exchemist

I don’t claim to be expert on all this but are you sure what you say concerning non-commuting operators is right? My understanding is the issue of a measurement perturbing the system is known as the “observer effect” , which is quite separate from the non-commutativity of operators for conjugate variables. I’m also unsure what you mean by hidden variables. My understanding is that no system of hidden variables has been found to work, leading, at least provisionally, to the conclusion they are, to put it bluntly, useless fictions.

Yes I make dhal with vegetable oil - seems fine, but then I’m not a connoisseur of Indian cooking.

When I was in Dubai in the 1980s, there seemed to be a lot of heart attacks among the S Asians. But that could have been the lifestyle they tended to adopt with new found relative wealth: less walking, more smoking etc. I did wonder, though, about the prevalence of ghee in Indian cooking.

There is no evidence of that whatsoever.

They may die younger, of other things. Have you checked that possibility?

Iran’s leadership is not suicidal. They would not risk annihilation by nuclear first use, any more than any other nuclear nation. I don’t buy all this Israeli hysteria.

From the inside, eh? Right.

Gypsum is a form of hydrated calcium sulphate, which is not a carbonate. Heat treatment to drive off some of the water gives you plaster of Paris, which mixed with water sets hard. Gypsum also has other used, detailed on the internet. Clay minerals are not carbonates either, but aluminosilicates, variously hydrated and with other cations present. Many uses. Hydrated lime , or slaked lime is not a carbonate but calcium hydroxide, which can be derived from calcium carbonate by driving off CO2 to produce calcium oxide or quicklime, and then adding water. Sodium carbonate is washing soda, an alkali. Chalk is a relatively soft form of calcium carbonate compared to limestone. The multifarious uses of all these minerals are too long to list but are readily available on the internet.

Oh Christ, not here as well, now😱

You are not getting it, are you?

OK. Have you read the Biologos link I sent you? Suggest you look at that and come back with any comments or questions.

No one is getting “violent”. However it is important not to have threads derailed by silly distractions. It is part of the discipline of critical thinking to be able to stay on topic and make one’s arguments and questions clear. The video you linked to is over 2hrs long so I’m not going to watch it. However from the short description it looks like rubbish to me. “real genetics and science [sic] does not support Big Bang evolution theory” sounds like hopeless nonsense. But shouldn’t it have been obvious to you that this kind of stuff is not what I am recommending to you, but the polar opposite? Why did you suggest it?

What for?

But why brighter? I don’t understand this. The advancing side will be bluer, hence “brighter” in the sense of more energetic, in bolometric measurements, but the retreating side will be redder and “dimmer” by the same token. Why does the direction of rotation affect the overall net perceived brightness?

It suggests the universe was born with net angular momentum. Perhaps there is an inaccessible anti-universe with the opposite.😉

Exactly. Everyone around them has got them: Russia, China, Pakistan, India, Israel….. If I were Iranian I’d want them. And it’s all nonsense that they would pose a threat to Israel. Nukes only have value as defensive armaments, because of the retaliation in the event of first use.

Hmm, looks a bit low quality with mechanised voiceover. I did not see anything here addressing the interpretation of Genesis. Is there one on this topic and if so can you provide a link to it? The 6000yr thing is known as Bishop Ussher’s chronology. Ussher was a c.17th Irish Anglican (Protestant) bishop, who worked out a dating scheme from taking various Old Testament ages literally - the very thing I am advising you is a useless approach. Ussher’s chronology was never universally accepted. It was just one, very much pre-scientific, idea. The challenge to it from science came from geology in the c.18th and 19th, following the work of people like Hutton, who realised the Earth had to be far older:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hutton and Buckland, who was a clergyman(Dean of Westminster) and reached a similar conclusion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Buckland

It has only just struck me, late in the day, that this implies there is a preferred axis of rotation for galaxies, i.e. they are not randomly orientated. That seems odd.

Whut? I am just pointing out the facts of the matter. I have no idea why you mention the Inquisition, of all irrelevant things. Look, I made this thread to try to help @Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2 , who seems to be at a difficult stage in reconciling her wish to learn science with her religious upbringing. I’m really not that interested in silly remarks from you about the Inquisition. Can you please either express yourself more coherently, or stop derailing the thread?

Read the links I provided.

See @swansont ’s post re soul. Re age of the Earth, read on in the articles. I think you find it is covered, certainly for the Catholic church and probably for most if not all the others. Basically, once you have accepted a reading of Genesis that allows for evolution, there is no logic in finding difficulties over the age of the Earth either.

It is what I was told about the subject by my paternal grandfather, who was a Methodist minister and Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Glasgow University. See also Charles Coulson , Professor of Theoretical Chemistry at Oxford, who was a Methodist lay preacher and who coined the the expression “God of the Gaps”, to debunk the arguments of one type of creationist.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps The Catholic position on this is well known, see for example this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Catholic_Church#Pope_John_Paul_II For Episcopalians see this: https://www.episcopalchurch.org/glossary/evolution/ There is also this more general summary, covering a wider range of denominations:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_of_evolution_by_religious_groups

I don’t know the channel: can you provide a link, perhaps? Then I might be able to comment. (When I look up Lion Farm on YouTube all I get is some stuff about American farmers.)

@Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2 here you are. Read this and then we can discuss the concerns you may have.

Sarae, one tip: it helps if you use the “Quote” function at bottom left when you reply to a post. Not only does this make it clear which post you are replying to , but it also notifies the person that you have replied.