exchemist

I understand it could shed light (haha) on dark matter. If it's confirmed and has the right mass, or something, ........................

Yes we all suffer, Ducky. I do most earnestly say unto thee: "Get thee gone, thou facetious timewaster".😁

Aha but that’s different. It’s one thing to say HAVING energy, as a property, is enough for an entity to be said to exist in some sense. It’s quite another to say - as apparently he didn’t - that it IS “pure energy”. It is that which is ballocks, because it implies that energy is something that can have independent existence. It can’t. And you don’t provide the context in which his remark was made, which would shed more light on what he meant by what he said. Taking individual remarks out of context is always liable to create misunderstandings as to what was meant.

That’s interesting, certainly. I’ll have look up the bit about the redness. Presume it signifies absorption bands in the green and blue.

No physicist would ever say an entity was pure energy. It’s a stupid thing to say, like saying something is pure electric charge or pure mass, or pure momentum. I guarantee this person you are claiming to quote said no such thing. Energy is not “stuff”. You can’t have a bottle of energy. You can a bottle of stuff that HAS energy of course, but that is different. It’s much more likely a physicist would say light is a disturbance in the electromagnetic field, which has various properties, including frequency speed and wavelength, momentum, spin and energy.

Well there I agree. I think it more likely that some form of monitoring of radiation might take place, as in SETI for instance. I’m afraid that, not having a TV, I didn’t see the programme you refer to. What was it called, and on what channel? And what chemistry did it talk about?

It seems hard to believe a Physics prof like Flip Tanedo would say what you quote him as saying. “Pure energy” is Star Teek, not physics and the rest is bad English. Where did you get this from and what was the context?

I would suggest it was because we could get back, within our own lifetimes, to pass on what we had learnt and thereby advance the sum of human knowledge, and sometimes because we could bring back something to our societies of commercial value. The problem I see with interstellar travel is this is not possible, almost irrespective of the lifetime of the organism that travels, because, as Douglas Adams observed, in space travel the numbers are awful.

If there more than three reasons, let’s hear them, so that we can pursue the discussion. I am willing to have my scepticism overturned if you have a persuasive argument. But I’m not interested in playing games. If you going to be coy and demand that I play cards I don’t have, while not playing the cards you claim to hold, I’m out of this.

If you think I can come up with 3 reasons (I can’t, obviously, or I wouldn’t be saying what I’m saying), why don’t you propose some yourself?

What would be the point of commissioning voyages lasting tens of thousands of years, without even knowing what you would find, and with no means of sharing the knowledge obtained?

Rumsfeld was quite right, of course - though wrong about almost everything else. But interstellar travel seems to be pointless unless relativity is completely wrong, for which there is no evidence. So one would need more than just a new phenomenon to be discovered. And the absence of interstellar visitors to date is at least consistent with relativity being right.

I’m afraid it looks very much as if your hovercraft is full of eels.

Agree about the ZZZzzzz..........😆

Every word you write seems to drip creationism, even though you may deny that ID is inherently creationist. There is plenty of room for scientists to be religious believers, but none at all for people that try to shoehorn supernatural agency into science. Science looks for explanations of nature in nature. In other words, the scientific method employs methodological naturalism. That has been at its heart since natural science first developed after the Renaissance. Also at the heart of science is the requirement for a theory to be able to predict what we should be able to observe. It should be obvious that ascribing phenomena to supernatural agency, not bound by physical laws, defeats any hope of explanations that are predictive. For these reasons “intelligent design” is not only pseudoscience, but actually anti-science. I find it far easier to respect the views of an overt creationist than someone who pretends to be scientific while undermining the very principles on which science is founded. For these reasons I despise Behe and the rest of the (diminishing) ID gang. ID was always a political, social engineering project, originally conceived by a lawyer who is now, thankfully, dead. ID will soon go the same way, deservedly.

That’s rather ridiculous. An enzyme is a catalyst for a reaction. The energy change that brings the reaction about is to be found in the reactants and products. And this change does not take the form of mechanical work, but changes in chemical potential energy, in chemical bonds.

That is nothing like “ we are no more than consciousness”, which is what you claimed science says.

Aha, now that sounds more like it. Russia also has a high non-combustion percentage.

That’s cool.

If it’s non-combustion I don’t see how it can be forest fires. And whatever it is, it seems to be due to something in Canada which is barely present in the USA. Unless, I suppose, the website does not bother to reconcile differences in reporting convention between countries.

No, you answer my question first, before posing another of your own.

There is no mechanical work done by an enzyme. And while systems tend to change towards lower energy states, that is not in general a spatial direction. You are using terms in too vague a way for a scientific conversation to be possible.

My understanding is that science says no such thing. Can you link to any source for this claim?

But you’re not trying to advertise it, right? 😁

Indeed. A good start for you would be to summarise the advantages you claim for your new model of the atom. What hitherto unexplained observations does it account for? Or how is it simpler in accounting for observations than the electron/nucléon QM model? And, most crucially, what predictions does it make that would show its superiority?