Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Argent

  1. No, I was making a point.

    In my opening post, I specifically asked for what you thought was the perfect relationship, not the dump off answer "Everyone's different."

    And I pointed that out to you.

    Completely fair.

    You were making a point in a petulant manner. This was despite the fact that I had politely informed you that your OP was ambiguous. You know, the bit where I said "There may be as many answers to this as there are couples. Perhaps you also believe this and are seeking some examples." I was acknowledging that maybe you wanted to receive specific ideas, so making your point was quite unnecessary.


    If you genuinely believe that your OP was clear and unambiguous, and are unwilling to acknowledge I pointed this out to in my response, then . . . . . .



    Edit: I see from your profile you are 14. Ignore everything I said.

  2. Apology. Apology.


    DNA is composed of amino acids. It is an array of amino acids.

    There is no need to apologise. I simple acknowledgement of your error would have been sufficient, but thank you.


    However, you still don't have it. DNA is not composed of amino acids. The four nucleobases, thymine, adenine, guanine and cytosine (plus uracil in RNA) all have ring structures. While this is true of a handful of amino acids, none of the nucleobases have the amine and carboxyl groupings found in those.


    I repeat my concern. Given this very weak grasp of some basic biochemical ideas it is presumptuous to question basics in the critical manner you seem to have adopted so far.

  3. Dude.

    The question was not "what is a perfect relationship"

    Its "What do YOU consider a happy/good relationship?"

    As in your opinion.

    Yours. Not the real answer. There is no real answer. I want your preference.

    Seriously. It's philosophy.

    So much as one more person says it depends on the person and I'll just refer you to a grammar site.


    Don't get your knickers in a twist because your OP was somewhat ambiguous, an ambiguity I recognised in my reply. I took the time to consider your question and the time to make a response. The least I would ask for in return is some courtesy, not a hissy fit.

  4. Amino acids are almost famous for joining up with other amino acids to form proteins.


    Useless, worthless, nondescript, miscellaneous, no-account, stinking proteins.


    Only, among the kazillions of different useless proteins, one happens by pure chance that can replicate.


    Behold, a DNA molecule. A protein that can crank off a copy of itself.



    Since when have DNA molecules been proteins? That's a rhetorical question. DNA molecules are assuredly not proteins.


    That leaves me with a non-rhetorical question. If your knowledge level in regard to basic biochemistry is so low you are unaware that DNA is not a protein, should you be implicitly pontificating about biochemical matters? It seems a bit presumptuous.

  5. I am confused, Derps, by your description of your friend's condition. You say that she sees yellow as green and green as yellow. That means that she can distinguish between yellow and green. She sees them as different colours. That is not colour blindness.


    For example, red-green colour blindness is a common form. People with this are unable to distinguish a red object from a green object. They appear to them as the same colour.


    Your friend just seems to be confused as to what to call certain colours, but is able to distinguish one form the other. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are saying, so please correct me if possible.

  6. Fire is an outburst of heat. It creates a shock wave of vibrating particles that causes much injury. As the shock wave is basically a spherical wave travelling at about 332 m/s, it has a lot of momentum that results in injury.

    This is misleading. I am presently sitting in front of a fire. The result is pleasant and comforting, nor am I experiencing any injury. At the same time the TV set is sending out a series of shockwaves. The only injury they are creating is a sense of outrage at the antics of politicians as reported on the news.


    @gene098, the point made by several other posters needs to be emphasised, as you seem to be missing it. The primary thing about fire is that it is a chemical reaction that, in terrestrial conditions, is generally an exothermic oxidation reaction. i.e. one or more chemicals combine with oxygen, giving off heat in the process. The secondary thing about fire is that, since heat is involved, the particles move faster in a vibration mode. The shock waves that occur in an explosion involve particles moving faster. momentarily, in a linear fashion.


    Of course, and you had no problem understanding that. I HAD to. The subject was monkeys. I wanted to make a point that evolution managed to produce a primate who typed out the works of Shakespeare. To do so I had to speak casually and conflate primates and monkeys and ignore the technical details of evolution. I had to ignore the technical point in order to make the real point. That evolution did what probability never could.


    Someone missed my point so completely, and took my post so literally, that they fired off an indignant message to a moderator, who decided to go along with the deliberate misreading of my post.


    I have no use for people who are either so literal they can't understand the larger point; or who PRETEND to be so literal in order to be able to reel off a sequence of gotchas, none of which are on point to the sense of what I wrote. People like that, I have no interest in responding to. My estimation of that individual stands as stated.


    I'd like to hear from the moderator who moved my post. Did you honestly think I was suggesting a specific mechanism for evolution? That that was the *point* of my post? As opposed to simply noting the interesting fact that evolution provides a far better mechanism for writing plays than randomness does? Why did you choose to elevate the complainant's disingenuous literalism to forum policy?

    You might wish to consider these points -


    Several people have misinterpreted your argument.

    Each of these people has, at least, a sound reputation on the forum for an understanding of science.

    No one has chosen to defend your position.

    It is therefore possible (and I think, probable) that you just presented your idea rather badly.


    Conclusion - blaming others for your own poor writing is funny when the topic is about "monkeys" writing Shakespeare.

  8. I'm simply astonished to find people on a science forum taking exception to the idea that a group of monkeys would evolve written language. Have the public schools gotten this bad?

    That is not the the experiment or process you proposed. Language involves the use of symbols to represent various types of concept. The concepts precede the symbols. When our ancestors first agreed on a word for rain, they knew what rain was and understood the relationship of the word "rain" to the phenomenon.


    The process you have proposed for evolving language in monkeys eliminates their understanding of the meaning of the words they type accidentally. I'm simply astonished to find someone on a science forum proposing such a distorted experiment that reveals a misconception of the nature of language and of sound experiment. Have the public schools gotten this bad?

  9. Thanks.

    So it's the case the north pole is smaller than the south pole?

    I don't understand what you mean by that. The poles are points on the Earth's surface through which the axis of rotation passes. As points, they have no dimension.


    The land mass at the south pole is clearly larger than that at the north pole, since the latter is entirely ocean.


    Could you explain exactly what you mean by the north pole being smaller, please?

  10. If earths magnetic shield protects us from the suns radiation, evidence is the ice mass at the earths poles where magnetism is at it's strongest.

    That sentence makes no sense. The geomagnetic fields partially shields the Earth from certain forms of radiation. It does not shield it from the electromagnetic spectrum. (i.e. light, UV, IR, X-rays etc.) If you are trying to suggest that there is ice at the poles because the pole is partially shielded from light by the field, then you are mistaken. Also, the field is not at its strongest in this location. That is simply the general area where the field lines penetrate the planet.


    The earth is tilting at an angle, this is proof it's not simply temperature distance from the sun.

    Another sentence that makes no sense. What is temperature distance? The reason the poles are colder is that a given amount of sunlight is spread out over a wider area because of axial tilt and its orientation with respect to the sun. This is so well established and so straightforward that it is taught to students in primary school.


    If were loosing our ice mass, is the shield weakening?


    We are losing ice mass. The shield is in a state of flux and may be headed for a significant reduction and reversal in the near future - say sometime in the next fifty thousand years. However these two observations are completely unrelated.


    Global warming is only 1 to 2 degrese, but the ice is melting. fast.

    What is our future?



    A 1 or 2 degree change in average temperature represents a massive increase in total environmental heat. The rate of ice loss is not surprising given these large (not small) increases.


    It may even be the case that magnatism pulls in the suns radiation and radiation is cold, cooling our planet.

    Magnetism does not "pull in the sun's radiation"

    Radiation is not cold.

    Cold radiation from the sun, pulled in by the magenetic field, is not cooling our planet.


    I'm living near the north pole in good old Britain, is this good for me?

    It's quite good for you. I'm not sure it's so good for the rest of us sharing these islands with you.



    ​I think I've got something here

    I think you have, but it's nothing that bed rest and a proper education won't cure.


    You're wrong. Hoyle originally derided the Big Bang theory and the term was used in derision. He came around later, but not at first.


    You are the one who seems confused and has a misconception, sir.


    Hope this helps...................



    Thank you for saving me the trouble of finding a link to refute your claim. Here are two relevant extracts from the one you provided:


    1. "It is “well known” that Hoyle coined the term “big bang” in a pejorative sense, to make fun of the idea of an exploding universe, but what is well known is not necessarily correct. "


    2. "Was Hoyle's use of “big bang” intended to be pejorative, as stated by Alpher and Herman and numerous other authors? This is possible, of course, but the evidence for the claim is unconvincing. In the British edition of The Nature of the Universe Hoyle twice referred to “big bang”, and in neither of the cases in ways that were clearly derisive. Neither Gamow, Lemaître nor other protagonists of explosion cosmologies felt at the time offended by the term or paid any attention to it. Moreover, in the many reviews of the book and critical comments on the BBC broadcasts, the name for the exploding universe that Hoyle had so casually invented played no role. As a broadcaster Hoyle needed word pictures to get over technical and conceptual points, and “big bang” was just one of them.

    As to Hoyle himself, he considered the name an apt but innocent phrase for a theory he was opposed to. In an interview of 1989, he insisted that he had not thought of it in a derogatory sense. “I was constantly striving over the radio – where I had no visual aids, nothing except the spoken word – for visual images,” he said. “And that seemed to be one way of distinguishing between the steady-state and the explosive big bang. And so that was the language I used,” (Lightman and Brawer 1990). The non-pejorative interpretation is further strengthened by the uses of “big bang” in the cosmological debate. If Hoyle had coined the name to ridicule or disparage theories with a definite origin of the universe, he would presumably have used it frequently during the heated controversy, which he did not."

  12. Just so, warhead.


    And to add, and another interesting stipulation and clarification for the OP, a lot of people don't know the very term Big Bang Theory was originally used as a term of mocking and contempt. That is when it was first postulated. Up till that time, the pervailing theory, and the one even Einstein believed, was the Steady State model. As you said, proposed by Lemaitre.

    I think it was Fred Hoyle who came up with the phrase.

    Hoyle introduced the phrase, but it is incorrect that he intended it to mock the idea. That is a common misconception. He used it on a BBC radio program as a colourful metaphor to help explain the concept to the audience.



    Hello Mordred

    Why is it so important to verify the cause for that outwards orbit migration?


    Do we have any real evidence about even one moon or planet in the whole universe which has an inwards orbit migration?


    (unless it is a broken moon or Asteroid)

    Why is it important to understand any mechanism in nature? It may reveal principles that have practical applications. It will always addresses our inherent desire to understand.


    We do not require evidence. We know the circumstances in which inward migration can occur. Why not try a google search?

  14. The moon is moving further away due to having sufficient escape velocity to slowly migrate to a higher orbit.

    That's just wrong. It moves further away because tidal effects transfer angular momentum from the Earth (which slows it rotation) to the moon.


    It is tidally locked which keeps the same facing to the Earth.


    That's more or less right.

  15. Oops, sorry I didn't know we can't use video links. I will have to read the rules again :(

    My understanding of the rules on video links is that you can use them, but they should not represent your entire argument. You should ideally summarise that argument in your own words and use the link to provide more depth, or background. I think your OP went some way towards meeting these requirements, but that just an opinion of someone with fewer posts than you have.

  • 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.