exchemist

No it doesn't at all. This is reminiscent of creationist claptrap. There are many fields of scientific knowledge that are acquired by observation without anything at all being done in a laboratory, and many natural processes that we have understood even through they cannot be observed to take place on a human timescale, for instance star formation, or plate tectonics. It is trivially obvious that our knowledge of abiogenesis is incomplete, so sure, there are key steps to be elucidated, but this is true of any active area of scientific research. There is nothing unique about life in that respect. There is no evidence of a qualitative "gap" that is somehow unique to the understanding of how life arose. It is just a question of the obvious difficulty of piecing together something very complex by extrapolating from present biochemistry back 4bn years and fitting it to what we know of pre-biotic chemistry on the Earth at that time. As for quantum biology, this is nothing special either, really. All chemistry depends on quantum mechanics. Quantum effects are everywhere in biochemistry, though we are finding (or speculating about) new processes in some of which relatively exotic QM phenomena, such as tunnelling, have been invoked. There is no way I can see that considering such QM effects would materially alter the challenge of understanding abiogenesis. Understanding abiogenesis is just a very, very big jigsaw to assemble. I don't understand why you keep harping on about some mystical missing element - unless you are creationist who doesn't want to admit it, of course.😁

It is not clear what you are talking about here. It is perfectly obvious how inanimate matter (e.g. food substances, oxygen) become incorporated into living tissue. Do you really think we don't know how that happens? Or are you saying we don't know how abiogenesis occurred? That is undeniably true, since it is one of the hardest problems in modern science, due to the lack of direct evidence from almost 4bn years ago when it took place. However considerable progress has been made. Contrary to what you seem to be trying to insinuate, there is no reason to think there is some special magic ingredient, beyond the scope of biochemistry, involved. Life is quite evidently a process of biochemical reactions and biophysical processes, occurring within cells. Can you clarify what it is you are suggesting is missing?

I’ll certainly be intrigued to see how this mass deportation is going to work out. In what numbers? Where will they be deported to, and how? Will the receiving countries accept hordes of displaced people plonked on their doorstep? What agency will carry it out and at what cost? What effect will it have on local economies when these people are taken away from the jobs they have been doing? Or will it be like Trump’s “wall”, i.e. do a little bit, declare it done - and quickly try to change the subject? There are Danish neo-Nazis, certainly. And some far right anti-immigration politics in Sweden.

The Nordics seem to have largely escaped this far right surge. I suspect it is because (i) they were not recently colonial powers and (ii) because nobody learns their languages. So they are not an obvious choice for migrants.

Hmm, seeing as China is rapidly becoming a totalitarian surveillance state, I'm not sure that would be my first choice. One has to hope Trump will depart after 4 years, though I would not be surprised if he changes the rules to stay in power, as that is what would-be autocrats always do. One also has to hope his presidency craters through infighting and cack-handed attempts to execute unworkable policies. One also has to hope his party's effort to gerrymander the electoral system do not succeed in locking in a permanent bias towards the Repubican [sic] party. So that is maybe three pious hopes. And then of course there is Macmillan's famous "Events, Dear Boy". We cannot know what surprises will come along to derail everyone's plans, including those of Trump and his supprters/puppet masters. Meanwhile it is up to the opposition to develop policy alternatives that seem credible and relevant to people's lives and to produce an articulate communicator to sell them. This is what is known as leadership, a quality sadly lacking in most democratic politicians today, obsessed as they are by focus groups that tell them what people happen to think today, as opposed to what arguments can persuade them to think differently, tomorrow, about important issues. (If you've had it with the US I would consider Canada.)

I hope that is true.

That's debatable. Science aims to understand how nature works, by making models that successfully predict what observations we can expect. Views vary as to the degree to which science tries to uncover "reality". After all, history shows us that our models tend to be imperfect, requiring periodic revision, sometimes radically so. It has been said that all scientific "truth" is merely provisional, pending some possible new development, requiring a better model. (In my own subject, it is commonplace to use different models for the same thing, depending on the problem at hand. This is done in the full knowledge that the models are approximations and not to be taken entirely literally. So what, in that case, is "reality"?) My personal view is that science seems to approach reality asymptotically, getting closer and closer but never quite definitively getting there.

Good post. +1

Eh? That is what I wrote:”NaCl is progressively converted to NaOH”.

This articulates precisely the fear many of us in Europe have about what has happened to the USA - and the astonishment and consternation we feel about the mindset of the Americans who elected Trump. It is exactly what I meant (on @JohnDBarrow’s silly thread) about the yearning for an absolute monarch who will ride roughshod over the institutions and processes that sustain a working democracy. One hopes of course that the USA and the world will be saved by Trump’s incoherence and incompetence, when it comes to implementing these hare-brained ideas. But there are clever men in or close to the administration for whom Trump is the useful idiot, and who will try to forge policies out of the ensuing goat rodeo to their own advantage. In fact there is already a fight - between Bannon and Musk - over whose useful idiot he is! But one is left with a sense that fascism, or semi-fascism (fascism-lite?) is now on the march, across the world. It is extraordinary to me, as a post WW2 cold war child, that the USA should be leading this. It all seems to have been triggered by the election of their first black president. Slavery continues to cast a long shadow.

There are no methane "particles". It's a gas at ambient temperature.

Regarding a "king", it seems to me the majority of US voters are yearning for someone to rule like a king: capriciously, without regard for the other institutions of the state: an absolute monarch. Certainly it seems to me that the USA in 2025 is a lot closer to an absolute monarchy than, say, the UK, Denmark or Spain. I gather from my son this happened in the Roman Empire, when Julius Caesar was adopted as dictator, after the people got tired of the arguments and political gridlock in the Senate. What is for sure is that American political culture and traditions are being destroyed - by the impending new administration of oligarchs.

You're not wrong, it's just that you've forgotten about the hydrogen:- 2Cl⁻(aq) -2e⁻ -> Cl₂(g) ; 2 H₂O(l)+ 2e⁻ -> H₂(g) +2OH⁻(aq) So the hydroxide anion takes the place of the chloride anion that has been converted to chlorine gas, i.e. NaCl is progressively converted to NaOH. But with evolution of both chlorine and hydrogen. As @TheVat says, at higher dilutions there is competition from direct electrolysis of the water itself.

But you are the one claiming these lyrics are racist.

So what? How does this do away with the need for extra, invisible mass to account for the observed rotation rates?

So you think these are racist lyrics and you approve of them as such, right? So you are calling yourself a racist, apparently. 😁

While changes in a gravitational field will propagate at c, a static field, like that exerted by the centre of mass of a galaxy, has no “speed”. And this is just another vague idea, thrown out by you seemingly at random, with no attempt to work it out to show how it might produce the effect on rotation rate that we observe. If you want to make a serious scientific suggestion, you have to show how your idea might produce the observed effects.

Nobody has proposed anything so silly, though. So you are making a straw man to make fun of, aren’t you? Are you a teenager?

Hydrogen should still be liberated at the cathode, though.

That is what MOND tries to do. But that is based on an actual model with detailed calculations to support it. What you seem to be doing is pulling random ideas out of your arse, with no attempt at quantifying their effect to show how they might explain what we observe. That’s no good.

Do not try to drag quantum theory into a discussion about astronomical objects. It makes you look a fool. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is not relevant at the macroscopic scale, because Planck’s constant is so small it only makes a difference at the atomic scale.

What is your opinion of the Civil Rights Act? Do you see that as part of American heritage and culture, or a manifestation of beastly wokeness?

Yes, I could understand it more readily if bacteria are involved. The lack of hydrogen production seems suspicious for any electrolytic process. But I'm pleased to see this has got further funding. It seems very worthwhile to follow it up, not least in view of the mineral resource represented in these nodules and the obvious interest in extracting them.

Exactly. The edge is lower than the level of liquid, so it is acting like a siphon, in which the reduction in gravitational potential energy drives it. I first noticed this effect eating shredded wheat breakfast cereal, observing that milk dribbled out of the spoon if any shreds of cereal dangled over the edge. The entire spoon could empty itself of milk, even though I was holding it perfectly level. All because of surface tension.

No. It can act as a siphon, but it can’t pump uphill. Conservation of energy tells you that. Capillary rise, or wicking, is due to attraction of water molecules to the surface of the glass or wick material. Clearly, once the top of the tube or wick is reached, there is no more upward attraction. So nothing can come out at the top.