Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by exchemist

  1. 1 hour ago, Dhamnekar Win,odd said:

     I tag this question as 'SOLVED' as I got correct  answers to all my questions. ☺️

    Well done! 

    I look forward to your next enquiry. I'm having to dredge things up from the depths of my memory - which is a good process.  

  2. 39 minutes ago, Fanghur said:

    Does anyone know whether the whole ‘syzygy’ thing in the lore of the Destiny series is actually scientifically plausible? Basically, the idea is that that the species that would become the Hive lived on a water giant (the lore calls it a gas giant, but I’m almost certain that was just a goof) called Fundament with a huge number of moons, and they learned that at some point all the planets moons would align, and their combined gravity would produce a massive tidal bulge that would be abruptly released once they moved out of alignment. Producing what basically amounts to an apocalyptic mega tsunami. I’m very skeptical that this could happen as described, but I’m just curious if there is any scientific validity to it whatsoever? 

    Note: what I’ve described here is entirely within the game’s background lore. There are no actual plot spoilers here.



    Presumably someone was having a laugh, as "fundament" is or was a euphemism for bottom or arse. Perhaps the "moon" business is part of the same joke.

    But I don't see why multiple moons can't align at some point and presumably this would then create a combined tidal effect on the planet's surface.  

  3. 1 hour ago, joigus said:

    I know the answer to the 1st one: It's the linearised Arrhenius equation:


    \ln(k)=\ln(A)-{\frac  {E_{a}}{R}}\left({\frac  {1}{T}}\right)

    which relates pH, pka, and activation energy with absolute temperature.

    I hope that helps.

    Shome mishtake shurely?

    This doesn't seem to me to be about reaction rates. pKa relates to the equilibrium constant for dissociation of an acid.

    I would think -RTlnK =  ΔG = ΔH - TΔS would be where the first equation comes from, wouldn't it? 

    Regarding "f", seeing pH and pKa subtracted from each other reminds me of the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation. 

    Perhaps our friend can take things from there......... 

    (On past form this may be some kind of homework, so I'm not going to get enmeshed in the algebra myself.)

  4. 11 hours ago, Externet said:

    Now am more confused than before.  Common Na, K, Cl, Ca are not the desired elements to collect/deposit in the electrodes.  

    Do you have any particular elements in mind that you want to extract from seawater, by electrolysis?

    As @chenbeier indicates, there is a general issue with electrolysis from aqueous solutions, in that cations of elements with -ve reduction potential relative to H (which is set at zero by convention), won't be reduced at the cathode, because H+ from the water will be preferentially reduced instead. So what you get is evolution of H2 gas - and a corresponding gradual accumulation of OH-.

    This applies for example to lithium, which is of current interest as it is present at low concentrations in seawater and is in high demand for batteries.  There is a paper here about a technique for extraction of Li from seawater via electrolysis: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435118302927 You will see that a key feature of this concept is getting Li+ ions alone to pass through a selective membrane from the seawater into a different electrolyte that contains no H+, thereby avoiding the problem of competition at the cathode from H+ which is more easily reduced than Li+.

    This is quite clever, as it has to leave Na+, H+ and other species behind and only allow Li+ to be transported across. I imagine this will be to do with the state of hydration of the ions (you never have "naked" cations in aqueous solution) and how to break the hydration shell around Li+, only, to get "naked" Li+ through the membrane.  But I'm speculating.    

  5. 33 minutes ago, avicenna said:

    In a capacitor discharge through a plain resistor, the capacitor power supplied at any instant is VI; the power dissipated in the resistor is I²R. So VI = I²R.

    Consider a railgun operated with a capacitor bank. At any instant of capacitor discharge, the power supplied is VI. The total power supplied for ohmic loss is sum I²R for two rails plus the resistance of the armature.

    Question: Since VI = total I²R, how can the power equation include the kinetic energy supplied to the armature?


    I should imagine it will be the same as any electric motor. In the stall condition all the power goes into ohmic loss, but as the motor picks up speed a back e.m.f. develops and it becomes more complicated. So I think the answer is that VI = I²R no longer describes the situation. But I'm very rusty on this: the last time I really studied it was for A Level in 1971.  I seem to recall that the power of the motor is actually given by the back e.m. f multiplied by the current, so in total you end up with: VI = EI + I²R. 

    But no doubt someone will correct me if this is wrong.

  6. 48 minutes ago, iNow said:

    I'm noticing a pattern, too, specifically one demonstrative of schizoid tendencies. 

    Agreed. Not being a professional in mental illness, I see little to be gained from engaging someone who seems to be suffering from it.   

  7. 1 hour ago, mr_keybay said:

    All the more reason, the fact that there is a variable definition of observation time from country to country (and the subsequent procedures with observed informations) and, as you said, the lack of oxygen implies an immediate degradation of the brain structures - what kind of sense would it make for politics to entrust the management of the dead to ideologies rather than science when science has all the necessary details about the "end" of that individual, especially in modern cultures where the greatest credit is given to science in the first place? (eg. without a unique identifying solution such as the lost of circulation system - which naturally implies that the brain would lose the main "tool" not to go into a degradation state? Isn't that a good reason for politics to consider the stop of cardiopulmonary system as the main factor to determine death, but strangely there are still differences of the chosen methods?)


    This appears to be gibberish, unconnected with the passage from my post that you are quoting. 

  8. 1 hour ago, mr_keybay said:

    Of course, given that is obvious fact - then why the society "rules" would differ each other, each Nation to something that's supposed to be scientific - such as death; a scientific truth - when (or if) the science, as you addressed, has a solid definition regarding what constitutes death? This is my question. By this question, it gives me the "indirect proof" that science cannot provide further details to give a provide a clear explanation to what constitutes "death", the "end" or, admitting it actually can, it gets to very ambiguous conclusions. Despite I think I have asked the same question to you for thousands times, remarked as the core of the thesis inside thread in question, everyone seemed to ignore it. I would even go further; in some reports, people revealed not only a different kind of reality during the particular cognitive experience, but verifiable events occurred in the current reality, targeted as "OBE", that later have been proven by the other subjects who participated the specific described events. Whatever you don't agree to the various citations of mine, defining them "anecdotes", I can't do nothing, but many researchers know that this is not the case. It's pretty obvious that you cannot reproduce any of the reported perceptions with a flat EEG, how do you expect to do so? Therefore, that doesn't automatically mean the facts do not exist, that people are lying, that I am lying, that you must have no interest for.

    I have just told you why the legal definition of death may differ between countries, in spite of the science being the same. I will spell it out even more explicitly for you:

    Law is drafted by legislators, not by scientists. A legislator may understand the science or may not. He or she may  also listen to the medical profession, the police, religious leaders, pressure groups of various kinds, and also be aware of the prevailing culture of the society he or she is legislating for. 

    A legal definition has to be something that can be established reasonably easily by the medical profession and the police and for which documentary evidence can be produced in court. In the UK, a doctor has to sign a death certificate, which pushes the responsibility for the decision onto the doctor - a sensible thing to do, given that medical practice and techniques do not stand still. There is a description of how this works out in practice, for the UK, in this article: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)61064-9/fulltext

    As for your anecdotes, they ( a ) do not meet the criteria for scientific evidence and ( b ) they conflict with the current understanding of the relevant science, viz. the rapid and irreversible deterioration of the brain in the absence of oxygen and the significance of the cessation of measurable electrical activity in the brain. That being so,  someone who claims the science is wrong needs to produce new, properly monitored and documented evidence of that. You haven't.     

  9. 14 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

    For every, negative, action there is a positive action; in life two negatives doesn't produce a positive; for instance, if I don't have two sheep and I take away two sheep, how do I suddenly have four sheep?

    This is elementary short trading, surely. You have information that the price of sheep is about to fall dramatically. So you arrange to sell 2 sheep you don't have, borrowing them from someone else, then, when the price of sheep drops, you may be able to buy back 6 sheep with the money you got from selling the 2 you borrowed. You then give 2 back to the owner........... and you have a profit of 4 sheep. 😁

  10. 2 hours ago, mr_keybay said:

    So you go out to the conclusion that this is not a scientific occur or evidence for that matter? Also, given what you are addressing, how the "NDE" term would stand from if there would be no a particular clinical state defining such unexpected perceptions, cognitive experiences? The fact that "NDE" would heppen while active electrical brain activity is going to falsify the particularity of phenomenon, isn't it obvious? If the cognitive experience heppens during an active electrical activity I don't see how it could be even considered as particular cognitive experience, as in that case it's pretty clear the against-proof which resides on the observable EEG from the brain; in fact, it could be nicely associated from this physical reason.

    Yet, apparently, you cannot properly define what you actually mean from the term of death. Let's make it clear: Nothing we can discuss that the death can be considered whenever the brain stops emitting the usual signals, no matter the time, no matter the time and no matter the "space". You stated that for several times as well, please don't lie to yourself. Even if the brain does not produce any actual signal for a single instant, it is dead or, at least, considerable as scientifically "brain death". Since now, although, it has to follow an accurate definitive announcement as "death", which solely consists in the time-lapse since the cessation of activities that are entirely established by laws. Nothing more. The only difference between those two facts is this: one of the cases explained above is dead (but restores its activity because the absence was very short), the second one shows that definitive announcement of death can be made after the brain does not restore its faculties inside the established time limit. Who establishes such temporal limit? Certainly not the science as it has no actual proof whenever a brain can be considered as dead and whenever not, it's then up to the laws (based upon ethics, literature, politics) to decide when it's time to plug off the life. What do you dispute me regarding the above claims?

    Determining death has considerable legal consequences so it is inevitable that death must in practice have a definition in law. This legal definition, drafted by legislators as it will be, may differ somewhat from one country to another. But you cannot use that to draw any scientific conclusions. The law is not science. The law sets up rules that society agrees to be bound by. As such it may have to take account of a range of human, social, religious and political factors as well as science. 

    For science, you need reproducible evidence. Arguing about law is utterly irrelevant. You've been told several times how death is established scientifically, but you seem to want to cling on to the notion that a person can be revived after circulation has stopped and brain activity has ceased for an extended period. This is contrary to current understanding. 

    It is you that needs to substantiate that claim, by producing well-attested evidence of people whose brain activity has definitively been established to have ceased for a period of time, but who nonetheless have been revived. So far you have not done so. All I have seen from you is a collection of anecdotes, not involving any proper scientific monitoring, taken from newspapers etc. and a lot of argument. That is nowhere near good enough. You have not made your case. Where is the data?



  11. 3 hours ago, Mr.Cat said:


    In 2004, Michael Behe co-published a study in Protein Science with physicist David Snoke showing that if multiple mutations were required to produce a functional bond between two proteins, then “the mechanism of gene duplication and point mutation alone would be ineffective because few multicellular species reach the required population sizes.” In 2008, Behe and Snoke’s critics tried to refute them in the journal Genetics, but failed. The critics found that, in a human population, to obtain only two simultaneous mutations via Darwinian evolution “would take > 100 million years,” which they admitted was “very unlikely to occur on a reasonable timescale.” It’s becoming increasingly clear that many such “multi-mutation features,” which would require multiple mutations before providing any benefit, are likely to exist in biology.


    This is in fact untrue.  I quote from one commentator in 2006, after the Kitzmiller trial which basically destroyed ID:

    "We all remember a few years ago as Dembski spoke breathlessly about how Behe and Snoke's upcoming 2004 paper "may well be the nail in the coffin [and] the crumbling of the Berlin wall of Darwinian evolution." In fact, that paper ended up as one of the nails in the ID coffin in the Kitzmiller trial, as Behe was forced to admit  under oath that their computer simulation had in fact concluded that an irreducibly complex protein binding site could evolve in only 20,000 years even when the parameters of the experiment were purposely rigged to make it as unlikely as possible."

    I think that's rather funny. Hahaha. 



  12. 34 minutes ago, Mr.Cat said:

    DNA is likely designed
    Many patterns occur in nature without the help of a designer – snowflakes, tornados, hurricanes, sand dunes, stalactites, rivers and ocean waves.  These patterns are the natural result of what scientists categorize as chaos and fractals.  These things are well-understood and we experience them every day. Codes, however, do not occur without a designer from what the evidence suggest so far. We know of millions of examples of intelligence producing codes, yet non that dont include intelligence. Examples of symbolic codes include music, blueprints, languages like English and Chinese, computer programs, and yes, DNA.  The essential distinction is the difference between a pattern and a code.  Chaos can produce patterns, but it has never been shown to produce codes or symbols.  Codes and symbols store information, which is not a property of matter and energy alone.  Information itself is a separate entity on par with matter and energy. (1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.  (2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind.  (3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind, and language and information are proof of the action of a Superintelligence.

    Similarly, the word “Evolution” in the English language always refers to an intelligent process (in business, society, technology etc.) and the only usage in which it allegedly doesn’t is naturalistic Darwinian evolution. Why this exception?

    All natural complex processes are irreversible - Entropy
    This phenomenon of irreversibility results from the fact that if a thermodynamic system – which really means any system of sufficient complexity – of interacting molecules is brought from one thermodynamic state to another, the configuration or arrangement of the atoms and molecules in the system will change in a way that is not easily predictable.

    During transformation, there will be a certain amount of heat energy loss or dissipation due to inter molecular friction and collisions. A certain amount of “transformation energy” S will be expended as the molecules of the “working body” do work on each other when they change from one state to another.  Should the process be reversed, that energy S will typically NOT be recoverable. Theoretically-speaking, a reversible process, or reversible cycle, can be “reversed” by means of applying infinitesimal changes to some property of the system, as long as this process can occur without entropy production – that is to say, without any dissipation of energy in the system.

    Due to these infinitesimal changes, the system remains in thermodynamic equilibrium throughout the entire process.  BUT… and it’s a big but…

    Since it would take an infinite amount of time for the reversible process to finish, perfectly reversible processes are impossible. A system that undergoes an irreversible process may still be capable of returning to its initial state.  However, the impossibility occurs in restoring the environment to its own initial conditions because an irreversible process increases the entropy of the Universe. But, because entropy is a state function, the change in entropy of a system is the same whether the process is reversible or irreversible.  The second law of thermodynamics can be used to determine whether a process is reversible or not.

    Defining Entropy
    Broadly speaking, entropy is then a measure of ‘disorder’. Classic examples for depicting entropy include:

    a dropped cup or egg: it will smash into pieces upon reaching the floor, but those pieces will never spontaneously recombine back into a cup or an unbroken egg. a hot cup of coffee: it will always cool down if left untouched, but it will never draw warmth from a room to heat itself back up.

    what does this has to do with our subject?

    According to Darwinian evolution, the necessities of the environment, random mutation and natural selection working together caused the antelope to grow a longer neck and become a giraffe.  Natural Selection is perfectly valid and has been proven time and time again.
    But most people will be very surprised to discover that no one has ever actually demonstrated that random mutation can create new information. In communication systems, Random Mutation is exactly the same as noise, and noise always destroys the signal, never enhances it similar to entropy.
    A Snowy TV In communication systems is called information entropy, and the formula for information entropy is exactly the same as thermodynamic entropy.  Once lost, the information can never be recovered, much less enhanced. In a similar sense, random mutations will act the same way, thus random mutation is probably not the source of biodiversity. Not only that, but as mentioned previously, random mutation hasn't demonstrated the ability to create new information in a lab.

    Fruit Fly
    This observation is also confirmed biologically by Theodosius Dobzhansky’s fruit fly radiation experiments, Goldschmidt’s gypsy moth experiments, and others.  Decades of research were conducted in the early 20 th century, bombarding fruit flies and moths with radiation in hope of mutating their DNA and producing improved creatures.  These experiments were a total failure – there were no observed improvements – only weak, sickly, deformed fruit flies.  Giraffes may have evolved from antelopes – that is not the argument, and I remain open to the possibility that it did. But it certainly wasn’t because of Random Mutation!

    In defense
    Technically there are some ways "new information" can be created with Gene Duplication yet during the actual gene-duplication process, a pre-existing gene is merely copied, and nothing truly new is generated. Also perhaps in some cases mutations can “undo” anything they “can do but the proponents of intelligent design aren’t asking how complex structures can degrade, but rather how complex structures can be built in the first place.

    In 2004, Michael Behe co-published a study in Protein Science with physicist David Snoke showing that if multiple mutations were required to produce a functional bond between two proteins, then “the mechanism of gene duplication and point mutation alone would be ineffective because few multicellular species reach the required population sizes.” In 2008, Behe and Snoke’s critics tried to refute them in the journal Genetics, but failed. The critics found that, in a human population, to obtain only two simultaneous mutations via Darwinian evolution “would take > 100 million years,” which they admitted was “very unlikely to occur on a reasonable timescale.” It’s becoming increasingly clear that many such “multi-mutation features,” which would require multiple mutations before providing any benefit, are likely to exist in biology.

    Douglas Axe demonstrated the inability of Darwinian evolution to produce multi-mutation features in a 2010 peer-reviewed study. Axe calculated that when a “multi-mutation feature” requires more than six mutations before giving any benefit, it is unlikely to arise even in the whole history of the Earth.4 He provided empirical backing for this conclusion from experimental research he earlier published in the Journal of Molecular Biology, finding that only one in 1074 amino-acid sequences yields functional protein folds. That implies that protein folds in general are multi-mutation features, requiring many amino acids to be fixed before the assembly provides any functional advantage.

    Another study by Axe and Ann Gauger found that merely converting one enzyme into a closely related enzyme — the kind of conversion that evolutionists claim can easily happen — would require a minimum of seven simultaneous changes, exceeding the probabilistic resources available for evolution over the Earth’s history. This data implies that many biochemical features are so complex that they would require many mutations before providing any advantage to an organism, and would thus be beyond the “edge” of what Darwinian evolution can do.

    An empirical study by Gauger and biologist Ralph Seelke similarly found that when merely two mutations along a stepwise pathway were required to restore function to a bacterial gene, even then the Darwinian mechanism failed. The reason the gene could not be fixed was because it got stuck on a local fitness maxima, where it was more advantageous to delete a weakly functional gene than to continue to express it in the hope that it would “find” the mutations that fixed the gene.

    This corroborates a 2010 review paper by Michael Behe in Quarterly Review of Biology which found that when bacteria and viruses undergo adaptations at the molecular level, they tend to lose or diminish molecular functions.

    The problem here, again, is that sometimes mutations can’t “do” what they can “undo”: sometimes it’s more advantageous in the short term to take a path that leads away from a complex structure, even if that structure would lead to a significant advantage.

    The take-home message here is that the Intelligent design movement is producing both empirical and theoretical research showing that when multiple mutations are required before conferring any advantage on an organism, the “waiting time” for those mutations is often beyond the time available over the entire history of the Earth. There are good reasons to expect that random mutations cannot build many complex features we see in biology. Some non-random process that can “look ahead” and find complex advantageous features is necessary.

    Order versus Disorder.
    There are some things that we know happen constantly. Things tend to go from order to disorder.. Order can create order easily, (humans giving birth to other humans or creating codes as mentioned previously, music, structures like the pyramids of Giza..etc). Disorder can sometimes create order as well, but the probability for disorder to create order is very very very small.. Considering an intelligent being as orderly (or maybe order itself?), wouldn't the natural path to human existence and life itself (something orderly) come easier from something with orderly characteristics similar to its creation rather than disorder? (chance?)

    Evidence in science and scientific theories
    In science the primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof... and evidence has many forms. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists have to prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem. In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory.

    There is no better theory?
    So its puzzling to put is nicely as to why the currently accepted theory for our creation and everything around us is a process that starts from disorder and ends to order. It almost seems as if science goes backwards here. To believe that matter organized itself into complex information systems against everything we know and observe obviously requires faith. Not only faith, but blind faith!

    To point out the burden placed on chance by evolution, Allen Cornell, in the journal, “Firm Foundation” calculated the likelihood that one million monkeys typing randomly would produce the phrase “Why not creation?”  If the monkeys typed at the rate of 10 keys per second, all worked 24 hours a day, all have typewriters equipped with only 30 keys (26 capital letters, three punctuation marks, and a space key) and hit the keys entirely at random the monkeys would produce the phrase once every 41 billion years and this phrase is infinitely simpler than the smallest life form.

    Furthermore, he says, “The burden on chance does not just occur at the point of the origin of life.  It reoccurs at every point in the evolutionary concept that demands the emergence of an entire new protein molecule.  The genetic material, and the proteins that it codes for the production of, is the point where we have to place unmerited faith in chance.”  Not only this, but the necessity of chance in the evolution of the plant world is also often overlooked.

    Order points to a designer everywhere
    If you find a deck of cards, the odds of it being in any particular order are 1 in 10^68. So if it is a Jack of Spades, followed by a Queen of Hearts, followed by a 1 of Diamonds, the chances are not good enough to claim that someone did it. however, if you find it in order, we can safely say that we have more evidence that it was arranged by someone with the intent of ordering the cards numerically than saying it is there by chance. This is exactly how detectives solve crimes. They are looking for patterns of order and repetition to come to a conclusion and follow a path that will lead them to finding the murderer. Lets add another example. When you see the ancient pyramid, a structure with order. Do you assume it was randomly formed that way or do you assume that it is made by an intelligent civilization? So how come with evolution we conclude the opposite?

    The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution
    Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. For example, consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense.

    Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most.

    But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."

    Someone might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021.

    All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible with the knowledge have so far!

    Alien life
    Its also important to point out how unlikely it is we are the first ever life form created in the whole universe if life is something that is created by chance or some unknown law. Even worst, if we assume that our universe is infinite not only our chances that we are the first is unlikely but impossible. Why do i mention life on earth being the first? Because if we are not the first life form in existence then it would be more likely even if an Alien civilization (a orderly being) designed our DNA or a version of it than our DNA being created directly from chance alone.

    To go back to the original argument of this point. Why is it, that a theory like that of intelligent design is not supported more than the theory of chance by scientists considering the fact that the evidence show order is more likely to come from order and not disorder and everything mentioned previously?

    Consciousness (the philosophically colloquial 'type' of consciousness)
    Even if we can come up with a theory about the origin of life outside of intelligent design, it is impossible to come up with a theory on consciousness and the reason of its evolution from chance. Explaining how something as complex as consciousness can emerge from a grey, jelly-like lump of tissue in the head is arguably the greatest scientific challenge of our time. The brain is an extraordinarily complex organ, consisting of almost 100 billion cells – known as neurons – each connected to 10,000 others, yielding some ten trillion nerve connections.

    We have made a great deal of progress in understanding brain activity, and how it contributes to human behaviour. But what no one has so far managed to explain is how all of this results in feelings, emotions and experiences. How does the passing around of electrical and chemical signals between neurons result in a feeling of pain or an experience of red? One reason is that consciousness is unobservable. You can’t look inside someone’s head and see their feelings and experiences. If we were just going off what we can observe from a third-person perspective, we would have no grounds for postulating consciousness at all. We know that consciousness exists not through experiments but through our immediate awareness of our feelings and experiences. The argument here is that not only consciousness is not needed for evolution to occur (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie), but there is ultimately no reason for consciousness to evolve if we assume life is not designed but rather its the result of a process based on chance. If we on the other hand assume that life was designed, consciousness then can be explained as being an intentional piece of the creation by the designer and thus part of the creation. Lastly, If we assume that consciousness was always a part of the universe or matter (something scientific materialism and scientist who support this idea like to assume) then that would mean the universe is conscious since consciousness is part of the universe. If the universe is  conscious then this again suggests intelligent design.


    This is very tedious.

    You do not understand entropy for a start. There is no reason why nature cannot spontaneously produce a lower entropy system from  a higher entropy one, provided more entropy is created in the process elsewhere. This is what  happens every time a crystal forms, for instance.

    Secondly, the whole notion of "design" in nature is a useless concept from a scientific point of view, because there is no way to define it objectively.  There is thus no way to determine whether or not anything is designed.

    Thirdly, the pseudoscience of Intelligent Design was blown out out of the water years ago and its founder (a lawyer of course, not a scientist) is now dead.  


  13. 9 minutes ago, King E said:

    It was about epsilon, in case of refraction.

    You mean ε as in the formula for refractive index n=√(εᵣμᵣ) ?

    What happens is that the bonding electrons couple to the radiation, which can be thought of as a sort of forced resonance oscillation, in which the forcing is due to the oscillating electric vector of the radiation. This has the effect of changing the phase velocity of the light. It is a result of the material being polarisable by the light.  

    The degree to which this occurs depends on the frequency of the light, making the refractive index different for different frequencies of radiation. This is what is called "dispersion" and is why a prism (or a raindrop) can split white light into the colours of the rainbow.

    What is interesting to me, from the point of view of physical chemistry, is that the polarisability and the change in phase velocity become greater and greater, as the frequency gets closer and closer to an absorption frequency for the material. At the absorption frequency itself, you have the limiting case, in which the material becomes effectively infinitely polarisable, the phase velocity becomes zero - and the material is then opaque and absorbs the light.

    In the case of silica (glass) there is an absorption band is in the UV, which occurs where the electrons in the Si-O bonds jump to a different, higher energy, molecular orbital. (There is another absorption band in the IR, which is due to excitation of a collective mode of vibration of the bonds in the crystal structure.)

    So what is happening with refraction is that the light undergoes a kind of temporary pseudo-absorption and re-emission process as it passes through. It is not a real absorption however. It's more as if the light finds itself walking on a spongy, bouncy trampoline, which slows it down. (The real model for this process requires a lot of QM maths involving perturbation theory, which I once knew at university but have long since forgotten.) 

  14. 46 minutes ago, swansont said:

    Some materials are polar - they have a charge distribution, even though they are neutral. There's no net effect if they are randomly oriented, but in a field, they tend to align. And most atoms will become dipoles (induced dipole) in the presence of an electric field. This charge distribution will affect the net electric field inside a material.


    Yes. In the case of the polarisation in glass induced by EM radiation, we have to be talking about induced dipoles, i.e. in the electron distribution. One would not want to give the impression that light is able to alter the arrangement of the Si (δ+) and O (δ-) atoms in the crystal structure.

    But I do feel it would help to know what the context is for the poster's question. It could be to do with reflection, or with refractive index, or perhaps something else.  


  15. 28 minutes ago, King E said:


    You are not providing much context to your enquiry, and this response of yours is similarly not one to which an informative response can be made.

    If you could explain in more detail what phenomenon you are trying to understand, we can help you further. As it is, all I can usefully say is that glass is polarisable, due to the electrons in its chemical bonds (the valence electrons). 

  16. 7 hours ago, King E said:

    I learned from a source that when external magnetic field is applied, parallel spin/spin up has lower energy than spin down. But why? How does this relate to two like poles of magnets facing each other and two unlike poles facing each other?



    It's like a compass needle. The configuration it spontaneously takes up is the one aligned with the Earth's magnetic field because that is the state of lowest energy. The opposite orientation is the one with the highest energy. The lowest energy is when the N pole of the needle is facing the S pole from the surrounding field, i.e. you have N-(S-N)-S rather than N-(N-S)-S.

    That's what the animated diagram in the link is illustrating. However in the case of the electron or nucleus, the quantum-allowed orientations are only partially aligned with or against the prevailing field, hence the 2 diagonal orientations shown in the animation.  

  17. 9 minutes ago, koti said:

    The point of this thread are concerns that a young black woman expresses towards the affirmative action involved in nominating another black woman to supre court. Shes concerned that all people involved are essencially striped og their dignity through the actions taken. With all due respect swansont but you don’t give a s..t about these points she’s raising which I’m showing here so don’t expect me to follow your deviation from the core subject here. 

    I must say I find that argument disingenuous bullshit. I and several others have given good reasons why it makes sense for the make-up of the highest court to have representation from a variety of the social groups whose laws they have to interpret. 

    There is no suggestion by anybody serious that a professionally inadequate candidate has been selected, because of skin colour. Not even Petersen alleges that this candidate is not fully competent to do the job. And the US Senate has agreed she is competent. So it is pure hysteria to suggest  anyone is being "stripped of their dignity" by this process. What rot. 

  18. 3 hours ago, JamesL said:

     There is a basic flaw in the logic of why perpetual motion is impossible. When an object accelerates for 2 seconds, if it weighs 1kg

    then it's energy will be 192.4722 J while at 9.81m/s it has 48.11805 J of kinetic energy.
     Why this matters is I've been needing an ileostomy for over 10 years.

    The biggest hold up has been people saying "well scientists say it's impossible, 2nd law of thermodynamics".

     A working Bessler Wheel will clearly demonstrate that scientists ignored their own laws of physics. And as a result people attacked me

    for considering engineering and conservation of energy. No one has ever shown that when an object is accelerated by gravity that it's

    kinetic energy does not increase and as I mentioned, the Earth's gravity is an external force.

     As I work at this build I am doing, I will enjoy thinking about this. What you'll need to understand is I've done the math and the tests. The

    work I am doing is based on empirical evidence which is quantum theory. Until something is observed we can not know what it is. Relativity

    allows for predicting a phenomena before observing such as light bending more than matter when passing near the Sun.

      This is because Einstein believed that light was propagated by something (aether). And with light, it interacts equally with space and time. That

    suggests energy because it's not interacting with gravity. Matter interacts with gravity. Why they have 2 different paths when passing

    near the Sun. This has been written about for almost 100 years. The distinction I made between relativity and quantum theory goes to a discussion

    Einstein had with I believe it was Niels Bohr.

     And this gets into the atmospheric chemistry that I've been pursuing. And Bessler's Wheel will help me to have a life. :)


    Oh dear. I'm not a doctor but your last two posts look to me very much like "word salad", in its medical sense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad

    I suggest you seek psychiatric help, if you are not already getting it. 

    And I'm now out of this discussion.

  19. 24 minutes ago, koti said:

    What Peterson is saying is that it was decided prior that a black female will be nominated and that affirmative action is essencially robing all people involved, it seems to me that this is a deeper subject than "you need justices that represent the range of people they are judging"


    What do you mean ?

    It is recognised in a number of jurisdictions, including the UK, that senior judges, because they are appointed towards the end of distinguished legal careers, tend to reflect the social makeup of the legal profession 30 years before. Judges are famous for being a bit out of touch. Yet these people make the law, today, for the whole of society.

    It can make sense, therefore, to prefer a candidate -  if, as in this case, a sufficiently able one is available - that widens the range of social representation on the bench. 

    (You can look up tosser if you like - it is impolite and chosen for that reason.)

  20. 16 minutes ago, koti said:

    Jordan Peterson said something along the lines of the Supreme court nomination being racist from the begining because the US administration said they are going to pick a black female and people do not understand what the issue is with affirmative action, he states that not only it is racist because we are ignoring an entire set of people who have appplied for this job but we are actually creating a climate of racism because now as individuals we have to look at people of color who are in these high positions and were going to say - Did you really get that position based on your merit or did you get it because youre black or youre female? And the people involved are going to look at themselves and ask themselves - Did I get that based on merit or did I get it because I'm a black person? Which in result he states, robs every single person involved in this situation.

    I'm curious what folks think about this.

    You need justices that represent the range of people they are judging. And by any standards this candidate seems better qualified than some of the recent appointees. If she were no good she would not have been confirmed. 

    (Peterson is a bit of a tosser, in my opinion.) 

  21. 18 hours ago, JamesL said:

      Thanks. If you watch the wheel rotate 90º, it actually rotated more from basically an at rest position. With 4 weights, what the video

    shows is the potential for it to work. There is a lot of math involved in this because the swing of a pendulum was shifted. That's not a typical

    math problem. This is one reason why I mentioned that Bessler most likely knew analytical trigonometry. If you consider 1712, Newton published

    his En Principia in 1687 while Bessler was born in 1680.

     Both Newton and Leibniz came up with basic formulas for calculus around that time. I'll give you a basic math problem to consider, okay? We'll go

    with 1 meter and 1 kg. With the downward swing, the weight travels πm/2. The ascending weight travels (πm/2 + π0.5m/2)/2. The ascendant path is

    about 75% the length of the downward path. After this, we can get into acceleration at (9.81 m/s)/100 = 9.81 cm/ .001/s. Then with the 2 weights that are

    dead weights, f = ma. Then we have the weight wheel assembly at the bottom that is 1m sin 0º * 9.81 m/s shows how gravity is affecting it being lifted.

    Then the weight wheel 90º after top center is 1m * 9.81 cm/ .001/s. Then we could use algebra to solve this problem, right?

    And I know you guys don't like math so........I mean we're talking before calculus was invented and what built the cathedrals in Europe.


    I edited to change πm/4 to π0.5m/2. Same values but the 0.5m shows the inner position of the weight wheel. When it's at 45º, gravity's

    affect on it is *sin45 and it's moved in 1/4 of the distance to the axle. What is overlooked is that from sin45 to sin90, it's distance from

    the center-line of the axle barely changes. 30 sin45 = 21.21 while 20 sin90 = 20. Yet on the descending side, 40 sin90 = 40 while

    40 sin45 = 28.28. It's that difference that allows the wheel to conserve momentum. The wheel accelerates and then continues to run on conserved energy. And when the ascending weight is being moved inward, conservation of angular momentum applies as well.

     I think if it all works out, then Bessler will help kids to learn like he wanted to do.







    I think I may now have understood why you think that this device could work. I notice you said in your opening post that:-  

    "The trick is that the weight that rotates upwards does

    not move further away from its fulcrum at the top right of the disc. So technically no work is performed moving the weight closer

    to the axle of the wheel. The work performed is the wheel rotating." 

    It looks as if you think that because the torque exerted by the descending weight, which is at full extension along its arm, exceeds the torque due to the rising weight, which is progressively being wound in along its arm, there is a torque imbalance in favour of accelerating the wheel. This would of course be in conflict with the energy analysis, which would be that as the rising weight is returned to the same height as the descending weight, no net work is done and thus the wheel will not accelerate.

    But I think you will find there is an additional source of torque, exerted on the arm of the rising weight, due to the mechanism used to pull it in. This will exactly counteract the torque imbalance arising from the difference in leverage from the weights themselves.

    So no free lunch.    

  22. 6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

    I've not been taught philosophy, so I don't know the conventional wisdom as to what he meant by the madman parable, it's just my take on it, as I tried to explain in my tax v tythe analogy. 

    What's your, or the mainstream's, interpretation of the parable?

    Then what the hell are you talking about Nietzsche for, you berk?

    This is pointless. I've had enough. 

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.