exchemist

Haha, spoken like a true crank! It doesn't work like that. If you have a claim to make, it is for you to provide the supporting evidence. Other people don't have to run around and jump through hoops, to see if your ideas may possibly have anything behind them, especially when they think they are most likely nonsense. It's your job to show they are not nonsense. Nobody else's.

All this is beside the point - apart from being also wrong about why the historical procedures you refer to were performed. The fact is that cell death (as @CharonYpoints out, a better term than decomposition in this context) is known to occur within minutes of the cessation of supply of oxygen. And that's it. There is nothing more to discuss, unless as I say you can produce well-attested evidence of people coming back to life many hours or days after cessation of brain activity (which we can use as a proxy for brain cell death).

Physical decomposition, which, as I've pointed out, occurs in a matter of minutes after the circulation has stopped, except in a few highly exceptional circumstances. Permanent cessation of all brain activity is a pretty good indicator of this, having the advantage that you don't need to open the skull.

No theory is ever proved in science. However, we have a pretty good theory of what constitutes death, viz. permanent cessation of all brain activity. None of the examples in the Lazarus syndrome article represent anyone coming back to life after brain death. There are cases in which the heart can stop and then resume, and so long as the brain is not starved of oxygen completely during this time a resuscitation may be possible. If it is starved of oxygen, there will be progressive brain damage, eventually sufficient to prevent resuscitation at all, generally within minutes of the circulation stopping. (There have been cases involving low temperatures, in which someone can survive longer, due to the brain being cooled so much that its oxygen requirement drops, but these are rare and are explained by our current knowledge in the relevant science.) There are no well-attested cases, so far as I know, of anyone at ambient temperature returning to life after all brain and heart activity has been stopped for hours. If you believe differently, it is up to you to provide the evidence, not for us to somehow prove the absence of it. (That's because science does not require us to spend time trying to prove the absence of fairies, pink unicorns or other alleged phenomena for which no evidence has been produced.)

I don't see how it does any such thing. What struggle? Why would there be a struggle? Struggle against what?

As I have no idea what your "parable" is supposed to illustrate, I can't answer that.

It is always rational to think you may know better than a random group of people, if you have checked your information is good. Many people are badly informed about a lot of things. What mood they may be in is neither here nor there. It is obviously not rational for an atheist to believe religious claims, since if he did then he wouldn't be an atheist, would he? What are you trying to ask?

Well no, it is the presence together of asparagine and simple sugars that forms acrylamide. Caramel doesn't have asparagine in it, as it is formed by heating sugar alone. But there is some in molasses and also in dark bread crust and things like that. It appears acrylamide has been shown to cause cancer in rats at some level, but it is unclear whether the levels at which it occurs in most food items are at all risky. There is always, in these cases, the question of whether there is a safe dose, below which any mutagenic effects can be corrected by the body. The same argument is perennial in discussion of radiation doses, I understand. Since the body has mechanisms for repair to genetic damage, it seems reasonable to think that there is may be a safe dose, below which any damage can be handled, but this is contested by some, I gather.

Got it! See this: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2012.02565.x To summarise: when potatoes are stored cold there is an imbalance between the rate of starch breakdown and the rate of sugar utilisation by the cells, presumably because their metabolic rate is decreased by more than the rate of starch breakdown. This leads to a build-up of free sugars. These, on frying the potato, undergo the Maillard reaction with amino acids, leading to dark brown compounds. (Apparently if the amino acid is asparagine, acrylamide can be formed, which is a suspected carcinogen. Yikes!) But in spite of this, potatoes are commercially kept in a cold store, to stop them sprouting or going off. So the solution seems to be to use the freshest potatoes you can get. Possibly better from a market stall than a supermarket, though not necessarily: all depends on time between field and sale. Possibly best to fry potatoes in the summer and autumn, when they have not been kept so long, as well. Anyway, a few things to try.

This is really interesting and may provide the answer to something that has bothered me for a while as a cook. When I make sauté potatoes, I generally steam them first, then slice them (skin still on) and fry them in hot oil. If I use a floury variety, they generally come out golden and crisp on the outside, which is what I am aiming for. However sometimes I find this fails and instead they go dark brown in patches, don't crisp up, leaving them unpleasantly oily, and taste sweet. I had put this down to sugars forming, which caramelise on frying, but could not work out why this sometimes happens and sometimes doesn't, even when consistently using the same type of potato (Maris Piper, usually). I now wonder if it could be due to the supermarket storing them at too low a temperature as, when we go to France in summer, I never have this problem. The potatoes are fresher there and probably not kept in a cold store, whereas I suspect the English supermarkets shove all their fresh produce into a cold store so it is pot luck whether or not they are there long enough to develop sugars. Do you know the mechanism of the sweetening? I assume it must be breakdown of the starch polysaccharide to sugar monomer, but what triggers that? Some enzyme?

How can you have voted only once if, before you voted against Bozo, you complain that every time you voted you got "the government?

So still 20 years off, then, as ever.

Soap, being a surfactant, tends to disrupt the bi-lipid membranes which form the cell walls of bacteria and the viral envelope. So yes it breaks them open. So far as I know, there is no special property of liquid hand soap as opposed to other kinds of soap. Soap in general works this way. Clearly though, it is best to rinse off whatever is dislodged from the surface of your hands.

I can't immediately see what makes this project fundamentally different from the other inertial confinement fusion systems that have already existed for a number of years. It's certainly not a new idea at all to blast pellets of fuel with lasers, instead of confining the plasma magnetically in a tokamak. Is it the use of boron that is new? It looks to me as if there is a good dose of hype in this article.

You've got in a slight muddle with your equation and the equilibrium constant derived from it. What you have been given is the equilibrium constant for the reaction you were given, not the new one you incorrectly generated on the basis of molecular iodine. You do not have molecular iodine here. You have iodide ions in solution. To balance the reaction there will be some cation, e.g. K+, which does not participate but features on both sides. Apart from the fact that the charges don't balance in the reaction you generated, you can't take an an equilibrium constant you have been given for one reaction and start applying it to a different reaction! I think that, as a result, you have ended up with a factor of 4 in the numerator that should not be there. I did it without that factor and got 2 roots to the quadratic, one of which is 0.38 (the other being 0.73 which is clearly nonsense in this context). With a bit of luck once you have resolved this the rest will come out.

One thing you can try is, when it is dark, get the car to face a wall, turn on the headlights with the engine off and then start the engine and rev it a bit, to 1500rpm or so. You should find the brightness when the engine is off is the same or a bit less than when the engine is running at 1500rpm. If the brightness is less with the engine running than when it is off then your alternator is not charging properly. But a voltmeter would be best. When the engine is running at 1500rpm the voltage across the battery terminals should be slightly greater than when the engine is off. If it isn't then the alternator is not working properly. (N.B. Do not be tempted to disconnect the battery terminals with the engine running, as the battery smoothes the voltage produced by the alternator. You can bugger up any electronics on the car due to spikes in voltage if you are not careful.)

The red area seems to be around the borders of Northern Nigeria, Niger and Chad. In terms of modern culture, I think this more or less where the Christian areas change to Muslim areas, as one goes North, but I don't know what peoples they actually are. (As usual I find the video tedious and a poor source of information: I'd far rather read something about this in print.)

No, there is 1 mole of new SO2 added. But that will put the system out of equilibrium, so more SO3 will form, consuming some of the oxygen as it does so. As you say, it's Le Chatelier's principle (the chemist's version of Lenz's Law 😀 ).

Yes all three are gases. If the SO3 in this 10l vessel increases from 15moles to 16 moles, one mole of O, that is, half a mole of O2, must be consumed. So on a mol/l basis, 0.05mol/l is consumed, isn't it?

I by no means exclude the possibility I may get problems like wrong, but my understanding of the scenario from the description is you have a number of moles of O2, SO2 and SO3 at equilibrium in this fixed volume vessel, and then you shove in some more SO2, thereby causing a bit more SO3 to form as equilibrium is re-established.....which will inevitably absorb a bit of O2 as it does so. The volume is fixed so it is the pressures that will alter as more gas is added, but it is all expressed in moles, so you can work with concentration in moles/litre, rather than pressures - though it comes to the same thing as long as you have close to ideal gas behaviour.

OK, so that would equate to pushing a progressively increasing proportion of photons into a condensate phase, rather than suddenly reaching a threshold, like a lambda point, at which a bulk transition of the whole system occurs, into a condensate phase. However from the phrasing in the description I'm left wondering which of the two it is. I see that, rather than compressing the photons into a smaller space, what they did was add more photons, increasing the density that way instead. The suggestion is that the compressibility suddenly dropped, as if a lambda point was reached at a certain density.

That makes sense, but in that case why does the radiation pressure almost disappear as the Bose-Einstein condensate forms? Are we saying the photons all fall into a particle-in-a-box ground state, in which they have only zero point momentum, or something? So, paradoxically, compression "cools" them?

Your logic looks right to me, certainly (well done for allowing for the decrease in free oxygen), though I don't pretend to do this sort of thing every day. You probably have a lot more practice at doing problems like this than I do. I seem to recall you have asked for confirmation of your answers before and they were OK then. I have a feeling you may be quite good at this - unless I'm mixing you up with someone else.

Haven't you forgotten to square some things in ( b )? P.S. Oh I see, it looks as if you have squared them but not shown you are doing so in the fraction you wrote down.

I trust, then, that your video makes clear the paper is not claiming to have solved the riddle of how the first replicator arose. Leaving aside the silly hype in sections of the lay press, do you have anything to say about the content of the paper?