studiot

Our knowledge of oxygen processes in the atmousphere, land and oceans is, not surprisingly, far greater for the past half a billion years than for the previous nearly 4 billion years. We know today that there have been non organic processes associated for instance with the sulphur cycle in that most recent period. One fact has been determined is that the enzyme Rubisco, originally from the cyanobacteria nearly 3 billion years ago, is still used by plants today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RuBisCO

+1 for more patience than I have.

Good points. +1 Especially as the original posted source website is one that shows dangerous, possibly illegal, crap like this on the same page.

Despite the fact that this thread is primarily about entropy, not information, I think a digression about the difference between data and information is worth noting. Data can contain other things, besides information. In communications theory and encryption theory this might be padding data. Interestingly may padding contain additional information that is not part of the 'message' or 'information content' of the message. This is because it is possible to analyse the padding to deduce the proprotion of padding and therefore isolate the information bits. Further in computing theory data may also contain a further section, know as a 'key', for the purpose of information storage and retrieval. The persistent incivility has been reported.

There were formulas, but the significance to medicine of those formulas to medicine were not yet known; all the dots had not yet been connected. (PS - they still haven't. modern medicine is still a work in progress, building new knowledge on old.) Okay, so what medical knowledge did every western industrial nation eradicate between 1760 and 1840? Did Dalton ignore all of the research into heredity that had gone before? Did he dismiss all of the earlier researches into light and optics? Did he consider all foregoing studies of anatomy as too primitive to bother with? Before the later part of the 19th century chemical formulae wer recipes or prescriptions, they did not have the form we understand today. Neither correct atomic and molecular weights were available before 1850 (following the death of (Berzelius in 1848), nor was the concept of valency properly establish until 1865 (Hofmann). Valency was also confused with 'chemical affinity'. There is a fascinating account of the story of both the successes and failures during the development of this in a book by a one time oganic and pharmaceutical chemist, now a lecturer at London University and also the editor of The dictionary of Natural Products, John Buckingham. Chasing the Molecule : Sutton Publications 2004.

It is worth noting and remembering the difference between two derived quantities that sound almost the same. molarity and molality Not quite. 1 part per thousand of solution. So 1 g salt in 999 g water. Since the solution is very dilute the difference is small, but still important. Osmolarity is different again Edit Sleep well and I hope it resolves soon, without any serious effects.

Why have you got 2 threads on this one subject ?

I already did, but you chose to reply about something different. Incidentally the first use of light therapy was probably the first stone age man to 'sit in the sun' to get better. The 1903 Nobel for Medicine went to Dr Niels Finsen for attempting to use 'concentrated light' - a special light source - to cure smallpox and TB. However none of these had access to lasers. In the 1960s Mester in Hungary was attempting to cure carcinomas with a forerunner of laser heat therapy. At the same time NASA was investigating the safety of lasers for non medical reasons. Their breakthrough that non-heat type lasers had therapeutical effects was not widely reported until 2001. This was the origination of PMB. PMB does not 'cure' anything it works entirely differently in ways we now understand. A pharmaceutical analog would be the new drugs that have been 'engineered in the last 15 or so years following out greater understanding of human biochemisty, such as ibrutinib. Edit I would like to add a note to those who seem to have the idea that drugs or other treatments have the same effect on anybody and everybody. This is not the case. I don't know of any treatment that works universally. So we cannot say that drug A works but herb B does not, only that drug A works for some people (perhaps a wider range of people) than herb B. Side effects are a good way to demonstrate this. My wife likes kiwi fruit, but they make her lips swell so she can't eat them. I am allergic to penecillin, but it cures many other people of many other conditions. Ibrutinib is only of use to certain genetic types (apparantly) And so on.

I disagree. I have personal experience of a treatment that has no foundation in traditional medicine, either herbal or pharmaceutical. (although I am not sure what folks mean by traditional). It is called photobiomodulation and I found it an effective replacement for 'traditional' NSAIDs, - as, I understand, have others.

What's your interest please ?

Oh dear me. Thank you for helping me correct my spelling mistake. +1 I doubt your gran ever caused serious social consequences. Although even swapping misinformation over the garden fence with a couple of neighbours has led to human deaths in the past. (Here I am thinking of falsely accused paedophiles/murderers hounded to death or lesser consequences) But social media now spread lies on a grand scale.

So many good points to ponder here. +1 Such a shame the UK Government's persistent obsession with a 'market economy' demonstrate the folly of some of these all too well. Do you consider that there is any difference between the socio-economics of large and small countries involved in this ?

Exeter University is the nearest university to me. Here is a quote from journalist alumnus J Irwandi about his prizewinning photo during the covid pandemic, although he was villified by both government and private authorities for 'fake news' at the time. His example was from coronavirus, but I ask it in a much wider context.

Interesting, there's life in the old thread yet. +1

The biggest stumbling block is folks being far too vague about what they mean by "The Double Slit", and then mixing up different experiments. What do you think it means ? Hint there is dozens of different double slit experiments.

Good topic +1 I vote for some of those whose work was (originally) stolen ( in no particular order ) Rosalind Franklin Lise Meitner Jocelyn Bell Eunice Foote Katherine Johnson and if I am allowed to include a Russian Sofia Kovalevskaia

So you don't want to discuss this then ? I think I know what you are trying to say, but I think you are using the wrong words. I agree, do you know what they are ? I did ask what you think a metal is. Why did you not reply ? But I haven't mentioned atoms, molecules , electrons etc. Metals were identified long before such things were known.

Very interesting. +1 Also to @joigus for his latest thoughts. I had in mind to extend the bookcase/list example and you took (some of) the thoughts right out of my head. Information is certainly a slippery concept, which is why it is carefully specified (limited) in information theory and associated information entropy, so that case 3 for instance cannot arise within the theory. I was thinking that one needs definitions / explanations for Data Message Encoding Encryption Meaning and perhaps some other concepts I haven't thought of. to properly parse the various manifestations of information. I also has some new examples A field Marshall about to engage the enemy tells his general A that the plan is to attack at 3am. He will send a signal '1' if This is confirmed and a '0' if he is not to attack at 3am. A perfectly good message, but the situation is not the same as with the coin and squares game as it is open ended. A variation in a sort of entanglement occurs if a pincher movement in conjunction with general B is envisaged. Because general A will not only know what he himself is doing, but also general B's movements. A second new example concerns nautical ssignal flags. A certain asmiral operates the following practice. His flagship flies two signal flags. The top one carries the fleet number of the ship he is signalling. Underneath the second flag carries a sentence from section 5 of Maryat's signals book, say 'Report to Flag' Each flag is actually an easily distinguishable colour pattern. So the message is encoded twice, but not encrypted.

Very big of you. As to this issue, A metal is actually a chemical term, very specifically defined. Many scientific terms are common across several disciplines. Each such discipline has its own particular interest in that term. Road engineers, geographers and lawyers for instance talk about a metalled road surface. What do you think that means ? You started here by saying that you were a layman and asking questions. Highly commendable. But you then changed to preaching to a bunch of specialists. Not so good. So please feel free to ask some more questions, and if you like, tell us what you think a metal is. That is proper discussion.

I did actually put some effort into offering some factual scientific information on your proposal. I cannot, however, tell from your response what you got out of it or if you even read that part. What would you see as the most significant pat of my post ?

Advertising gaff of the year

I'm sorry but you are either being disingenuous here or mistaken. You specifically related information to encoding by the use of the word 'choice' , which I highlighted from your post. Information exists, regardless of the method of encoding or even whether it is encoded or not. Furthermore the more complex examples we are discussing in this thread demonstrates that there is even more to information than this. Entanglement brings yet another layer. Information is most definitely not the choice of encoding since otherwise there would be an infinite amount of information since there is an infinite count of different ways of encoding even a simple binary piece of information. Since the choice is infinite, the information is infinite, by your definition.

That is true and explained in my last post. When I originally saw this title , I decided to go no further. Subsequently I read the first reply when I saw it was by exchemist. And yes, I thought he dealt pretty well with the chemistry and other practicalities.

I disagree. Information is the meaning of the coding.

Perhaps we should go for a reset here ? The actual thread topic / question is a very reasonable one put in a very reasonable way. And you did the right thing in asking if your idea was viable. Unfortunately the title included a somewhat perjorative term that clearly antagonised other members. Setting that aside, it is not unreasonable for a lay person with some scientific interest to have picked up some idea that uranium metal is fairly unreactive as is lead and so propose it for electrodes. Unfortunately the chemistry is against this proposal. The electrodes in electrochemical cells come in two varieties. Those which take part in the chemical reactions and those which don't and are merely the to provide electrical contact. In the traditional lead-acid battery the electrodes are of the first type and are not both pure metal as the underlined passage notes in the first attachment. Lead oxide is the actual chemical involved at one electrode. The attachment also gives outline working of the chemistry of the cell along with resultant cell voltages, around a useful couple of volts per cell. This should be compared with the second attachment for uranium. One thing about chemical reactions is that they have to be not only energetically and chemically feasible, they have to be fast enough at working temperatures to be useful. I have underlined the appropriate uranium reactions which are noted to be very slow and high temperature. Also note that uranium has many more oxidation states than lead, which leads to undesirable potential side reactions. It would be difficult to get a simple reaction to obtain useful output voltage reliably, as can be seen from the oxidation voltage diagram. This really is off-topic but I do wonder if you have misheard or misremembered what was said. Perhaps the scientist said, or meant but was not clear, that the sound was generated by a chemical reaction? Here is another example of 'only part of the story' and I thank swansont for this as I did not realise about the dust so I would say +1 if he did not already have too many plus points. So thank you to the 'expert' on that topic. Thanks also to exchemist for his work in debunking John Hutchinson. +1