studiot

Good Morning @John Melody I was rather pushed last night so here is some more info and a better (more up to date theory) Note Hayden, Moffat and Wulff use stress strain curves not load /extension % , as I already noted.

Hello John. Glad to see you are thinking about this. All materials break at some point. Consequently the force extension graph only goe so far and the stops at the break so it never increases without limit. Secondly at the sort of extensions shown here the material will be 'necking' significantly. Now Young's Modulus is stress/ strain not load / strain as you have here so it is necessary to try to interpret this. Look carefully and you can see that the curve is turning over towards an asymptote (it never gets there as it breaks) This means that for a given % increase in extension there is a greater increase in load required as the rubber stretches. This is because the very long molecules are originally coiled and twisted up but the loading gradually straightens them up . Until you get to the point that to achieve fracture you have to start pulling molecules apart - a definitely harder process. A second consideration is that for the necking that occurs at these levels of extension the stress is considerably increased as the stressed cross sectional area is greatly reduced. So for this type of material tthe modulus is only correct as the slope of the curve at or near zero.

Let me commend to you this delightful little book, which compares and contrasts the ways in which Nature and Man achieve the similar goals with different designs. You might be pleasantly suprised. Cats Paws and Catapaults Steven Vogel. No I don't think it is off topic. Alvin was the first manned sub to dive to the bottom of the Atlantic, and thereby visit the mid atlantic ridge. The relevant part of the expedition was the discovery of hydrothermal vents and the organisms associated with it. Not only were lifeforms living in 200 - 300 degrees C videoed, organisms ranging from anaerobic bacteria throught iny shrimps to medium sized fish, they were sampled and DNA tested later back in the lab. There may be better records of this dive and many subsequent dives around the world. this was only part of the programme whcih was Episode 2 of the BBC programme series 'Earth Story' entitled The Deep

and you were not doing this when you castigated scientists for being tardy and not discovering things. ? Actually I think you are not only pretty intelligent and well educated/read/experienced but are sadly wasting it pursuing this one goal/viewpoint you keep referring to. That's a really good reply. +1 So why did you try to shut down my comment about defibrillitation ? So far as I am aware all life, with the exception of an amoeba dies. An amoeba can be killed, but that is a different matter. Dying has no meaning for an organism that reproduces by splitting as it does. In one of your threads, someone responded that Life is not a thing or a property but a process. And processes need a suitable host system. I think it is worthwhile examining the subject of life (and death) in terms of this idea as it not only allows for living and non living parts of the same system, does not imbue things like water molecules with life in their own right; it takes us beyond the current biological restrictions I posted earlier and I think are too narrow. In doing all this it offers somwhere to place this mysterious 'spark' you claim is non religious (so do I) as well as offering a platform to examine what happens as the process degrades and even fails. Yes indeed there is much to be learned.

You have said that maybe fifteen or twenty times now., yet has anyone disagreed with that statement ? Doesn't your penny whistle play any other tune ? If you really want to think about life you should also consider death properly, especially as we know more about it, rather than offer smart arse replies when such discussion is offered. prebiotic not yoghurt

'Humans' or 'Humankind' is not an organism either living or dead, it is a classification. I said A MAN and I meant A MAN. Your earlier thesis begged no exceptions to your rules. But apparantly you can ignore the rules. I only chose one of your life conditions to demonstrate 'exceptions'. I was watching the video of the first Alvin dive last night and low and behold saw indisputable evidence of another 'exception', namely non respiration. Interestingly these life forms are candidates for the very first ones on Earth. Can you not admit that this is even partway to creating life ? I

Is the negative button not working on your keyboard ?

Or he might have burst into song along with Pete Seeger, Trini Lopez and Peter, Paul and Mary. 😀

I agree with the first line, but wonder what you make of electric reanimation ? I also wonder why you avoided answering my question about a single man or group of men?

Surely you are man enough to admit you don't know something when you don't. I don't know, nobody does. Nor do I know if we ever will. The problem I am having with this sort of response is that you have contradicted it in the original thread. As with viruses The inner layer of the trunk is dead, the outer layer is alive. So you now agree that MigL was correct and it is possible to have organisms that have some living and some non living parts ? But you also required all the characteristics of life to be present so I ask you Is a man alive ? One man cannot reproduce on his own, nor can a bunch of men.

In my view that is too narrow a definition of the word purpose. There may be a will involved or there may not. For instance I might come along and look at the pebbles in the river bed or sea shore and say the bumping around in the swash and backwash has server a purpose to round those pebbles. Yet I can scarcely attribute any will to the sea or river be. I might then move on to look at the conglomorate in the cliffs above the shore and say those pebbles in the conglomerate are rounded so were also formed in a water environment. My purpose in using the former to deduce the latter would indeed involve a will - mine own.

Viruses evolve. So you must consider them alive.

Good point +1

That's almost the nice pat cant we teach for GCSE. When I was at that level in school they had the guts to admit that we don't know for sure about viruses. I have to tell that at higher level the jury is still out. https://microbiologysociety.org/publication/past-issues/what-is-life/article/are-viruses-alive-what-is-life.html Where exectly did I say it was ? The truth is I didn't. The truth is that I picked out a small part of a larger article, i referenced, and emphasised one particular point by emboldening it. I am not allowed to copy their whole article as that would be plagerism. Note the discussion article I linked to in this thread also refers to this idea you are preaching So tell me do you consider the heart of a tree trunk to be dead or alive ? It is a more organic example of MigL's argument. In any event the line between living and non living is much more blurred than you make out and there are borderline cases that are not well handled by our current classification. But "something happens for it to be alive" is definitely non scientific (wishful) thinking from the dark ages.

Since this thread is a discussion of life this link seems as good a modern definition as any https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_and_General_Biology/Introductory_Biology_(CK-12)/01%3A_Introduction_to_Biology/1.05%3A_Principles_of_Biology#Homeostasis Please note that some of the characteristics are share with non living things. Homeostasis Homeostasis, which is maintaining a stable internal environment or keeping things constant, is not just a characteristic of living things. It also applies to nature as a whole. Consider the concentration of oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere. Oxygen makes up 21% of the atmosphere, and this concentration is fairly constant. What keeps the concentration of oxygen constant? The answer is living things. Most living things need oxygen to survive, and when they breathe, they remove oxygen from the atmosphere. On the other hand, many living things, including plants, give off oxygen when they make food, and this adds oxygen to the atmosphere. The concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere is maintained mainly by the balance between these two processes. A quick overview of homeostasis can be viewed at

My next bit will have that maths I mentioned. That will include numbers, scalars, vectors, constants and variables, functions and equalities. That will make it easier to talk about state variables, vectors etc.

OK it was someone else, there was a lot going on in the last couple of weeks. Anyway here is the sketch. Hopefully it is not to rough for you. As you can see the teacher had laid an iron rod across to stools and hung an iron weight (the sort you find in a market where they weigh sides of beef and sacks of potatoes) in the middle. The weight was very large compared to the knot on the bandana so when he first struck the weight it hardly moved. Gradually as he kept striking the weight and he got into a rhythm the weight swung further and further , taking a couple of seconds to comple one swing. Now the important thing to consider here is when the weight is struck. If the weight is struck as in A when it is moving away from the knot the stike will be less hard. If it is struck in the same position but when the weight is moving towards the knot the strike, as in B, it be less effective and the swing will be slightly impeded. If the weight is always struck in the same place at the top of the swing as in C then it will receive the maximum impetus or impulse. So it is important to strike at the right time in each swing. This situation is called resonance. As you can see each time the weight is struck a small packet of energy is transferred to it. A better name for strike is applied force (note I have slipped in the word impulse here) We can examine these in a great deal more detail.

Hitler was a very bad person. Therefore all Germans are bad. You might well find much more amenable responses if you stopped finding one contrary statement about something, which may even be correct as your statement above is, and immediately tarring everyone else with the same brush.

I thought I had corrected that one.

Well we will be going to Cornwall at the end on next week so till later in the month But thank you for the very useful responses an please look in later tonight as I have a drawing about the swinging weight for you. I believe you said some while back that you were a 'draftsman' and 'on the scale'. Both of these are helpful to us to help you. I think in pictures, rather than words so even 60 years ago in school and now with my typing my brain is streets ahead of my writing fingers as you may have noticed from my many mistakes and sometimes jumbled words. @Mordred The correspondence Principle. I hadn't thought of that, very good to introduce to our friend +1. I was going to introduce the corespondence between Mendeleyev and the standard model however.

Why the funny slide bar ? In Roman times, the climate in the UK was much warmer and Britain was noted for wine exports. How many million years ago do you thing that was ? A bit later we had a colder period known as a mini ice age or lower dryas. There was also a younger dryass prior to the Roman period. But my main question, which remains unanswered, was

Good morning ! I have been trying to get the time to post my next installment, but I can't keep up with these flights of fancy round the universe. My whole thesis is that the overall picture of things great and small looks very similar. We are part of the larger aspect so finding and observing phenomena at our space and timescales is easier for us to appreciate. Then we can transfer some of this experience to other scales, making allowance for the the fact that whilst there are several kinds of force and several kinds of energy, different forces operate over specific ranges of distance, but energy is indifferent to distance. So to return to human scales here is a report of a physics experiment I did in school and its connection to our discussion. Aside we do not do enough hands on experiments is schools these days. / aside One day our physics teacher came into class with a large handkerchief/bandanna which he proceeded to roll up and tie a large knot in one end. Then he went to a large metal weight he had hanging between two lab stools and started swinging the bandana so that the knot hit the metal weight. He kept talking ( I forget what about) whilst he struck the weight repeatedly until he had the weight swinging to and fro. Then he told us about the experiment. It explains resonance, it explains 'little packets of energy', it explains forces, all at the pace of human observation rather than that of an electronic oscilloscope display. Are you still with me ? Edit Oh I have been meaning to ask you as I have a little bit of maths in mind. Do you know what a graph (or plot) is ?

Havanna is ~2800 km from Washington. Kiev is ~750 km from Moscow. Ukraine is not a member of Nato. Playing war games may have worked once many years ago but is silly in today's much more complicated world.

And yet you say And indeed you have provides a 15 minute computer graphics animation showing your version ! You may be good at computer graphics, but the sound track on the video is very poor so it is necessary to rewind several times to try to make clear what you words are. You have some interesting ideas, some of which have been tried before during the development of the current understanding of Plate Tectonics. I say development because that understanding has undergone many revisions, some big some small, since Continental Drift. Most of these have come about because of the cycle of rigorous comparison with observation and subsequent revision of the hypothesis. Many questions remain as yet unanswered. If you cannot engage with others in this revision process then your hypothesis will go nowhere. So let us reset this thread and start again with proper discussion.

Where did this problem come from please ? Is it coursework ? Also you should not post duplicate threads, even if you second picture is prettier than the first. It is a form of generalised Malfatti Problem in computational geometry, with the outer boundary being a circle not a triangle.