exchemist

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?

You (or your AI) wrote this in your opening post: "When we ascend to higher altitudes, air becomes thinner and pressure decreases. Logically, if atmospheric pressure were the source of air movement, it should accumulate above, not diminish." If you are, as you say, aware of standard atmospheric physics, how do you reconcile that statement with the explanation I linked from the NPL as to why pressure reduces with altitude?

The exponential growth in AI spambots infesting forums such as this one.

Oh dear. This is verging on the delusional. The first requirement for anyone proposing a new hypothesis is to understand the current science beforehand and identify its shortcomings. You quite obviously don't understand physics and have not carried out this essential first step. For example, you have not even stopped to find out why the atmosphere thins with height. You have just assumed that, because you personally don't understand why, then nobody does, and then have gone on to propose your own idea about it. Here, though, is the reason, from the UK National Physical Laboratory: https://www.npl.co.uk/resources/q-a/atmospheric-altitude-pressure-changes You could have found that out in about 30 seconds, if you had bothered to look it up. There is also this thing called Ockham's Razor. Science employs this principle implicitly. You don't introduce strange new entities, like your extra dimensions, when you can explain atmospheric phenomena perfectly well without them. It is unlikely that people who know some science will take you seriously when you display such failure to find out what science already says before putting forward your home-made alternatives. Nobody owes you a hearing: you have to earn it, by showing where the current science fails and how your hypothesis is an improvement. As for this stuff about your ideas having been "published", the web resources you mention don't check anything. They are just tools to help researchers. As @TheVat points out, you can "publish" any old rubbish on them. They tell you nothing at all about the credibility of the material. Actually, though, I wonder whether perhaps your real motivation may be religious, not scientific. What you (or your AI) has written feels as if you are trying to find a way to introduce the Koranic concept of the "veil" into science. It is quite a nice metaphor for the way that science uses successively improved models of the physical world, as it gropes its way towards an ever better picture of reality. (In Christianity St. Paul has much the same idea, with a different metaphor: "Now we see through a glass, darkly".) But don't let religious ideas lead you into the error of trying to introduce obscure and unnecessary concepts into science, to account for things that can explained already without them. The job of science is to demystify the natural world, not to make it more obscure.

Authorea is just a paper-writing tool.

It is also how time is wasted reading chatbot nonsense. We need to be persuaded that is not what this is.

Thanks but I have already tried that. Safari has given me trouble on one or two other websites, notably when I tried to get a subscription to Nature updates. I gave up on that one in the end. But the funny thing is that this glitch has just appeared out of nowhere, having worked fine before.

Tried Cmd R and logging in using the Private function and still no luck. I may have to wait for the next OS update, I guess , and see if that fixes it.