exchemist

You seem to be an idiot.

No. I'm applying Ockham's Razor. Your model would require an ad hoc extra explanation for the CBMR, which you have not supplied. Do you have one? Whereas the big bang hypothesis nicely accounts for both the observed red shift and the observed CMBR.

Of course not. It just means yours, which is the one we are discussing, doesn’t work.

What a terrible explanation. It ascribes intent to the star and fails to explain why the jets arise. The BBC so often these days treats its audience like children when it comes to science.

I think you need to check your neurological reference frame.

Why are you waffling about spirituality in a biology thread?

They say no such thing. Certain gases at high partial pressure produce narcosis while others do not, e.g. nitrogen vs. helium. Similarly, low partial pressure of oxygen makes sleeping difficult, but low pressure as such does not, cf. Astronauts breathing low pressure air enriched with oxygen and sleeping quite normally. if you don’t know what partial pressure is I can explain.

The big bang hypothesis accounts for the CMBR, whereas yours does not, evidently. So that is already one reason to reject yours in favour of the big bang. The CMBR is observed and as such is a test of these hypotheses. The big bang passes that test. Your hypothesis does not.

Oh I see, so you are thinking that we could not apply terrestrially developed physics and chemistry to the rest of the universe. Yes I suppose that would be the case.

It sounds like a variant on the now discredited "tired light" hypothesis. But, purely as an academic point, I doubt it would have much impact on chemistry or molecular physics, as the distances involved are so small, compared to those at which red shifting would be significant in such a hypothesis.

How would your idea account for the CMBR?

OK that makes sense. If they recovered the sub there might be no hooha.

This sounds very doubtful. "If the incident has occurred, the global silence is perplexing. A nuclear submarine sinking should lead to global attention because a nuclear reactor leak due to damage can have serious consequences, including water contamination," a submarine expert told the EurAsian Times." This report was on 4th October. There has been nothing since. If it were true, surely all manner of organisations would be up in arms about contamination risk etc. Failure of the oxygen system after a mere 6hrs seems most improbable. Nukes are designed to complete entire tours, lasting weeks, without the need to surface.

But why would a nuke have banks of lead acid batteries? Surely that would be in diesel electric subs. If it had been one of those, it would be discharging the batteries while submerged. To grossly overcharge them enough to generate H2S it would need to be on the surface with the engine running. So I’m a bit suspicious of this story. Especially since it seems to come from YouTube. Is there any corroboration from a reliable source?

You don’t struggle to breathe, though. The breathing reflex is governed by the dissolved CO2 in the blood rather than the oxygen concentration. Altitude sickness consists of other symptoms, headache, nausea, dizziness etc. ….and difficulty sleeping.

Where is iron smelting on this chart?

You are still confusing force with expenditure of energy. A rock on the ground exerts a force on it but no energy is expended. Think about that. To do work, i.e. to expend energy, there has to be motion in the direction of an applied force. A weight falling through a distance can do work. But a stationary weight does not do any work.

I don't understand this.

Then what you are talking about is not a drift but just thermal motion, surely?

Don't you need an electric field to produce a drift current?

It’s normal and most vitamin supplements are a waste of money. However vitamin D in winter, if you live in cloudy northern latitudes, may help the immune system, as you may not get enough sunlight to synthesise enough on your own.

Confess I don’t follow this. Why would any current flow in the wire?

No.

Sure, a lot depends on how many people have been fed and how much dirty crockery and pans have been created. Like you, I let things drain and dry on the rack, when there are only one or two of us. If it’s a big group that may not be feasible, esp. if there are glasses as well - they really do need drying or they get streaks. But the tea towels or dishcloths also get used for other purposes in my kitchen, e.g for wiping damp hands while cooking.

OK fair enough I wrote that badly. The changing and washing I intended to refer to dishcloths, not to the utensils used to wash the dishes in the sink. If those utensils are absorbent they need to be allowed to dry, or they will grow bugs and stink.