studiot

Sorry the video is just a screenshot, I can't embed this one. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cz6l1qw71jyo The library where books are kept under lock and key The library where books are kept under lock and key Step inside the library where books are kept locked to the shelves with chains. The chained library at Wells Cathedral in Somerset is home to a collection of books that are older than America. The majority are Latin transcripts and religious texts, which were handwritten and handmade by monks and scribes. This would have taken months to complete.

That may have been the edwardian view of concrete, Though monsieur Fressynet might have disagreed even then. But fibre concrete has been around for some decades now. When I worked at the Building Research Establishment in the 1960s there was a department working on it.

This was what I was referring to when I said So +1 for acknowledging it and also to MOON for also spotting it. If you want to present the claim that the universe is getting closer to equilibrium you need to be4 able to demonstrate that this is the case. For this purpose you need a measure of the 'distance' from equilibrium and be able to show that this is decreasing. Furtjer you need to somehow include all forms of 'equilibrium' (mechanical, thermodynamic, chemical and so on) and if necessary a separate measure for each and, if possible, some sort of combined measure. You mentioned somewhere that you are interested in scinece and in philosophy. Both disciplines require the presentation of rational chains of thought leading from premises to results. Additionally scinece requires observational/experimental verification of these results. Hindcasting is often employed as a veracity test before any credence is put into predictive results (forecasting). Maths is useful but not essential to either. Here is a superb example of such rational thought from a mid 20th cent professor of geology with not a shred of maths used. I have starred the relevent 4 lines of text, but Proff Sutcliffes's style is a nearly impeccable model. It is not a secret. I watched an hour's ( NASA) documentary on the BBC on the NH space mission made after the probe suddenly came back to life and transmitted the astounding pictures and data. Google : NASA video of New Horizons flyby of Pluto. https://science.nasa.gov/toolkit/new-horizons-flyby/ Note The BBC and PBS America both produce some excellent scientific documentaries. The BBC ones are often also available on DVD. If you want to look at the experts presentation of the state of the Earth's Early atmousphere in realtion to evolution look at the Professor Aubery Manning ( a biologist) series where he visits paleobiologists around the world who present their results and conclusions in 8 one hour lectures. It is interesting to trace how the knowledge and conclusions stood or changed in the three series. Stewart 1990s Manning early 2000s Packham 2023

Have you heard of the 3 point Cradle to Cradle Philosophy ? https://mcdonough.com/cradle-to-cradle/ The original book is available very cheaply SH and very thought provoking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle-to-cradle_design https://c2ccertified.org/topics/built-environment Universidad EAN in Bogotá, Colombia is a groundbreaking redevelopment project that demonstrates Cradle to Cradle Certified® design and circular economy principles. © Jairo Llano – LlanoFotografia

Well welcome to both of you. Keeping an open mind is what is necessary. Science is all about evidence, and weighing carefully that evidence. One thing that means is making the appropriate reactions and changes when new evidence come in (which also has to be weighed against the existing). A great deal of very solid Science has been carried out at the behest of one religion or another, but Science as a whole has yet to find any evidence of a deity. Meanwhile many religions offer a worthwhile code of conduct.

Does it ? and there is me thinking that four-vectors are something to do with abstract multidimensional spaces, which are algebraic, not geometric.

Actually that is why we were forced to do so many repeat experiments at school and university. I remember measuring g, e/m, the mechanical equivalent of heat, the spectroscopic signature of many organic compounds, and many many others.

Of course not only does the concept of randomness exist, it is all around you all the time. However it is useful to get our definitions correct (is English your first language ? ) so here is a small adjustment for yiur vocabulary. 'dices' is what a butcher does as in Henry the butcher dices and slices the meat. 'dices' is the third person singular of the verb 'to dice' which means to cut (approximately) into cubes. The noun (object) you are thinking of is the word die, which has a plural dice. One die two (or more) dice. That said it is necesary to distinguish meanings for the words random, statistics , probability, event and perhaps a few more. So when a process or activity has more than one possible outcome such that the outcomes do not occur in a defined sequence, that those outcomes are defined as random. Each single outcome is also called an event. Given this definition you you not need to know anything about probability, statistics and so on, you only need to loo around you to see many outcomes that are random. So some examples may help. If I have a bag that I can't see into and put two balls into the bag, identical except one is blue and the other is red. Then I withdraw one ball by feel alone and find it is red. Withdrawing the first ball is random as there are two possibilities; red or blue. Withdrawing the second ball is not random, it must be the second colour (blue in this case) so the second withdrawal is deterministic. Each withdrawal has been considered as a separate outcome or event. Considering the two withdrawals as part of the same single event of withdrawing both balls from the bage yields a different analysis. Can you see why ? This second view held probability theory up for something like 200 years. More widely, suppose I do some target practice with my bow and arrows. I hang a target on my neighbour's door and shoot a number of arrows into it. Each arrow hit is a single event. Once I have made a number of hits I will notice that the arrows do not all hit in exactly the same place, no matter how hard I try. This is because each arrow flight experiences random influences such as gusts of wind, which blow or do not blow and so on. So my arrows are truly scattered randomly over the target, as I am not superman. Turbulence in the air is probably the widest random influence we experience. Does this help ?

Should you be interested there is another thread proposing the same argument. This thread contains a good short summary of the necessary mathematics of probability by another Member. It is the third paragraph of post number 12 (from KJW) on page 4 of this thread. I'm sorry I don't know how to send you directly to it.

You clearly understand the meaning and workings of probability, even though you don't actually (mathematically) require the Everett interpretation for what you said to be true. +1 I have linked this to another thread to help the OP understand better. Firstly I was not feeling very well the other night so I apoligise if you thought my posting over aggressive. The red vote was not mine so I have added a + vote to cancel it. However please read it properly as you have not responded to the points I made but points I did not say. In particular this one where I did not say that oxygen was eityher necessary or unneccessary. I said that going from no unbound oxygen to a biogenerated atmousphere of between 10% and 20 % was an enormous change, not to be dismissed lightly. Is what I said not true then ? You are the only one who mentioned thermodynamic equilibrium. I'm sorry, please offer me clarification. What is not according to wikipedia? I posted an excerpt from Wiki which directly contradicted the statement you made. You did not respond to my offering of the New Horizons data.

Do you really want to know or are you just arguing from incredulity born of ignorance of probability?

There it is again that hidden agenda - purpose. Interesting that you link either chance or random to any purpose.

Are you implying that less advanced organisms cannot modify their surroundings ? (Note I already asked you about the intentionally bit and you did not reply) As for 'intentional evolution' there are plenty of examples where two species have become beneficially adapted to the needs of each other, without any apparent intention. There is a very good example in one of the Wiki articles I linked to concerning ants and a certain thorn bush. Do you understand the meanings of random and chance and the difference between them ? If you say they are changes that means that they are changed from something ? You miss the entire point of natural selection since the process you describe cannot work unless the mutation (beneficial or otherwise) is capable of being tranmitted to later generations.

Maybe, but have they got everywhen ?

so claims a would be physicist who seems to know nothing about Chemistry. Further I was responding to your claim that the conditions under which life emerged are the same as the ones we now find on Earth. There was no oxygen when life emerged period. And Physics would be a real shadow without Mathematics. But don't be so disdainful of other sciences. This assumes what you set out to demonstrate. The hew horizons space probe has cast serious doubt on that with the astounding data gathered from Pluto Clearly you don't knpow what equilibrium means. Strange for a would be Physicist. Not according to Wkipedia.

Why, do you think we know all the Laws of Physics ? And what about other Laws belonging to other Sciences ? Which conditions are ? Agreed, but that does not mean it is the only one. But it decidedly didn't. Life on Earth emerged in an anoxic atmousphere or ocean. We have moved on a very long way since 1859. Equilibrium ?

I rather think these (mine and yours) are minor variations in the wider context of 'evolution' in the full. Wikipedia has several summary articles that cover some of the variations you raise, but not always in accordance with your explanations. I have highlighted a couple. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution However you have entitled this thread 'evolving evolution', which implies change of some sort. So really it is worth starting right at the beginning. And the beginning is the use of the English word evolution to stand for a group of ideas. Interestingly the word evolution is borrowed from Science from its original English meaning and comes from the Latin 'evolutio'. This was Latin for the specific activity of unrolling a scroll, the origin of which is lost in antiquity since scrolls predated the Romans by at least a thousand years. But it is an interesting loan from the original English which applied it to unfurling sails several hundred years before its application in Science. OK so onwards towards its modern application. The first stage in the evolution of life involved single celled organisms. With a modern eye we can observe that each type of such organism had the same genes. Even today such simple organisms move away from danger - chemicals, radiation etc. Is that 'learning ?' are they cognitive ? or what? At some point these organisms developed or learned or what? the way to club together as multicellular organisms. Still simple, and still with all the same genes. Having done this the ability to specialise arrived so that they had a mechanism to switch off or on genes particular to their function as specialised cells. Later still a big development occurred as such multicellular groupings began to reproduce so there there were then (larger) multicellular organisms with different gene sets. This marked a huge change and the beginning of what most people mean when they talk about 'evolution'.

Over recent years there have been many 'Nature' or 'Natural World' documentaries on TV in England. Following the development of youg animals have been in vogue. Now it is interesting to note the fate of the more adventurous bear cubs and meerkat pups as they seem more likely to come to grief by wandering too far before they are ready. So you would need to show compaative studies where this cognitive flexibility helps and where it hinders before drawing the above conclusion. What are the percentages for and against ?

Taking this to mean that you are interested in improving the reception/response to your posts, here is my take on the subject. This is a discussion site. The controllers here want to hear what the poster has to say about a subject, rather than a report about what others have to say. particularly if those 'others' are not members of this forum. I have seen many a mod post to divers members about this. This means, amongst other things, that the original poster takes responsibility for supporting the veracity of whatever claim he or she makes on behalf of others. I think we are all agreed that the up to date interpretation of the term evolution is very different from the historic one of a century and a half ago. Not only that but the very word is used in different ways in different scientific disciplines. For instance Physicists talk about 'the evolution of the wave function accoring to the Schrodinger equation'. Modern biologists tend tend to restrict the subject to DNA related matters. This is a shame because I have yet to see acknowledgement for the huge input to the evolution of life in general from geologists and in more recent years from anthropologists. Remember Darwin was also a geologist. Many workers at that time covered more than one discipline. You have introduced the work of Kevin Lala into this thread and of Lovelock in another in a way that seemed to myself and others that you were presenting them as a done deal we should all be adopting. Evolution is a multifactorial process which is relevant to many disciplines and needs to be approached in a multidisciplinary fashion. That said different factors will affect different disciplines differently. One important point that we now acknowledge is that evolution is not a steady one way process. Instead it can proceed slowly and steadily in some circumstances, but is also subject to sudden and rapid changes and even reversals (extinction being the ultimate reversal). An example of this last is to be found in the last mayan cities of central america, whre unintentional cultural negative evolution might be said to have occurred.

Since you like drawing things here are the front and back covers of a delightful book which will tell you something about drawing in the 4th dimension. This is actually a very good question +1 Yes, setting aside experimental accuracy that we can achieve, there is some fuzzyness (called line broadening) in spectroscopy, where we measure the 'wavelength' of particles that is observed.

Which plan ? You have mentioned at least 2 1) Who do you mean by 'the West' ? Who exactly has the capability to carry out such retaliation ? 2) The division of Russia. What do you think the russian people would make of this, and would they cooperate, or dig in like they did against first the French then the Germans then the Chinese ?

The only people I can think of that believed (or invoked) determinism were victorian vicars, determined to prove 'God'. Some were amateur scientists, some were professional. As far as I know none are members here. I have an amateur interest in evolution, though I believe I have read widley enough to see that your conceptions on the subject are blinkered and at least a century out of date. Are you aware of thye work of Hennig, Norell, Novacek, Jablonski, Raup and benton to name but a few from the last 60 years. The modern theory of evolution has changed out of all recognition from the model you are putting forward here, as new data and experimental methods has become available.

The air to air system has much to recommend it. eg https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/166317010010 Twin duct wall systems can also be obtained, but as you note they are more expensive https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/335211016045

Lots of assertions. Not a single shred of supporting evidence. I find the idea of 'cultural evolution' intriguing. But Evolution of any sort is based upon a causative relationship acting in the appropriate direction. A correlative relationship is not sufficient evidence to assume this exists, the correct causation must be demonstrated separately.

My brother lives on the second floor of a block of flats in London and has a properly fitted two pipe system running the radiators and domestic hot water in his flat. The 200 mm air inlet and outlet pipes for the heat pump were diamond cored through the walls. I understand from the company that installed them that they have Lincolnshire Council have fitted a number of this type.