binding to (viral??) PNP. Unusual.

Speak for yourself. I can remember things from the past, hence I experience the fourth dimension. Even without observers, systems change over time. The block universe is one view. Not the view.

I think you mean 'anthropic' in your discussion of J A Wheeler's Participatory Universe idea. 'Anisotropic' is related to observations in differing directions, Koti. But I fully agree. I don't mix Philosophy and Physics either. Although, to be fair to Eise, Philosophy can be a valuable 'guide' to doing Physics.

from the Wiki entry on Prof Challenger "Challenger hoped through this experiment to prove that the Earth was a living organism that sustained its vitality from the ether of outer space" There is no aether . "Two out of three ain't bad" From the album Bat Out of Hell, released 1977, by the artist Meatloaf. There is lots of things I don't know, Dim, but useless trivia isn't one of them.

That is not what I was doing I was just trying to understand the comment Below. So if I understand right nothing what we think is right may actually be right. I don’t get where data changes it since we have data on Betelgeuse. one of the most important (and hardest) lessons to learn in science is that "we don't know" is a valid answer. And often it is the only, or the best, answer we have. All other answers have a level of uncertainty associated with them, so we rarely (if ever) know things for sure. so we are basically guessing on all we think we know in science and physics

I don’t understand what you mean by measurements, so that means that everything we think we know about any science or physics is just a guess? we are not sure betelguese will not go supernova for a while still, and we are guessing our sun will not explode for millions of years and we are guess vacuum decay will not happen anytime soon. Because there is no data telling us otherwise