Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by exchemist

  1. 51 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

    You are stating that medical incompetence is completely unrelated to what's defined in the mechanical laws. However, I see that people almost always do not not mistake (medical people) when it comes to what's entirely known in the common practices, which are way more documented from the science unlike what's defined for the death.

    Medical mistakes are commonplace. However it is extremely rare indeed for an error to be made when someone is pronounced dead, since that is pretty easy to determine, as has been explained to you several times now.   

  2. 10 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

    I see, I read that the "medical" and paramedical operators look incompetent enough that announce death even when it actually isn't in some cases; great, something I pointed out in my thesis as well. If paramedics and medical team can give a false announcement then they aren't well-competent to declare someone's death, probably? Who is to blame here: wrong scientific knowledge (or just simply not enough to prove anything) or invalid operator's competence? My assumption is that since all the "competent" people are supposed to know what the science says about death - they should not mistake, yet they mistake? Once again, assumption is that there's something wrong with the scientific knowledge about the matter and therefore implies that, considered those critical errors, someone might wake up inside the burial without anyone knowing ever.

    The fact that cars sometimes crash does not call into question the laws of mechanics.  

    Similarly, occasional medical incompetence does not call the science of what happens at death into question.

  3. 37 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

    It doesn't as far as I'm concerned, being an atheist as I've said many many time's; this thread isn't about God, it's about the rationality of religion.

    Because we are human.

    We all need a lantern, even on the brightest days.

    Friedrich Nietzsche, I thought it was obvious.

    I have.

    A lot of people are struggling against poverty, I thought that was implied.

    Sorry it was ill worded title, I'm trying to explore the rationality of religion and it's benefits to humanity, and Fred was famously an atheist who seemed to have struggled with the question of what we replace god with. 

    Sorry, I'm not very articulate/clever.

    OK so two ideas: a struggle that some people have against poverty, and Nietzsche's idea that if one does not believe in God one has to replace the role of God in some way. 

    The first one seems to be a social issue rather than anything to do with religion.  Marx, at any rate, did not seem to think religion helped with it.

    On the second, you will need to explain first of all why Nietzsche thought that a replacement for God would be needed, if one did not have religious belief. 


  4. 6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

    I don't know what problem's Fred foresaw when we give ourselves agency over our moral decisions, without a backstop; but for me the ever increasing wealth gap is a direct result of no God.

    It's the difference between a tax and a tythe. A tax you can decide to avoid, if you can't see the benefit to yourself of paying your fair share. A tythe you give happily because Jesus told us to, he understood the benefits for everyone, so even if you have no intention of being benelovent or caring, you give because you'll go to heaven.


    Eh? Who the f*** is "Fred", suddenly? And why don't you answer my question? A struggle has to be against something. Who is struggling and against what

    Is this "Fred" person struggling against a "wealth gap", or something? If so, who cares? And what does this have to do with atheists believing in religion?

    Or are you just someone who habitually makes no sense? 



  5. 34 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

    None of these links  has any scientific evidence of a person resuming life after being dead for hours. At best they are unsubstantiated anecdotes and, in one of them, the article even explains why they were not actually dead.  

  6. Just now, mr_keybay said:

    Indeed, I would really appreciate if someone can actually prove me my statements being wrong. Whether you are ignoring the mentioned phenomenons I don't know, but the evidence I am talking about (which you clearly aren't aware of) show otherwise and that naturally goes against your pragmatical claims.

    And yet you are unable to produce any of this supposed evidence.

    [whispers] That is because it doesn't exist. We all know that, you see.) 

  7. 11 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 + πm/4)/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 little 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.





    Don't worry, there are plenty of people here who are at least as adept at mathematics as you are likely to be. It's a science forum. By the way, I watched the video and burst out laughing. The wheel conveniently moves only a quarter of one turn...... and then one of the weights falls off. Hilarious. Why not wait until the thing can perform a full rotation - without bits dropping off - before trying to make a video? But of course the snag then, from your point of view, will be that it will be obvious it doesn't work. 

    As always, a video is fairly useless at describing a mechanism. One needs a diagram with a written explanation, showing how the wheel is constructed. I notice for instance that the weight that is initially at the bottom starts to slide inward on its shaft as it rises. It is not clear what mechanism is doing that and this is crucial as it is obviously doing work on the weight against gravity. Can you provide a diagram and explanation of the mechanism that lifts the weight?



    7 hours ago, JamesL said:

      Ghideon, 2 reasons why I pursued his work was Leibniz's supposed first hand observation and in the drawing after portrait of a charlatan, his 3 pendulums

    are actually 3 crosses. And in the video I showed I pointed that out. Bessler was a devout Christian and that might've been his way of saying have faith. Bessler also wrote;

    Around the firmly placed horizontal axis is a rotating disc (low or narrow cylinder) which resembles a grindstone. This disc can be called the principle piece of my machine. Accordingly, this wheel consists of an external wheel (or drum) for raising weights which is covered with stretched linen.


     And that's what I've built. I use 1 quadrant of the external drum. Instead of the drum rotating, the wheel rotates to lift the weights. And do you know if the title of the thread could be changed to Bessler's Wheel? As for my build, I am making new retraction discs, they'll be wider. This is so it'll be easier to catch the fulcrum and then release it.

     I am dealing with a difficult medical situation and might demonstrate the prototype while finishing the display model. And on a side note, I didn't notice a section for atmospheric chemistry and physics in here. I have an experiment that I've been pursuing and this could help with it. It's about an observation that the IPCC has made but doesn't understand. It was in their 2013 climate report and in NOAA's  Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2014. It's in the middle of the page.

    Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases.


     And this could lead into PSCs (polar stratospheric clouds) which causes holes in the ozone layer. Neither process is understood. I've actually developed a hypothesis for what the IPCC has observed with regards to CO2, CH4 and N2O. And it's possible that the experiment that I've been pursuing will show the sequence that allows for it.

    There is an Earth Science section on this form, with a whole sub-section devoted to climate. 

  8. 17 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

    I am not sure how "cell biology" knowledge is relevant to this topic and I also don't see anything explained there capable to explain what happens and why the questions I asked above. Although I am just curious, none of you seemed to give me the proper answer to everything I pointed out. You are constantly asking me to provide the evidence to you while I believe that even if I would you are going to deny the showed facts so I rather prefer you to consult the literature yourself and find the "evidence" you expect, if you are interested.

    You are still trying to shift the burden of proof onto your readers: "Prove me wrong!", the age-old cry of the crank down the centuries.

    Science relies on reproducible evidence. Without that, you have nothing to persuade anyone to take you seriously. 


  9. 1 hour ago, JamesL said:

     I thought I'd share work I have been doing on what is known as Bessler's Wheel. His original book at the Rare Book Library

    at Utrecht University in Utrecht, Netherlands. If you click on the yellow go to digital version button, the digitized version of

    his book.



     Why perpetual motion is impossible from Dr. Baird;



     Where I am at on my build. It stops rotating because the retraction line stops it. And according to Newton's 1st Law of Motion,

    gravity is an outside force as well as the resistance of the retraction line. 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. And when it rotates, the arm moves away from the fulcrum of

    the weight wheel assembly. And with Bessler, he wanted to start an engineering school and chances are he knew analytical trigonometry.

    Also Gottfried Leibniz has been said to watch an actual Bessler wheel. And if all goes well and this demonstration is in fact an accurate

    representation, next month I should have a working wheel which then would demonstrate that gravity has energy.  And this then would

    allow for the conservation of energy. This is the prototype and I have started working on a display model. Dr. Jaski at Utrecht University

    knows that I would like to do a demonstration with Bessler's original book.


    It won't work of course, so you are wasting your time. The reason why (apart from the obvious point about violating conservation of energy) is that when the weights are closer in to the wheel and have less leverage, there are more of them. This counteracts the torque of the weights that are at full extension from the wheel on the other side. 

    As for your point about gravity having energy, yes we know: it's called "gravitational potential energy" and we learn about it in school, around the age of 11. 




  10. 59 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:


    You can find all the "evident" proofs by consulting the literature and just doing an Internet research about resucitations / lack of decompositions after the exhumation. If you are researcher you would already know that.

    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.   

  11. 37 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

    We agree that it's an indicator only, not a "proof" or anything as to be entirely sure the physical body has to decompose itself, as the user PeterKin explained before. In fact I noticed that many historical procedures in order to deal with such a issue were using particular practices to make sure the person would never come back as far as I'm aware. Nowadays it has been put much more confidence to the modern technologies that somehow the "indictor" provided by those is the actual "proof" of someone being really dead.


    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).  

  12. 9 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

    May I ask you what do you mean by "brain death"? If you are talking about the physical decomposition by "death" it's something, if you are talking about a flat electroencephalogram curve it's something else. Both are definitely different things.

    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. 

  13. 1 hour ago, mr_keybay said:

    So then, if you are actually stating what you are stating, is that indirectly proving what I logically deduced in the text above, am I correct? We are not speaking about literature, nor political, nor ethics. We are speaking about science; and as far as I know, science must not go through opinions, through politics, through bias - but through facts or, eventually, logical assumptions. It is the most impartial discipline I ever known. Am I correct? Regarding a scientific answer, nothing seems to prove that a life-state return is impossible, am I correct?

    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.)


  14. 3 hours ago, dimreepr said:


    It illustrates the struggle we will face in the absence of God, I think Nietzscher spent the rest of his life trying to think of an alternative to God, he'd be appalled at what Hitler made of his thinking.





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

  15. 1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

    The parable of the madman

    Is it rational to think I know better, when they're already happy?

    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?  

  16. 15 minutes ago, mistermack said:

    Sounds like caramel sweets and molasses are to be avoided too. And Guinness. I might as well kill myself now ! 

    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.   


  17. 1 minute ago, mistermack said:

    I've never heard of this, but obviously it's there. I usually keep potatoes in the fridge and have never noticed any raised sweetness when I do. As they are stored cool anyway, maybe it's hard to tell. 

    I have to cofess, I like the taste of burnt things, which I knew was bad, but what the hell, you only live once anyway. I bake my own bread, and like it dark. I like my toast almost burnt, and I like my chips dark all over. 

    It's too late to change now.

    Maybe you could counteract this fridge effect by buying a less starchy variety, and to allow for the slight starch increase from refrigeration. But I think it is very slight, I've certainly never detected a difference. 

    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. 



  18. 11 hours ago, zapatos said:

    I learned about that when I put potatoes in the fridge and made potato salad that tasted AWFUL it was so sweet! 😄

    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? 



  19. 7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

    Is apathy the answer?

    I'm not talking about political apathy; although in my lifetime I've only voted once (against Boris), because before him whoever I voted for I always got 'the government', which is basically my point; only fear what immediately and really threatens your future.

    Obviously the 24 hour news culture isn't helpful, because the only good news they can muster, tends to be added on to the end and treated as a joke.


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

  20. 26 minutes ago, swansont said:

    At a conversion efficiency of 0.005%, I think they have a long way to go, and I didn't see a discussion of how this scales up. They were an order of magnitude better than they thought, but they have more than 4 orders of magnitude to go.

    So still 20 years off, then, as ever. 

  21. 40 minutes ago, Eed said:

    I've heard that antibacterial soap is no better than ordinary soap. Can someone please explain how ordinary liquid hand soap works? Does it simply help take off debris, or does it break the cells of bacteria and viruses and therefore render them harmless (kill them)?  For example, if someone washed their hands with liquid hand soap but let's just say they didn't wash all of the physical debris off, are the germs left on their hands still considered to be harmful? Thanks

    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.  

  22. 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. 

  23. 1 hour ago, Dhamnekar Win,odd said:



     I am working on question (d) for answering it. Any chemistry help will be accepted. Do you know the correct answer for question(d)? 

    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. 


  • 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.