cypress

Sulfurous acid and in fact many oxidation reactions using dioxygen can be catalyzed using nitrogen containing carbons with high surface areas (powered activated carbons). Anthralur, generally made from Peat and carbon black I think is a good one to try. Without the catalyst, the reaction still occurs but very very slowly. Perhaps this will get you started. Mix up some H2SO3 in deionized water perhaps using SO2. Add some platinum or gold electrodes to measure conductivity and then add the Anthralur. Next bubble in some O2 and measure the increase in conductivity as an indication of the progress of the reaction. If you wish to be exact you can use conductivity to tritate the reactant and product solutions.

I don't see how one could asses if that were possible. In order for something to be possible one would need a plausible mechanism or analog. Lacking both, we cannot say it is possible. In other words, it is not true that "anything is possible". There are quite clearly things that are not possible due to mutually exclusive constraints. Nice try....

Under standard evolutionary models, gradualism, mostly as a consequence of the assumption that changes occur primarily by random mutation (as opposed to environmental (and possibly other) factors as you have proposed) would indicate evolutionary scaling should be dominate based on phylogenetic distance so it is not precisely as we would expect under the most popular models. Clearly the darwinian model of gradualism by genetic error and selection doesn't match the evidence, as you so clearly illustrate.

The book should have said each atom is surrounded by eight atoms.... Think more about the geometry that is implied by the description. Can you visualize it? Draw it out as a three dimension sketch and you should begin to see which atoms are touching. Hint: The atoms at the eight corners of a cube are not touching each other.....

Feasible to a point. They are quite a bit more expensive and currently don't scale very well.

Explanations of speculations and facts are two different things would you not agree? Do you have factual demonstrations that clearly show there is no center of gravity to this apparently finite three dimensional universe? The explanations were long on speculation and short on factual support. They relied heavily on the two assumptions you offered in order to differentiate that speculation from alternatives. Without those assumptions, other models are every bit as coherent. why should we accept those assumptions as more reasonable than others? They are after all assumptions, by definition without factual support. I don't think so, it is also reasonable to argue that the assumptions may be incorrect. But once again, this evidence is 100% reliant on the assumptions you previously described. The traditional relativistic doppler red shift adjusted for time dilation derives a red shift higher than 2 at relative velocities less than 80% the speed of light and 10 at about 95% the speed of light. Z's climb into the millions and higher as relative velocities approach, but never reach c. So the evidence is consistent with alternatives that don't rely on the assumptions your models do, but instead rely on physical behaviors that we observe as a regular part of our uniform experience. I may address some of your other arguments later, but for now I am interested in your response to these points. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I am quite familiar with this speculation and I find it interesting but unnecessarily complicated. Why though should we abandon the image of the universe as being three dimensional with a discontinuity at its boundary when uniform experience and physical observation indicates that it is indeed an ordinary three dimensional object? Why choose a more complicated model than required?

Right, but since Luckygamer seems to be stumped from the beginning it may be best to back up one step and begin by understanding from the description what is the geometry of the crystal and the spacial relationships of the atoms to each other. So, if you start by drawing the shape of the structure and then place the two atoms as described perhaps that would help you see the structure.

Another minor point is that fats are not generally derived from fatty acids. On your second question there are two reasons why the second answer is not a possible answer to the question. One is that MBTE is an acronym for Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether. The compound name describes the organic structure which is made up of two parts, tertiary butane/butyl group, and an ether. The left side of the first is one of those groups and the right side of the molecule is the other. Perhaps you can identify these groups and see why the first is the only possible solution. The second reason is that carbon bonds don't form at 90 degree angles, (what angles are possible based on orbital bonding?) so the four ringed carbon group is not stable.

Sure, if you can be more specific. I assume you understand the unit of measure but you are having difficulty with the trigonometry and geometrics, or spacial relationships.

Perhaps I a wrong, but I believe he implied it by speaking of "the expansion rate" as opposed to "one measure of the expansion rate" or some "localized expansion rate". If the expansion rate of the universe is uniform as Bear's Key implied, and Spyman stated directly, then it would apply regardless of the reference frame. I mention a specific reference only to be clear so as to avoid semantic issues.

To build further on your point Auzur, quantum uncertainty and entanglement seems to guarantee that it is not possible to distinguish the difference between an incredibly improbable isolated event and a supernatural event (one without a natural explanation).

That would be just one of the difficulties in demonstrating Bear's Key assertion seconded by sisyphus. Without a defined reference it is difficult to establish that the rate of expansion exceeds some defined speed. As a note to Spyman; I think you may have completely misunderstood the purpose of my response. First, regardless of the actual mechanism whereby the universe is expanding, the alternative reference frame I described is not incorrect. Second, while I appreciate the evidence you offered that supports isotropic and homogeneous expansion, note that there are indeed alternatives that are consistent with these observations that do not rely on the assumptions outlined in the article you copied. Finally I don not dispute that the universe is expanding, nor do I dispute that it is doing so remarkably uniformly. I did however ask for evidence that the rate of this uniform expansion exceeds or once exceeded the speed of light. That question has not yet been addressed. Mitchel: A finite space with mass necessarily must have but one center of gravity, even if we are unable to locate it. The Universe is known to be finite, therefore it would seem that it must have one center of gravity.

The sodium chloride does not react or catalyze the reaction. However this is an electrical redox reaction (involving electron transfer). The salt ions increase conductivity and thus improve electron transfer so the reaction is not limited or throttled by rate of electron transfer.

I agree Ophiolite. It may well be that the list of questions we don't know the answers to may be growing faster than the list we do know.

Anything with a particular energy level, be it quantum or macro retains that energy unless it interacts with another thing and energy is transfered. Atoms and subatomic particles regularly transfer energy back and forth thus continuing the cycle. Were it possible to isolate something perfectly it would retain its current energy state in perpetuity. Power can currently be extracted from high energy systems of particles and transfered to lower energy systems thus performing work until these higher energy systems are exhausted. All indications are that his won't last forever, though there is insufficient data to know for certain.

So it is not incorrect to describe an alternate reference frame whereby matter near the boundary is moving outward relative to the universes center of gravity. I don't recall in my description the use of of any term indicating an explosion in a fixed pre-existing spacial continuum, so I am confused why choice of description for expansion should matter, particularly when we don't fully understand the nature or mechanism of this expansion. I am interested in the evidence that the rate of increase in the distance between a celestial body and the universes center of gravity exceeds the speed of light as would be required to describe the expansion of the universe as Bear Key did.

Hmm. Is this concept or confirmed? Can you demonstrate this is factually correct or does the evidence provide alternative explanations? I'm not sure that there is no further description possible than simply space expanding without kinematic motion. Certainly in one reference frame the universe can be viewed as if it were expanding as you describe, but is it the only explanation, is it the only way to describe it? Certainly not.

Good points insane_alien. The land area required to meet the US demand for liquid fuels (ethanol and biodiesel) is about 284 thousand square miles, an area 1.2 times the area of Texas. This is using the most efficient plant sources which as you say are sugar beets, sugar cane and palm Oil plants high in sugar or oil content. The size of this required crop area would be a serious contender competing with food production and it puts it completely out of reach in the near term. Hemp is a poor starter material for renewable energy that would only make the situation worse.

It's not too difficult if you have the equation you need. This must be homework, right? What is the equation for reaction kinetics when you have an enzyme in an nonreversible reaction? Do you have that, because if you do you are nearly done. The problem statement has given you all the values you need. If you don't have the equation or don't understand why the equation works or don't understand the concept, please ask and I will help you with those questions.

General relativity theory precludes the possibility of particles traveling faster than C, thus expansion in every direction from a constant reference frame is disallowed. Perhaps opposite wave fronts exceed the speed of light relative to each other, but I don't see how the expansion can be termed as greater than the speed of light. The mass of the universe is of course traveling outward much slower than the radiation wave front and this expansion of mass is generally taken to be the referred to as the expansion of the universe. Maybe you can explain better your claim.

No, you are not missing anything... Sounds good to me.

Other mutations are made but they generally damage function and the variations do not compete. The mutations that do compete are the one of which you speak these are the ones that lead to adaptations that happen to defeat/confuse immune response. Non-conserved mutations occur throughout the RNA. Recognize that HIV is a retrovirus with its genetic code stored as RNA as opposed to DNA. Once inside the cell the virus uses its enzyme reverse transcriptase to generate DNA which is then transported to the host cell machinery to be duplicated. GP120 and GP41 are the proteins that bind to the host cell and provide the mechanism for entry into the host. Alterations to these proteins impact entry efficiency but do not seem to impact internal viral function. Alterations to systems performing internal function seem to be mostly deleterious and thus the present configuration is highly conserved.

Hmm.... Business risk assessments generally focus on risks they can influence or manage. An open ended risk assessment might just scare you to death.

deleted... stale thread, sry.