exchemist

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?

This is a fairly arid speculation since no one claims physics is complete and there are reasons to think the laws as we understand them may not have been applicable in the first instants of existence of the cosmos. As to something coming from nothing, that is exactly what these virtual particles you have been complaining about represent, due to operation of the uncertainty principle. Things have moved on a bit since the time of Parmenides, as this Wiki article points out: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_comes_from_nothing

Fair enough. Do you have any idea what this vast non-combustion source of CO2 could be in Canada? (If you go to the link and click on each country, you get a bar graph and pie chart breaking down the contributions.)

Actually, some of us do wonder why you are here. You seem armed with all sorts of information, yet contrive somehow to talk almost exclusively out of your arse. I suppose it must the goddess Kali’s doing.

Aha, that’s it! Then I was being unfair to the poster who I thought was talking gibberish. (It was the drives lasting longer than 10 seconds that really threw me.) I must admit I am not sure how useful electrochemical réduction of CO2 to carbon really is, considering the energy input required.

Oh no, not this rubbish again. (My grandmother ate Energen rolls as part of her calorie-controlled diet.)

You are by your own admission no scientist, yet, quick as a flash, you present one cherry-picked study, out of thousands, that has not been peer-reviewed. How very mysterious. Goddess Kali again, perhaps?😆 But seriously, in this thread you were shown a peer-reviewed study, reported in Nature, showing that infection with Omicron following vaccination confers broad protection against a wide range of variants, while simple infection by Omicron of unvaccinated individuals did not. Here’s the link again: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04865-0 What hysterical balls.

That Worldometer site only looks at CO2, not all greenhouse emissions. So meat-eating etc is not factored in. It does not seem clear how they calculate the numbers, so I can’t see whether emissions related to fossil fuel extraction are included or not, but I suspect they will be. Assigning “blame” is not what per capita figures are about, though, surely. What they do is focus minds on economies and societal lifestyles, as people try to work out why one number is higher than another. What sticks out in the case of Canada is the huge amount of “non-combustion” emission, over 20% of the total. I don’t know what this is, but it cries out for an explanation.

But far less in the vaccinated, as levels of virus in an infected person who has been vaccinated are much lower (that’s why they don’t get so ill, you see) and the duration of infection is far shorter. So vaccination greatly reduces the opportunities for the virus to mutate.

No, work is a form of energy. A force, acting through a distance, F x d, = W. Mechanical work is one form of energy. For example if you lift a mass you exert a force to overcome gravity and do work on the object, thereby increasing its gravitational potential energy. To say energy “directs” work makes no sense.

So he went into the garden to cut a cabbage leaf to make an apple pie. Just then, a great she bear popped her head into the corner of the shop and said, “What? No soap? So he died, and she very imprudently married the barber.......(continues)........

I seem to remember it can be more complicated than that in transition metal compounds, due to the presence of multiple valence electrons and the effect of the ligands on the relative stability of various d orbitals: cf. crystal (or ligand) field theory. But I have no idea how the crystal structure of minerals might be affected in a meteorite impact event.