exchemist

This needs explanation. What are you on about?

And the spittle-flecked ranting continues……. You seem to be furious with everybody and everything here, and you have only just arrived. I’m mystified. I’d better sit back and see if others have more luck getting a coherent argument out of you.

I had assumed it was a mash-up of two characters from Smiley's People: Otto Leipzig and Claus Kretzschmar. But now it occurs to me that it might be Le Carré who disassembled the name of the submariner for his two characters. How very interesting.

Haha your spelling is letting you down again.😁

But I thought he was a cretin? In fact, one might expect a relatively high incidence of iodine deficiency in Tibet, it being inland and mountainous, and this seems likely to be the case, though data is sparse: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31928176/ So maybe some Tibetans are indeed technical cretins, in the original sense.

While I think the parallels can be overdone there are no doubt similarities in the way communism has been expressed, probably because it is an ideology. I used to be amused by the way communists and other far left socialists were always having internal rows and splitting to form new tiny groups, each holding to what they saw as the "true" faith. True Scotsmen everywhere! Very reminiscent of extreme Protestantism. When ideologies are not tempered by pragmatism these manifestation are what you tend to get.

Actually this "Atlantis ring" is sort of amusing. Seems to be a New Agey attempt to cash in on Ancient Egyptian woo. Load of shit about balancing energy fields, harmful frequencies (er, of what?), etc. Nothing about aliens, sadly. Some Canadian woman called Marcia turns them out and flogs them. 🤪

This is raving mad, as well as highly unpleasant.

Well, who rattled your cage!? 😁 All this fulmination against "ideologically fixated science-minded unbelievers" seems a bit paranoid when the responses you have had so far don't seem to indicate such an attitude. What several of us have been saying is that because science concerns itself exclusively with the physical world, as evidenced by reproducible observations of nature, it has nothing to say about metaphysical ideas such as the soul. There may well be some physicalists here, that is, people who take the worldview that the physical world, as amenable in principle to reproducible observation, is all there is. That is a perfectly reasonable worldview and not in itself "ideological". There are others here who do not share such a worldview and think there may be more to existence. Both are perfectly compatible with science. Many scientists are religious believers. You seem to be attacking a particular evangelical atheism, sometimes called the New Atheism, espoused famously by the "Four Horsemen" (Dawkins, Dennett, Christopher Hitchens and Harris): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism. That would be fair enough. I'd go along with you to some extent that Dawkins at least has seemed to waste his time attacking a kind of cardboard cutout of religion that he has constructed himself. Though to be fair to him I think he has moderated his views somewhat in recent years. But I am having to speculate a bit because you are not very clear what your beef is and with whom. It seems to me this thread would benefit from you identifying your target with more precision: exchange your blunderbuss for a rifle.

Yes I think you are right. I was partly suckered by the angle on this taken by the newspaper report. It is indeed mainly about their measurement technique. But I had no idea there are volcanoes in that part of the world, so I found it interesting. Agree too about Pozzuoli and the Phlegraean Fields. I gather Solfatara is now out of bounds. I visited it back in the 1970s.

I saw news of this in the Independent and have looked up the paper: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025GL114853 Although not associated with active volcanism, there is in fact a subduction zone under Iran, due to the underthrusting of the colliding Arabian Plate, extending eastwards from the straits of Hormuz. I was intrigued by this, having lived in the Persian Gulf for some years in the 1980s and having always wondered a bit about the geology. It seems the volcano summit is rising, but they attribute this to shallow depth hydrothermal activity, which could presage some kind of phreatic event, though no one is yet suggesting a lava eruption is imminent. According to this paper the last definite eruption was ~700,000 yrs ago, though I notice the Wiki entry on this volcano is rather self-contradictory, at one point suggesting eruptions in recent years but then seeming to say there is no evidence for that after all. It's an intriguing area and not well known to us Westerners. There are even salt glaciers(!) in the Zagros mountains of Iran.

Don't be silly. Think. Don't panic* and write random nonsense. What on earth does "d" mean? First, what is the formula for alkanes? Second, think how many fewer H atoms you have for each double bond in an alkene. For instance propane CH3-CH2-CH3, vs. propene. Tell me what you think about this. *Actually this is tough love: I do sympathise a bit. My son used to panic with chemistry, and with maths. Stay calm and think and you will get it.

OK, it's not "pie", it is "pi", the English for the Greek letter π. The π bond involves one, repeat one, orbital on each carbon atom, and contains one pair of electrons. It is not regarded as two bonds. A double bond consists of one σ bond and one π bond. However the π bond does have 2 lobes of electron density, one above and one below the axis of the σ bond. That is because it formed by the sideways overlap of a dumbell-shaped orbital on each atom, like this: 8-8.

Something wrong: no content.

What, specifically, do you not understand?

You mean this forum? Then there is no reason I can see to think ideology will be prevalent. But your question about the soul, if that is what you want to discuss rather than your opening post, is indeed strange, as @Phi for All indicates. Surely you must be aware that science deals with the physical world, in terms of reproducible observations of nature. I am not aware anyone has put forward a physical, testable hypothesis for the soul, of the kind that science can get to grips with. If that is so, science will have nothing to say on the subject: it is not a scientific idea. If however you have some different idea of the soul from the traditional one, an idea that predicts reproducibly observable phenomena, I’d be intrigued if you can explain it.

What do you want to know about all this? What is the question?

What context is that?

The issue of whether there is evidence for the existence of the soul seems to be a quite different topic from that of your opening post, which seems to be about the social causes and effects of religions. What are you trying to do? It looks as if you want to have a pop at science, by asserting some sort of equivalence between it and religion. Is that it?

I no experience or data to offer but lactic acid is very polar and I see is said to be not just soluble but miscible with water. This suggests to me it may not be very soluble in the oil phase. Capsaicin is another matter but perhaps you can make some useful chilli oil as a byproduct.

Yes, some did. What is it you wish to discuss here?

This (and the avatar) appear to be a verbatim copy of an opening post made on another forum, just over a year ago: https://www.sciforums.com/threads/religious-teachings.166517/

I have addressed the content, in response to which you have contradicted yourself, something you now refuse to admit. Further discussion with you would therefore seem to be a waste of time.

But it is not unexplained, as yourself have later acknowledged. It’s no good trying to dress up this nonsense with fancy language. Nonsense it remains.

Except that you did, explicitly, deny the fundamentals in the passage in your opening post that I quoted. If you, as you now say, "fully recognize that air pressure decreases with height due to gravity and the weight of the air column above.", why did you say "Logically, if atmospheric pressure were the source of air movement, it should accumulate above, not diminish."? These two statements of yours contradict each other directly. How can we take you seriously?