exchemist

Thanks. And here it is, for anyone interested: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11309735B1/en?oq=US+11309735+B1

Would you be willing to share the patent number and country in which it was granted? I’d be interested to read the description of the invention and the claims.

Who is "we" and what do you want to discuss? Or is this just spam?

Is Shapiro a real Likudnik, then? He can be Jewish and generally pro-Israel, yet still disavow the current Israeli government's Gaza policy, I'd have thought.

I'd be more interested in how you say you "harvest" a wattless current, 90deg out of phase with voltage, onto a different circuit and make it do work.

Indeed. When one looks at the history of Rome, it evolves from a monarchy to a republic and then mutates into dictatorship. Ring any bells.........?

Well he has his ambitions too: He's getting good grades at St. Andrew's, in between mountaineering expeditions in the Highlands. I think he just wants to do things on his terms and carve out his own arena of expertise - very much as I did when I was his age (my mother read English so both my parents were on the arts side) The nice thing is that as I get older I become more interested in history, so I can ask him about things, which makes for a degree of academic mutual respect.

Yes I sometimes have pangs of guilt wondering I put him off the sciences in some way. Both of his parents were on the STEM side, his late mother having been a graduate of the École Nationale des Ponts et Chausées (though really a mathematician at heart - she later did a PhD at MIT on waves). He took physics as part of his International Baccalaureate and did OK, but dropped chemistry after GCSE. From him I learned something interesting: chemistry is in some ways harder to grasp at the school level than physics (so long as a bit of algebra doesn't faze you) or biology. It has the abstraction of physics, but there is also a lot of "stuff" to just learn: the Periodic Table and the behaviour of all these different elements and compounds, not much of which seems to relate to tangible things. At least with physics you can calculate the trajectory of a cannonball, or understand the motion of the planets. Anyway I think he wanted to plough his own furrow and he has always been interested in the ancient world. As a matter of fact both my father and his father were historians.

This comes across as just woo, though: the kind of “sciency”-sounding nonsense you get from people like Deepak Chopra. To say you use concepts from physics to “bridge the frameworks” sounds fairly meaningless and it is hard to see how it can be a sensible use of physics. Doing this, apparently without much grasp of what these physics concepts actually mean, will confuse your readers and make you look a fraud, even if your actual ideas have merit. What frameworks are you talking about and how does something from physics bridge them? Give an example.

Splendid. 👍 I know some people are a bit sniffy about using Wiki, but I find it’s often not bad for quite a lot of physical science, and it is pretty comprehensive. As for the half reaction of oxidising agents like dichromate and permanganate, I don’t think those are something you can expect to work out just by looking at the molecule, or ion, rather: I think you just have to know it, or look it up. These two are pretty common so it might be worth memorising them, including the number of electrons they gain. But whether you are expected to do this or not will depend on the course you are following.

You need to explain what this is. At the moment it is just a list, without any explanation. It has no content. Is it the layout of a proposed book? Or what?

IRECAP seems to be an obscure journal published by an outfit called “Praise Worthy [sic] Prize”, about which I found some amusing comments: https://sites.massey.ac.nz/library/2013/01/23/good-guys-bad-guys-and-open-access-journals/

Yes, but the claim I am challenging is not a "detail". It is the core of your idea. If you want to change the meaning of "complexity" to something so far removed from most people's understanding, you need to have a solid argument, otherwise the whole idea collapses.

Haha, you got a better reply from me this time because this theory has a lot less of the pompous bullshit. I can actually understand what you are saying, for the most part. My guess is you wrote this one yourself, whereas on the other thread you allowed a chatbot to have a go at writing it. Chatbots always seem to write like a weak student, trying to pad out his poor essay with grandiose circumlocutions to make it seem more impressive. We've seen it so many times on this forum since chatbots appeared. In fact, the best essays and papers are written with succinctness and clarity. But now to the content of your post. You seem to be redefining "complexity" in a way that is far from intuitive. I think you will need to justify the basis on which you associate complexity with concentration of mass or energy. I did not have any concept of beauty in mind, as it happens. I was thinking of the thousands of biochemical substances and reaction processes required for a single celled organism to function, compared to the relatively simple and inert structure (face-centred cubic) of a crystal of lead.

OK, there is a basic, and actually very common, misunderstanding at the start. Neither mass nor energy are entities. You can't have a jug of mass or a jug of energy. Both are properties of physical systems. Systems have mass and have energy. You can't say they "are" mass or energy. To do so is Star Trek, not science. So complex systems are not what it says here. Secondly, complexity emphatically cannot be said to correlate with a high concentration of mass or energy. What that would mean is that complexity is proportional in some way to density, which seems a fairly silly thing to say. Which is more complex: an amoeba or a lump of lead? I agree the idea of "imbalance" driving increased complexity in nature has some merit. For examples, living organisms thrive on inputs of lower entropy energy from various sources such as light from the sun, and outputs of higher entropy energy in the form of low grade heat, or the release of higher entropy substances int the environment. On the other hand DNA absolutely does not have a high concentration of either mass or energy. What it arguably does have, is a comparatively low entropy in relation to its molecular weight. Rather as @Mordred has commented before on your postings, I wonder if you would do better to focus on entropy increase as the driving force. There is guy called Jeremy England who proposed some years ago that complexity is driven by dissipation of energy: https://www.yalescientific.org/2014/07/origins-of-life-a-means-to-a-thermodynamically-favorable-end/. I wonder if you may possibly be groping towards something like that.

Look up dichromate on Wiki as I suggested. If you do that, you will see that first it is an oxidising agent, plus why it is acidified, plus you will get the half reaction most commonly involved when it is used as an oxidising agent, which will tell you how many electrons it takes up per ion. From what you have posted above, you clearly know what Fe (II) will oxidise to, and how many electrons it loses per ion. So then you put the two together and make a reaction scheme that balances the electrons gained on the left with those lost on the right. Have a look in the Wiki article for the half reaction for Cr₂O₇²⁻ in acid conditions. It's not hard to spot. P.S. I'm not trying to be difficult, by the way, it's just far, far better for you to realise you can do this stuff than for us to give you the answer.🙂 The great thing with chemistry is not to get in a flap and start hyperventilating when you see chemical equations. My son used to do that - and ended up reading Ancient History.

Ah, that explains why everything you write reads like pompous bullshit. Good to know.

OK, why not look up dichromate on wiki and see what you find? Then let’s talk.

Reminds me of Bill McLaren (Scottish rugby commentator): "Let me recapitulate back to what I said previously."

Yes I expect most household appliance with an inductive component have a balancing capacitor somewhere, to stop power factors significantly adrift from 1 arising. As you say, I imagine that without it, the extra wattless current could play hell with circuit breakers etc.

Read the effing link, you lazy idiot. It is in layman's terms, with next to no mathematics. If you can't even be bothered to do that, when I've gone to the trouble of not only providing it but directing you to the animation and explaining what it means, you don't deserve any further help. So read the link, look at the animation and then, if there are aspects you still don't understand, ask about them specifically. As for the notion that you can start dissing the science and offering your own theory, when you have shown no capacity to try to learn anything about the topic, what a joke that is. Christ Almighty!

Neuroscience is not part of psychology. Psychology draws on it, certainly, just as it draws on many fields of science. History draws on science too, but that does not make history science. So the fact that psychology uses neuroscience does not ipso facto make it a science. As I understand it there continues to be disagreement about the extent to which psychology can be considered a "hard" science, i.e. one in which reproducible observation of nature (human beings in this case) informs testable hypotheses. A lot of it seems subjective, not surprisingly in view of its object of study and hard, if not impossible, to replicate objectively or test by rigorous statistical trial, as is done in medicine for instance. So when you say it always uses the scientific method for experiments, I would question that. Freud's theories for instance were not arrived at via the scientific method, so far as I know, and to my knowledge there are few, if any, scientifically conducted studies to test them. But it's not my speciality so if you can provide examples I'd be interested.

Thanks, though actually I find @Eise's explanation is the clearer, as he specifically refers to the absence of collisions, which seems to be the key point at issue.

Ah yes, unless there is some means of losing kinetic energy or rather changing their trajectories to heat motion, the particles cannot clump together under gravitation. They whizz past each other and out the other side, and go on doing so indefinitely, like an electron in an s orbital. Neat! But then, how come DM is clumped in galaxies at all? Shouldn’t it be spread even.y throughout the universe?

This raises a point that has only just struck me after reading the Wiki article on rotation curves: DM has to be uniformly distributed across the galaxy to produce the observed rotation curve. But surely, if DM responds to gravitation, surely one would expect its distribution to mirror that of the normal matter, viz. more concentrated in the centre and becoming progressively attenuated towards the periphery? How, then, would one account for its distribution being so different?