StringJunky

Space aka volume. Distance is a 1D abstraction of space. Space as something material depends on what you want to look at within that volume.

Unoccupied space at what level? That's semantics, depending on what one is focusing on. All space has matter in it. If the space didn't have matter in it there would be no space, since space is the distance between things or that volume a thing occupies. No definition can be all inclusive... to define means to distinguish i.e delineate, or we might as well say 'Universe' to cover every possible instance.

I think so too. Space is that which is occupied by matter and matter is that which occupies space, in the same sense that matter tells space how to curve and space tells matter how to move. They are inextricable. Per Markus, some years ago: "Spacetime is the map, not the territory". It's a conceptualization of a geometrical arena, with volumetric and temporal axes, to describe energy-density-momentum through time of phenomena within it in some arbitrary volume. The ontological nature - what something is intrinsically - can never be known, only what it does. Trying to get a macro-materialistic sense of things outside of our senses is futile.

Trump and Vance are spineless political chameleons.

Shapiro is being like a good scientist: changing his position with the mounting evidence. History will be on the side of the antizionists. The true nature and aims of Zionism is execrable. The US and Europe has fought wars against the governing assembly of fascists and authoritarians who want a monoethnocentric state, and here they are throwing billions and arms at such people so that they can create one. America and the UK has truly been bought. AIPAC, and the like, are an existential threat to world peace.

Or as Trump would like it "Trump 24/7/365!"

In retrospect, my exposure to the history of the British industrial revolution 1740-1940 primed me for appreciating anthropogenic climate change now. Newcomen changed everything. It meant absolutely bugger all to me in my teens. I agree that you need some decades behind you and lived some of your own history to get a proper feel for it. Time means little as a teen... like a billionaire awash with money.

I think this time, you've just got to think about winning. The alternative is too unpalatable. There is the prospect of there not being another election for many years after this one. Those millions of guns could about to be getting very busy in a few years or less.

That's good. I'm becoming more interested in history as well. I never used to like it at school. I've sort of realized that we need to know where things came from in order to know where things are going.

Sometimes, offspring can feel overwhelmed by their parents achievements and have more modest ambitions. One of my cousins was like that. Not everyone is cut out to think in abstract sciency/mathy ways. We are what we are. It takes all sorts to make a world. In chemistry and especially organic chem, there seems to be mountains of stuff you have to know by rote, as you said. I prefer to learn and apply principles to answer questions, rather than have to learn lots of stuff by rote, I get bored with it. My memory is not my strongest point is likely why that is. I see principles and formulae as like a Swiss knife that I can do a number of things with. I can get more out for the effort applied.

LOL!

You are not reasoning. You are, in effect, using a cooking recipe book to describe how to fix a car.

What they'll possibly try to do now is to lose that mess in a bigger mess that'll they'll try to create, going forward. Trash the political landscape with strategic lies and uncertainties to level the increasingly asymmetric situation they now face, and then convince people they are the way of this mess. Sound familiar? Then, pull out Project 2025 again as a solution.

Taken in aggregate with his support of Project 2025 and other stuff, a duck is a duck.

The air blowers will reduce the amount of natural carbonic acid, which is highly unstable in a turbulent environment. You might knock it down to the same pH as the catchment water if you turn off the blowers to find out. You only need to expose the lake surface to the atmosphere for it to oxygenate. The air blowers function is to temporarily disrupt the surface tension to allow gas exchange, it doesn't actually force air into the water directly. A bottom/up circulation should provide sufficient exchange without agitating the water too much, such that it liberates the carbonic acid as carbon dioxide. The carbonic acid is an integral part of the lake's natural pH management system. My reference is experience in dealing with persistently rising pH in hydroponic systems. Took me a long time to figure it out. Look into the carbonic acid cycle if you want to understand it more deeply. TLDR. Aim for water circulation from lower down to rise to the water's surface for gaseous exchange without agitation. I think the pump can be lifted some way off the lake bed, say mid-water, to avoid making the water cloudy and turbid from sediments. Plan your pump arrangement so that the water body moves around in a manner that covers the majority of the lake. The rain and wind will also contribute to breaking up the surface tension for gas exchange, so it doesn't have to be all artificially generated. You could try this as an experiment in a bath of the lake water and monitor the pH as you play around with it. To start, put some lake water in a mini-lake arrangement and leave it undisturbed, whilst monitoring the pH over time. It might take a few days. Then play around with your circulation pumps to find the best circulation pattern.

60-100psi.

Yes, although I'm not sufficiently competent myself, I appreciate that verbosity is no substitute for mathematical descriptions.

Why make a big deal out of it? I see the title as someone who is RELATIVELY knowledgeable on one or more of the 3 main branches compared to the sites general readership. I think you are nitpicking. Careers or degrees aren't made or lost on this forum. Someone doing a degree will not rely on one source.

It looks like to me that it is not possible to relate every single detail and at certain level, like yours, there needs to be a minimum of knowledge on the part of the questioner that needs to be assumed they have.

Here's the clip shown by Adam Schiff on Twitter: https://x.com/i/status/1817007890496102490

I've seen pretty much every member argue with each other, one way or the other, over the years, on matters of science. I think anyone would be called out if they were consistently saying unscientific things. In a nutshell, I think the peer review outlook is pretty good here. Maybe not as strict as somewhere like Physics Forums, but that's not for everyone, including me.

With Harris up now against him, the contrast is much clearer for voters to see. He's a walking train wreck and sewer mouth.

I think he's covering for Trump. I think it's plain as day what he means. If it walks like a duck... and he is a duck.

This is why it's important to have as many players in a biosphere as possible to minimize the effect of a significant population alteration of a single species. If populations are moderated by competition, so is a biosphere. Catastrophic population change is ok as long some form of life can persist in the adverse environment until organism diversity can resume and evolution begin again. I think no species is favoured, only that DNA/RNA, as the information/pattern/signal carriers, can persist. As long as the minimum information survives, so can life as it is. It doesn't have to start all over again from basic molecules compounded from astronomical events.

Absolutely, 'correlation is not causation' has to be kept in mind.