exchemist

I’m not sure what point you are making here. Are you saying we should not indulge our imagination? Or is it just that we should not present the fruits of our imagination as settled science, perhaps?

I expect there are stats on numbers and violence of hurricanes, floods and wildfires. Also household insurance payouts for natural disasters. I don't have them to hand but maybe you could look up a few of those. I do know, from reading the Financial Times, that insurance companies are very concerned about climate change.

I recall from skiing one distinguishes between une télécabine (cable car), une télésiege (chairlift) and une tire-fesse (button lift) a.k.a téléski. Funiculaire was something else, on rails. One of my brothers went up a funicular railway in Rio which was steep enough to be rather frightening, so he dubbed it a "testicular railway", as you needed balls to get on it.

Yes I can understand the text. I can also discern its implication. Your argument here reminds me a bit of Dawkins's quip: "Show me a cultural relativist at 30,000ft and I'll show you a hypocrite." While you are not espousing cultural relativism, you are in effect claiming there is no such thing as a reliable body of human knowledge, only an individual's own direct experience. That is a (rather destructive) form of nihilism. It is also simply untenable, for the reasons @swansont has explained. Science has a methodology, by design, that accepts knowledge verified by more than one human being. We thus rely on one another's experiences and build models based on a consensus of what those experiences seem to be telling us. This is what makes science reliable - reliable enough for us to fly at 30,000ft, for instance. Something similar, though not assessed so formally, is also what makes certain sources of information credible, i.e. they have been found to be so by many human beings, over a period of time. That is why on forums like these we often ask for sources to back up claims, so that we can judge the claims based on the quality of the sources. Whereas, as we know, LLMs disturbingly often make shit up or rely on bad sources.

Absurd. Suggest you look up what reproducible observation means.

You can have antipopes though.

Hard to envisage, I think, like asking if there is anti-space. What would that look like? Matter and antimatter are entities, whereas space and time are just dimensions. So not really comparable. You can speak of going forward or backward in either space or time. But anti? What could that mean? But maybe a physicist can add more.

"A New Paradigm: Framework for Quantum Testicular Extension". How long before the first paper pitches up on this forum?

….if your balls are spread out across the universe….

Perhaps you have to work out that noble price means Nobel Prize? 🤪

As it explains (admittedly a bit confusingly badly😀), the convention is for work done on the system, i.e. when the system gains energy, to be +ve. Conversely, work done by the system, losing energy , is -ve. In this case the volume decreases, pushing the piston in. So ΔV is -ve. pΔV is therefore also -ve. But we need to express the work as +ve, in line with the convention. So we need to say that W = - pΔV. Here is a better explanation, again from the Libretext source: https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Physical_Chemistry_(LibreTexts)/19%3A_The_First_Law_of_Thermodynamics/19.02%3A_Pressure-Volume_Work This uses an integral which is better since, as V decreases, p will generally not stay constant but will increase. That means p is a function of V, so you actually need to integrate PdV with respect to V. What your text is trying to express, not very well, is the principle of integration as the limit of a sum of lots of little steps, each with a slightly bigger p than the one before. (Personally I think it's a lousy idea to try to teach the mathematical principle of integration as a sidebar to a discussion on the gas laws. In my view integration should be taught on its own, as a piece of the mathematical toolkit you need to do this kind of science. It's just confusing to cover it here.) You never answered my previous question about what text you are quoting from. Can you reply, please?

That's interesting about C₂. Do you have a link to some information about its properties? It would be particularly interesting to see if it has been possible to determine if the ground state is a triplet or a singlet. But from a teaching point of view I suspect the idea is not so much about C₂ as to teach the Aufbau filling of MOs and, importantly, the associated issues about what the order of energy levels actually is in different molecules, and why. This orbital mixing, and then the effect of relative penetration of σ orbitals and the effect of that across a period, was new to me but makes perfect sense.

OK, here is the link to what the Libretext source has to say about this:https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/University_of_California_Davis/Chem_124A%3A_Fundamentals_of_Inorganic_Chemistry/05%3A_Molecular_Orbitals/5.02%3A_Homonuclear_Diatomic_Molecules/5.2.02%3A_Orbital_Mixing If you read that and then go on to the next section, it explains why you get a different order of filling the orbitals in diatomic molecules as you go across the period. It is not really as the diagram you posted says. There is mixing in all cases but, because electrons in σ orbitals spend more time close to the atomic nuclei than those in π orbitals ( π orbitals have a node in the plane of the molecule i.e. zero electron density at the nucleus) they are more exposed to nuclear charge - which increases as you go across the period. So they get pulled down in energy (more electrostatic attraction). There is a nice diagram showing the progression: Notice how the σ orbital derived from the 2p(z)atomic orbitals comes down in energy and crosses over the level of the π orbitals between N and O. I never knew this, I'm sure. I think it's cool stuff! It's another manifestation of the topic of "penetration" and "shielding", which crops a lot in explaining various features of inorganic chemistry.

What book are you using, just out of interest? Yes I agree that, based on the diagram I provided C₂, ought to have one σ bond and the equivalent of one π bond, though I think one electron would go into each of the two, like with O₂, which would give two half π bonds and would make the molecule paramagnetic. Your source seems to say that does not happen and instead all 4 electrons go into the 2 π bonds, in which case it would be diamagnetic. That would imply that in C₂ the σ bond formed by the p(z) orbitals lies above the 2 π bonds in energy, and so is not filled. This could be accounted for by the effect of mixing, which is the subject of your other thread. (I must admit I either never knew, or have forgotten, this subtlety - I got my degree in 1976😀). But yeah the mixing of the 2 pairs of σ and σ* orbitals (originating from the 2s and 2p(z) atomic orbitals) will lead to a greater energy separation of the 4 levels with the lowest bonding one becoming even more stable, but the second bonding one being a bit higher than before, which could shift it above the two π orbitals. I'll pop a link to the Libretext page on orbital mixing in your other thread, so suggest taking a look at that.

Maths is not science. Science is about accounting for what we observe in the natural world. Many of the sciences use maths, but maths has a lot of other applications and also, as pure mathematics, exists as an abstract discipline in its own right. But we are at the root of the problem now. Your AI's Axiom 1 asserts something that everyone else in this discussion would dispute, namely that every event has to have a direct cause. Then, after a lot of rather pointless AI flannel, you conclude, unsurprisingly, that this Axiom 1 of yours would imply that QM has to be incomplete and there must be hidden variables - which you then suggest require extra dimensions as there is no observational evidence for them. Axiom 1 is wrong. It is not the case that allowing the possibility of events with no direct cause defies reason. That is just your personal opinion. It is perfectly possible, using reason, to postulate that some events have no direct cause (e.g. neutron decay), or that their precise outcomes cannot be precisely predicted (the appearance of spots on a screen downstream of a diffraction slit.) That, after all, is what we observe, and QM has a whole theory, carefully reasoned out, to explain how that can actually happen, in terms of non-commuting operators, Fourier transform relationships and the rest.

To check you have understood (and to show you are not a robot), could you please describe to me which MOs on that energy level diagram would be populated with electrons in the case of C₂ and what bond order would result. As to resources, there are plenty of books. Your teacher should be able to recommend a suitable one for your level. For on-line resources I often find this source is helpful: https://chem.libretexts.org

Last time I provided an answer I got no acknowledgement from you, so I have no idea whether my response was helpful to you or not (assuming you are a person and not a robot). I'm tempted not to bother this time.

This sounds like pompous bullshit to me, but I’m not a medical expert. Who are the authors?

I remember reading that it is a myth that you would be spaghettified. I think.

I was amused to see that Sam Bankrun-Fraud also went in for this TESCREAL crap.😁

I’m now fairly convinced his entire exercise is begging the question by assuming at the outset the truth of the proposition he wants to prove.

Changing the model is exactly what is being pursued, both through MOND and through extensions to particle physics. Waving your hands with woolly notions of some time lag phenomenon that you have not even described coherently, let alone modelled mathematically, does not really help. What, exactly, are you proposing, please? Describe it clearly and show how the rotation curves can thereby be accounted for.

Reported as spam.

But none of the processes you mention suddenly change the amount of mass/energy present. So there will not be any sudden change in the gravitational field to propagate outward at c. You can certainly get gravitational waves of course, due to large masses in relative motion, and waves these propagate at c, but the effect of them is very small. No one has been able to attribute the anomalous rotation curves of galaxies to any such effect. If you think otherwise it is up to you do the maths to show what all these astronomers have missed, not just wave your hands.

White noise conveys no information.