Jump to content

Andrew William Henderson

Senior Members
  • Posts

    62
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Andrew William Henderson

  1. On 9/5/2019 at 10:16 AM, Deep-Fried-Thoughts said:

    I know Perpetual motion is a losing battle, however,  i was curious what would happen if someone mounted the most effective version of a large  BHASKARA'S Wheel onto the center axle of a well constructed perpetual water mill design? Since they both  "Almost" work on their own, would it make any difference if these two designs were combined into one machine?

    The nearly perpetual motion fed by another nearly perpetual  allways re charging the other to become perpetual ... ? So the power to turn an electric generator is originaly powered  by the release  of a clock work spring  turned once a year ..🤔

  2. On 6/30/2021 at 12:53 PM, swansont said:

    It's the scale, and the laws that dictate the reactions. There are a limited number of ways you can put atoms together to form a molecule. Often it's just one, for simple molecules. (AFAIK, molecular isomers tend to happen with bigger molecules)

    Once you are combining one molecule with another, the number of possible configurations increase.

    The shape of the matter they have formed can then be of different shapes ...is that right ? How many  carbon atoms are required to make two particles of carbon distinguishable...?

  3. On 1/6/2021 at 5:58 AM, beecee said:

    Just found this........................

    https://jsystchem.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/1759-2208-2-1

    Abstract

    Though Darwinian theory dramatically revolutionized biological understanding, its strictly biological focus has resulted in a widening conceptual gulf between the biological and physical sciences. In this paper we strive to extend and reformulate Darwinian theory in physicochemical terms so it can accommodate both animate and inanimate systems, thereby helping to bridge this scientific divide. The extended formulation is based on the recently proposed concept of dynamic kinetic stability and data from the newly emerging area of systems chemistry. The analysis leads us to conclude that abiogenesis and evolution, rather than manifesting two discrete stages in the emergence of complex life, actually constitute one single physicochemical process. Based on that proposed unification, the extended theory offers some additional insights into life's unique characteristics, as well as added means for addressing the three central questions of biology: what is life, how did it emerge, and how would one make it?

     Concluding remarks

    Darwin's contribution to modern scientific thought is profound and irrevocable. It has forever changed man's view of himself and his place in the universe. By demonstrating the interconnectedness of all living things, Darwin brought a unity and coherence to biology that continues to impact on the subject to this day. But a paradoxical side product of that extraordinary contribution with its specific focus on living things, was that it resulted in a distancing between the biological and the physical sciences, one that continues to afflict the natural sciences. The disturbing result - despite the enormous contribution of the Darwinian theme, Darwinism remains unable to explain what life is, how it emerged, and how living things relate to non-living ones. The challenge therefore is clear. The scientific goal - the relentless striving toward the unification of science - requires that the chasm that divides and separates the biological from the physical sciences be bridged.

    In this paper we have attempted to demonstrate that by reformulating and incorporating the Darwinian theme within a general physicochemical scheme, one that rests on the concept of dynamic kinetic stability, the animate-inanimate connection can be strengthened. What the general scheme suggests is that life is, first and foremost, a highly complex dynamic network of chemical reactions that rests on an autocatalytic foundation, is driven by the kinetic power of autocatalysis, and has expanded octopus-like from some primal replicative system from which the process of complexification toward more complex systems was initiated. Thus life as it is can never be readily classified and categorized because life is more a process than a thing. In that sense Whitehead's process philosophy [65] with its emphasis on process over substance seems to have been remarkably prescient. Even the identification and classification of separate individual life forms within that ever expanding network seems increasingly problematic. The revelation that the cellular mass that we characterize as an individual human being (you, me, or the girl next door) actually consists of significantly more bacterial cells than human cells (~1014 compared to ~1013) [66], all working together in a symbiotic relationship to establish a dynamic kinetically stable system, is just one striking example of the difficulty. As humans we naturally focus on what we identify as the human component of that elaborate biological network, but that of course is an anthropocentric view, one that has afflicted human thinking for millennia. A description closer the truth would seem to be that life is a sprawling interconnected dynamic network in which some connections are tighter, others looser, but a giant dynamic network nonetheless. And it is life's dynamic character that explains why identifiable individual life forms - small segments of that giant network - can be so fragile, so easy to undermine through network deconstruction, whereas the goal of creating life is such a formidable one.

    A closing remark concerning life's complexity. Life is complex - that is undeniable. But that does not necessarily mean that the life principle is complex. In fact we would argue that the life principle is in some sense relatively simple! Indeed, simple rules can lead to complex patterns, as studies in complexity have amply demonstrated [67, 68]. So we would suggest that life, from its simple beginnings as some minimal replicating system, and following a simple rule - the drive toward greater dynamic kinetic stability within replicator space - is yet another example of that fundamental idea.

    A final comment: this paper has discussed the concept of dynamic kinetic stability in some detail, and the question as to which stability kind - dynamic kinetic or thermodynamic - is inherently preferred in nature, could be asked. There is, of course, no formal answer to this question. In contrast to thermodynamic stability, dynamic kinetic stability is, as noted earlier, not readily quantifiable. Nevertheless an intriguing observation can be made. Since the emergence of life on earth from some initial replicating entity some 4 billion years ago, life has managed to dramatically diversify and multiply, having taken root in almost every conceivable ecological niche. Just the bacterial biomass on our planet alone has been estimated to be some 2.1014 tons, sufficient to cover the earth's land surface to a depth of 1.5 meters [69]. The conclusion seems inescapable - there is a continual transformation of 'regular' matter into replicative matter (permitted by the supply of an almost endless source of energy), suggesting that in some fundamental manner replicative matter is the more 'stable' form. What implications this continuing transformation might have on cosmology in general is beyond both our understanding and the scope of this paper.

    :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    Interesting ...but does it address what circumstances collected so to speak the available materials for the autocataylitc event..is that event post Abiogenesis or the start ..  is the hypothesis simply moving a measurement point of a start  reference up and down  the scale and not addressing mechanical pressures and enviroments/ habitats  caused by mechanical pressures  that can only considered unreatable   there effects on a chemical process  in every sense would be random  and prolonged ....its the mixing of the soup not just the ingredients and how the ingredients interact..The  actual process remains unknown simply because the random mechanical pressures and circumstance  are unaccountable in there number and originate for most of the time from the totally unique effects of its totally unique solar system I believe its these unaccountable mechanical pressures on a chemical process ..as you mention the chemical process is as much at the mercy of  enviromental pressures as is evolving biology... if a biology2 is not expected to produce another giraffe why would a chemical process produce another biology or anything that we could consider biolgical ...

  4. On 7/1/2021 at 7:32 PM, Holmes said:

    Has anyone in the forum ever witnessed ball lightning?

    This has long been a mystery and is so rare that meaningful observations are very hard to perform.

    I wondered if there have been any recent developments in this are that someone might want to share.

     

    I'm a keen reader of ww2 history and once read of german and allied submarine crew witnessing ball lighting travelling the length of the inside of the sub whilst been targeted with depth charges and was thought to be the effects of concussion / pressureand humidity of the atmosphere within the sub...🤔

  5. 8 minutes ago, Holmes said:

    Words matter, choose them carefully, say too little rather than too much, do not alienate your audience, no matter what, that's how I strive to behave, not always successfully but I do try.

    Alien lifeforms may or or may not exsist who knows I'm not sure they could or couldn't....is that carefull enough and I hope it didnt upset anyones sensibility..🙂 all I have suggested is a scientific explanation of why we dont observe biology here or anywhere  else ...please contradict me with scientific  fact as why my suggestion/ hypothesis is not correct ..I understand it needs to  be tested to destruction .

  6. 7 minutes ago, Alex Mercer said:

    Don't waste your time with some of these guys. They use fancy wordplay to disguise their horse shit opinions and lick each others asses with a an upvote so the same group of cucks with high points remain arguing pointlessly to feed their big egos.

    They haven't attempted once responded with a question or counter claim  other than I'm not very good at spelling 👍

  7. I've been continually accused of not following protocol .for not engaging in a scientific disscussion when I've never been asked a question ..but demands that I'm wrong simply because of because ...  it's the moderators who not allowing a discussion by  other members it may be of no interest to you ..my point is a serious scientific question and you are been disingenuous  in not allowing it .....show me how I went wrong  your guys I need to convince !

  8. 4 minutes ago, exchemist said:

    It's spelt "meant", and "your".

    The sarcasm (not really irony) of your post was very obvious, but as it raised no serious point of discussion I thought I might as well correct your spelling. 

    The subject has raised more  interest and questions  than any of your posts..why the hostility is because it's your not idea ....attacking my ability to spell would be as rude and uncalled for as your ugliness would be relevant to mention  to any of your ideas..if you're  uninterested why comment at all ..I thought this  was a forum of  scientific debate 

    20 minutes ago, Holmes said:

    What do you mean "special" and what is it that must "happen" every week?

    It's just not special enough to not  happen twice ...it seems   ..life just must happen all the time ...there must be a must if it is to happen twice !

  9. Life exsits because it exsits here .. it's not special so it must happen every other week in the universe  ..there is that many blinking planets out there it just must exsit by maths and science to think it can not exsit is not worthy of question  or reason..they would not have made close encounters of the third kind if there was not  something to it ...are they suggesting Spielberg is daft ...?

  10. The process that produced biological lifeforms on earth (Abiogenesis) remains unknown however we can logically presume  the process was not instantaneous but was incremental in time and subject to the initial available elements and compounds afforded by our solar systems birth which again was subject to the available ingredients of the nebula that produced it ..and that too was the product of the unique galaxy it came from ...

      Prebiotic material's

     So ,as of yet a  undetermined, mixture of various chemical compounds was subject to it's own chemical reactions with each other and physically brought together and kept  apart by physical  mechanisms and circumstance of its enviroment ...radiation ,gravity water etc...Each vital part of the process in cumulative steps on it's way to become biological...! ,..but because it's a unintentional process  and has no pre deterministic abbilty we can view the process from the other end ..from biology to gas,rock,and metal  

    It was not prebiotic material until it became Abiogenesis,Abiogenesis could not be Abiogenesis until it produced biology ...

    We can can conclude that a despite a  goldilocks exoplanet  ( earth 2) having the similar prebiotic materials at the right times the physical forces of circumstance of its enviroment are unreatable due to the unique process of it's own solar system .

    The idea of non biolgical  non carbon  lifeforms immediately hits the problem of what biolgical trait are we to place on a alternative lifeform that dertmines it to be so without that trait been a product of evolved biology ...Intellgence is often quoted as a trait that would determine or define a lifeform but again intellgence is an evolved biological product ! Why not a beer belly or the ability to take a shit ?..a digestive system  is more of a requirement of biology than intellgence is !.The intellgence afforded to humans was reliant on plants evolving into trees as well as other happenings ....our degree of intellgence is not a requirement of biology it's just the same as the Falcons wing or the Hares heart ..they are niched  evolved biological  traits 

    It is also said that early biology must be easy to make, as it happened relatively fast so its construction must be somewhat basic  ...fast from what point ? If we use the formation of earth as the starting point...??What would we define as its formation the next bank holiday after it became ball shaped ??? Why would that be considered as the starting point of the process an important one I agree but not as important as the nebula it came from ..there is nothing basic about the first biology  it did all the work   it takes more time and consequence for rock,gas,and metal to become a prokaryotic microbe for the evolved prokaryotic to become a giraffe ! The first biology was far from basic in every way its subsequent evolution into various body models is irelvant because the next evolved biolgical model immediately after the prokaryotic organism is as biolgical as a giraffe is biolgical ! A giraffe can be seen to be a over coveluted body model that achives nothing more than a prokaryotic organism achieves ! 

    The process that formed biology can only be a a product of earth its process like any other process in nature  when open to circumstantial pressure  over time can not produce the ' same ' thing twice not just biology twice but the process of biology twice and if it's not biology it's not life  , it's just another  unique chemical reaction in a universe where  uniqueness is the norm rather than the exception ..are we that arrogant to think anything could resemble been  biological without at first been biology.....are we looking for non biolgical flowers or hairy legs or spudders ( cross between a potato and a spider) .. why would a  similar prokaryotic organism if  found on a distant planet have any predeterminstic intent or physical means to become biologicalistic ???? In shape or action ...

    Nothing in nature repeats itself to that degree of similarity  it can not happen again the same ...the permutation of circumstantial events in time that could  not shape  chemical compounds into anything resembling biology is un repeatable, we can not use probability without the intersection of intent natural or design of  which  we see no evidence or reason for ...we are alone 🐌

  11. 50 minutes ago, zapatos said:

    What is wrong with you? swansont and others were kind enough to make a genuine attempt to answer your questions, and rather than take the opportunity to learn something you become contrary and insulting. If you are unable to behave properly here please move on.

    No they did not ..they dismissed me immediately despite showing there replys to be wrong ...they can not produce an example of  nature producing the same phenomena...even conceding that atomic particles can not be identical in nature ..but are still identical ????

    54 minutes ago, studiot said:

    +1  I will add flagrantly flouting the rules here to that

    rules .....what!!!  You must not know more than us .... oryou must not question percived ideas ....? I think you all must be pretty put out that a mon scientist has brought to light something you never thought up yourself .. if nothing in nature can produce the same thing  why would extraterrestrial lifeforms be the exception .....

    It can only be prebiotic material if that prebiotic material becomes Abiogenesis it's not Abiogenesis  unless Abiogenesis produces biology ... the material and causation of prebiotic material can not exsit twice  what material is available can not then be the same Abiogenesis that happened here it would produce anything other than what has been produced before....

  12. 10 minutes ago, swansont said:

    Can be different if they are in different states. Which what I've been saying. 

     

    What Dr. Baird is ignoring is that a small (fraction of a gram) chunk of some material will have >10^20 atoms in it. Some will have some excited electrons, but normally the majority will be in the ground state. And there will be a bunch of excited-state atoms that are in the same excited state.

    Are they all identical? No. Some will be in a different state. But most are identical. IOW, not being in an identical state is an exception.

     

    That bit at the end, about the Nobel prize, is Bose-Einstein condensation, which I've mentioned. It's impossible to do if the atoms aren't identical.

    If you have a chance, ask Dr Baird why the electrons in any atom aren't all in the ground state, if they aren't identical.

    And stop cherry-picking answers. I notice you didn't include the very end of Baird's post

    With that said, don't think that atoms have individual identities beyond what has been mentioned here. If two carbon atoms are in the exact same molecular, atomic, electronic and nuclear states, then those two carbon atoms are identical, no matter where they came from or what has happened to them in the past.

     

    Translation: he was explaining the exceptions to being identical (and ignoring some physics in doing so)

    But they never are  in those positions in nature ...so they are not identical ....

  13. 1 hour ago, studiot said:

    There you go again laying down the law about something you do not properly understand.

    I already offered you proper scientific discussion about this in the other thread you started this morning, but you appear to have declined.

    It is instructive to consider the following chemical compounds.

    1) CH3.CH3 and Ch3.CH2.CH3
    and
    2) CH3.COOH and CH3.CH2.COOH

    In the first pair the carbon atoms in the first molecule are chemically 'the same' but in the second molecule the centre carbon is slightly different from the other two.

    In the second pair none of the carbon atoms are 'the same'.

     

    Screenshot_20210630-071110_Chrome.jpg

    3 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said:

     

    Screenshot_20210630-071110_Chrome.jpg

     

    Screenshot_20210630-143014_Chrome.jpg

    Screenshot_20210630-143137_Chrome.jpg

    Screenshot_20210630-143148_Chrome.jpg

    They are not identical .....despite what YOU say !!!!!! 🤓

  14. 1 hour ago, swansont said:

    Atoms are the same in terms of composition, as long as you have the same isotope.

    Larger composite systems have opportunities to have differences, where there are multiple ways for things to connect to each other, or you can have contaminants. Something with 10^20 parts in it have a lot of ways they can be put together with subtle differences. Something with 2 parts might only have one way to be put together.

    Got you ....👍 are  the compositions that just have two parts of there compostions are those parts ever identical ..what I have gathered is that two atomic particles can only be identical if there various states are the same at the exact time and this slight difference is what gives  the particles there ability to interact  and coalesce with each other ....electrons in the same state dont make them identical either as they are travelling or rotating at different speeds which effects them cold iron and liquid iron.. ..they also have different number of electrons ....they also have different masses to each other..so at what point are they identical  ....?

    53 minutes ago, pzkpfw said:

    1 is 1

    2 is 2

    3 is 3

    But 123 does not equal 321.

    Can you show two identical number 1s....can you show two identical PZKFW 5 Panther tanks ♡....?

  15. 1 hour ago, Kartazion said:

    The different amounts of chemical element to represent the same composition.

    For a human body each has different amount of water, different amount of fat, different number of globule, ... 

    For rocks, more or less minerals depending on the location, more or less quartz depending on the location, ...


     

    Why just chemical ...? Or is that one of other things  you know of ..? 

  16. 10 hours ago, Phi for All said:
    !

    Moderator Note

    Yes, water is water.

    Please retract your claim that "you haven't produced one example of anything happening the same twice or a dissimilar chemical reaction producing another same." It's the intellectually honest thing to do.

     

    No ..because you haven't given an example water isnt just water ....if you can derive a distinction between the two waters they are not the same ..as I've said two water molecules are just two mountains or two trees ...they can be exact its physical law .. you're not been intellectually honest .  It takes a quick look on wikipedia to substantiate this ....

×
×
  • 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.