swansont

Two electrons can't be in the same state in an atom. Their macroscopic state of travel has no effect on their quantum state. They do not have different masses. Iron has different isotopes, which have different masses. But an atom of Fe-56, for example, is that same as any other atom of Fe-56, and if the atoms are in the ground state they, too, are identical. Atoms that are fermions have been seen to follow the Pauli Exclusion Principle.

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.

! Moderator Note As a matter of policy here, this is absolutely not the case. Thread hijacking is against our rules

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.

And it is because they are otherwise identical that fermions must occupy different states in an atom, owing to the Pauli Exclusion Principle. This is one way we know that particles themselves are identical. Another is that we can form Bose-Einstein condensates, which is another phenomenon that has a basis in particles being identical. The reason atomic clocks work so well is that the atoms are identical, so the quantum state oscillations are at the same frequency, which is preferable to an oscillator that is manufactured and would have small differences from item to item. IOW, the notion that these particles are identical has been experimentally verified.

! Moderator Note I've had enough of the arguments in bad faith (violating rule 2.12) and the soapboxing (violating 2.8) Scientific discussion has to be backed up by science. It's not just saying "Nuh uh" to each rebuttal. You had ample opportunity to add some rigor to your argument, and you didn't. Don't re-introduce this topic.

AYFKM?

I can’t produce something when something is as ill-defined as your parameters are 1. You only asked for this after asking for something else 2. If that’s what you want: there are multiple chemical reaction that will produce e.g. H2O - there is the familiar combustion of H2 and O2, but this will happen with hydrocarbons as well. CH3—COO—H + C2H5—OH → CH3-COO—C2H5 + H2O CH4 + 2 O2 -> CO2 + 2 H2O Multiple dissimilar reactions producing the same common product <awaiting a moving of the goalposts in 3…2…1…> Which is a narrow requirement for no legitimate reason. Why must stalagmites be identical? What scientific principle is at stake?

Not meant as such from me. More of a “what spurred you on as a kid, without an internet at your fingertips”

You've been rebutted on all these. Is it really necessary to do that again? Ignorance of science isn't evidence, and your ignorance is rather profound. (and if your argument is true, I can't rebut you again, because nothing is ever observed to happen twice. Right?)

Still untrue, despite being repeated. Then you have been really bad at framing this question Is the point you want to make is that dissimilar conditions do not give identical results? Or is it dissimilar processes? Or is it that results can never be replicated exactly? I would argue that none of these are necessarily true, or that this matters, but we need a decently-defined premise to discuss, and you haven't provided one.

Nothing about this has been about "dissimilar natural process producing something the same" You claimed that "Nothing in nature is observered (sic) to happen again or twice ...have a look yourselves! " You said nothing about processes or results. But you keep returning to a particular, narrowly-defined example that doesn't happen, where nobody is surprised that it doesn't happen, or rarely happens. This is known as moving the goalposts, and it's a dishonest debating tactic. ... I remember someone I knew long ago that argued that evolution is false because a dog never gave birth to a cat. He thought that was a persuasive argument, when in fact it just showed how little he understood about evolution. I see a similar phenomenon happening here.

A similar path I had was a set of Time-Life books on science. We had a Grolier encyclopedia set, which was a prize contestants (my mom) got for appearing on Jeopardy!

I haven't seen you use scientific fact and reasoning yet in this thread Again you have made a vague prediction. If the pattern holds, you will then move the goalposts when this is shown to be false, and you will apply a much narrower set of criteria to try and cover your error. A sun doesn't have to be the same as ours for it to be a sun. Again with the intellectually dishonest reasoning. Life would be biological, even if it were different that what was formed on earth.

Interesting, as you have not defined life at all, and this suggests you would artificially narrow the definition to be DNA-based. You didn't specify that it had to be the same water until after your argument was rebutted. I'm not aware that worms evolved into humans. Certainly not any extant species of worm. You can't possibly know if it was fast or not.

This is getting tiresome. Repetition is not proof. "Nothing" has to include all cases, and the only examples you can show are for very specific cases. You can't extrapolate from that to a general truth of the statement. Not reputable? I'm not required to, in order to disprove your statement. You can't limit responses to a specific avenue of proof. It's an intellectually dishonest requirement. We can't be sure life on another planet would be based on DNA. There's no requirement for the results to be identical, other than your artificial narrowing of the answer you will accept.

"Because Andrew William Henderson said so" is not a physics principle. Repetition does not make something true. Is anyone predicting an exact outcome of a future event here? I'm not understanding your point. Asserted without evidence. (I'm sensing a pattern) Abiogenesis might actually be relatively easy under the conditions of the the early earth. It might be that it only took a thousand years after the right conditions were met for it to occur. That's fast using the age of the earth as a scale. We just don't know. And if we don't know, you can't make a valid assertion one way or the other.

Hence the "dark" moniker There's no reason to think there is, either, which is a stronger statement. The BB extrapolates back to a singularity, but at all times past that (i.e. at all times we have physics that we can discuss) there is dark energy and no singularity. "All sides around the universe" has no meaning.

And this depends on what that "thing" is. If that "thing" is some kind of eye is developed, then that "thing" has happened multiple times. Your examples have focused this down to a narrow instance of something so that the statement is true, but it's only true for those narrowly-defined instances, and you are improperly extrapolating those examples. Suns (i.e. stars) happen all the time. Suns similar to ours happen pretty often. There's no reason to think a star has to be exactly like our sun to support life. Abiogenesis in no way "bypasses" entropy, and I don't see how the Lorenz effect applies. (and you have made the case for neither; just doing a Gish gallop isn't going to get you anywhere)

Perhaps there is some bit of relevance: the differences in the gold between two locations is dependent on stuff that isn't gold. The gold itself (the atoms of a given isotope) are identical I'm not even sure you could rule out life emerging more than once on earth. Abiogenesis happens, and then some cataclysm wipes it out before it can spread and take hold, and a thousand years later abiogenesis happens again. This could potentially have happened many times. None of the evidence would have survived.

! Moderator Note A reminder that your (fredreload) responses that stray from the topic will remain hidden. This thread is not about some fanciful application that's loosely based on science. Such discussion is why you are in the moderation queue.

I provided three links that shows this to be in error. Have you provided any examples of it being "hidden"? Usually it's derived with few constraints to it, and no initial conditions. e.g. start with a = dv/dt, which is the definition of acceleration (always true) Add in the condition that acceleration is constant, and integrate the equation and you get v = v0 +at Apply the definition of velocity, v = dx/dt Integrate again and you get s = v0t + 1/2 at2 The initial velocity is there (as it is in so many textbooks, if you'd only bother to look), and the only restriction is that you must have a constant acceleration Only if you forget to include it, but that's on you

To a very limited extent, yes. It's more difficult to confine them because you don't have an overall neutral configuration as you have in a plasma, so the electrostatic repulsion will quickly get very large as you add electrons.

No, it's information

! Moderator Note If you present speculation, you MUST PRESENT EVIDENCE FOR IT After 200+ posts, ignorance of the rules isn’t an excuse that buys you additional chances