exchemist

I see more of it this morning, clearly of Russian origin judging by the Cyrillic that is appearing. I wonder if someone is using AI to explore ways to defeat the various anti-spam measures on sites like this, by creating entities that resemble real people closely enough to beat the system.

There may be some misunderstanding about what is meant in science by a ToE. It is a concept specific to physics that seeks to completely unify quantum physics with relativity. The term is used because relativity and quantum theory between them underpin just about all of physics, which in turn underpins chemistry, which underpins biology, and so forth. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything Reading your post, I confess my heart sinks to read, yet again, the word "framework", as it is a word beloved of AI LLMs. I hope I am talking to a real person here. 😃

This seems to be closely related to your recent thread about debating with Buddhists: https://scienceforums.net/topic/136632-how-would-you-counter-the-science-was-wrong-before-argument/ I too have experience of dealing with creationists, nearly always Christian fundies but one or two Muslims too. No Jews, funnily enough. I don't think you can hope to change their minds on the spot. The best you can hope for is to counter some of the specific pieces of misinformation they have been fed, one by one, and maybe thereby make them a bit more questioning of their sources. Creationists almost always have been taught it from an early age and rely on the wealth of creationist material that has been developed, largely to serve the US Bible Belt. These sources issue a stream of bogus factoids and arguments to support a Gish Gallop rhetorical approach: the faster you can splurge disinformation, the tougher it is to debunk it all. (Trump does the same thing in US politics, of course - impossible to keep up with all the lies.) I think I would agree that the main justification for engaging creationists is to convince spectators who may be wavering that it is not the way to go. Often teenagers, for instance, will start to question what they have been told by their parents or their church and that's a good time to steer them in another direction. However one has to be gentle and not to rubbish their faith, as that is always counterproductive. With Christians, one can point out that creationism is only taught in a minority of fundamentalist Protestant denominations and it is not only possible but actually the norm for Christians to accept the science. I usually point out the existence of the well-established, non-literal interpretations of Genesis (which go back to Origen in 200AD), to help them find a path that allows for accepting science without making them feel they have to abandon their faith. I used to do this quite a lot on a few religious forums I once belonged to, i.e. where there was an audience that might be interested and could, I thought, benefit from it. Eventually though I simply got tired of making the same speech over and over again to different people, while many of the same diehards (the Jehovah's Witnesses were the worst) continued to spout their nonsense.

Yes. This however feels like an LLM-enhanced version, with multiple exchanges, prefaced by the usual ingratiating opening. I suppose it was to be expected. This curious thing is how many exchanges take place, between several pseudo-entities, before any spam is placed.

Bye.

Heh heh. I’m ever so ‘umble, Mr. Copperfield.

We now seem to have series of fake-sounding “conversations” going on between newly joined entities that I feel fairly sure are bots. Is this the prelude to another flood, I wonder….

Ask yourself how many electrons are in the valence shell of a neutral, free oxygen atom. And then count the electrons on the oxygen atom you are talking about: 3 lone pairs, plus a half share in the pair in the bond.

Even worse. It's gobbldegook, not even sentences, just lists of what seems to be code of some kind. What is the point?

What are your initial thoughts about this?

Yes the concept of "resonance energy" indicates the amount by which the molecule is actually more stable than would be expected from any one of the individual canonical structures. It is important to bear in mind though that "resonance" in this context is fictitious, i.e. nothing physically "resonates". Electron pairs do not flicker back and forth between canonical structures as shown by the arrows. What the concept conveys is that the real electronic structure of the molecule is a mixture of the canonical structures. It signifies that there are one or more molecular orbitals that extend across more of the molecule than simple 2-centre bonding implies, i.e. some of the the electrons are "delocalised" across several atoms. It is these more extended, lower energy orbitals that lead to greater stability than the simple canonical structures would predict. When the canonical structures are of equal energy the mixture will be 50:50. If one of them is significantly higher in energy than the other, it will contribute less to the mixture and the energy lowering effect will be less. There is a fuller explanation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance_(chemistry) The arrows show movement of pairs of electrons, whether lone pairs or bonding pairs. As @KJW says, you get hooked arrows (with a half head on) to show movement of single electrons. Generally you will come across these in the context of free radical reactions, i.e. where unpaired electrons are involved.

Another cut and paste job with no discernible meaning. And that "framework" word again is a giveaway. What's the point of this?

Don't say things like that. Chucking accusations of racism around is pretty unpleasant. I explained the reason I stopped responding to you, which you have now addressed on another thread.

Good. It’s not really a question of thanks, but it would be nice to get a line or two in reply that shows you have understood the responses. What we are interested in here is imparting knowledge. So just lobbing information into a black hole is not very satisfying for us.

That’s curious, so the Earth itself can be old, although the Genesis creation sequence would make the creation of the sun, for instance, come about only 42,000 yrs ago. But OK I admit I’ve never gone into JW beliefs in this much detail before. And it’s probably unfair to keep quizzing you about stuff from years ago.

Sure. But then one wouldn't expect the average mainstream Christian to be particularly scholarly either. The comment was about "scholarly analyses of the scriptures in the original language", referring to the JW organisation, not the individuals you and I may have encountered on the doorstep (who indeed don't seem generally very well educated, at least in my part of London). So it was pretty narrowly defined.

You can do scholarly textual analysis of the bible without getting into whether it should be interpreted literally or not. Interpretation is another matter and on that I'd have to agree with you that the JWs are literalists - and thus creationists (YECs).

Presume you mean definite article, i.e. “the” as opposed to the indefinite article “a”. Classical ancient Greek certainly has a definite article, as I remember from my schooldays. But I suppose there might not have been in the Koine Greek of the period of the gospel writers. In fact I found this which indicates there could be room for ambiguity: https://hellenisticgreek.com/07.html

Yes I know. Unitarianism has a long history, back to the c.16th, i.e. they appeared as part of the upheaval of the Protestant Reformation. But JWs were only set up in the c.19th in the United States, as were the Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons and Christian Scientists, seemingly from the DIY culture of American Protestants of the time.

Your 5 is not justified. There is no "clear" indication that the mechanisms are not completely understood. We have just the one small, poorly characterised object, out of hundreds of comets, for which we have not been able to detect outgassing. It is jumping to conclusions to say there was no outgassing, or that radiation pressure could not have been responsible.

From what I read about Oumuamua we know its shape was far from spherical but it could have been be either be very prolate (cigar-shaped) or very oblate (disc-shaped). Observation was unable to determine which, because the object was only a few hundred metres long in its longest dimension and only about 10% of that along its shortest. Could it not be, then, that Oumuamua was just too small (low volume) for evidence of outgassing to be apparent, or that its mass was low enough, compared to its extension in space, for radiation pressure to be responsible for the observed acceleration?

I knew they are non-Trinitarian, just not how they regard the Holy Spirit, so thanks for the explanation. Evidently They reinterpret "the Holy Spirit" or "the Spirit of God", as mentioned in the gospels, as "holy spirit" [without definite article], meaning a sort of power dispensed from God, but not a distinct entity. Well that could make sense, I suppose, though the definite article does seem to accompany the mention of "holy spirit" each time, I think. Interesting, anyway.

Aha, so that's the agenda. Fine. I take it then that you are looking at 3I/ATLAS hoping to find the same, seemingly anomalous, behaviour from it as we saw with Oumuamua? Very good. But there is no sign of any anomalous behaviour yet, just as there was no sign of it with Borisov. Nor, unless you can correct me, has there been with other comets. So your proposal that relativity is wrong currently relies only on the apparently anomalous behaviour of Oumuamua and no other astronomical object, correct? But that behaviour (i.e. unexplained non-gravitational acceleration) is anomalous with respect to Newtonian orbital mechanics, surely, not relativity. So where does relativity come into it? Or are you saying Newtonian mechanics is also wrong?

Interesting. Does that mean that, to JWs, “holy spirit” is some kind of stuff, rather than the 3rd person of the Trinity as in regular Christianity?

You’ve got some nerve, telling a PhD physicist he doesn’t have the necessary mathematical skills! Especially as getting any supporting maths out of you has been like getting blood out of a stone. Suggest you pull your head in, as they say in Australia. 😁