Iota

Yes, Van Der Waals forces, for example- look up graphite's structure.

For a more detailed answer try to explain what you mean a bit more, but graphite is a prime example of what you're talking about.

Not even physics is capable of providing evidence for a piece of pure fiction which completely contradicts all of its fundamental components. I'm amazes me that you've managed to make such a big post attempting to argue otherwise; you need to use your time far more wisely in the future. The title is misleading, be more careful in future.

No actually most of us(religious) are not offended, but have made a firm conclusion on their faith until proof otherwise provided that God cannot exist, which is little or to no likely hood of occurring.

 

And this implies religion(in general) prevents you from looking outside the box. It is not the fault of one or many to determine what you do or what you don't do. I would say this was more of your fault than religion.

 

You keep implying that this is the cause by religion rather than your own fears.

I wasn't expecting you to recognise what I was saying at all, but I put it out there anyway. If you're intelligent, you'll come to recognise what I said, and others in the this forum have said, within time. Like I said, only a year ago I was deeply deluded by religion like you are now. I'm not even going to humour those individual points you put forward to me, because they're all complete rubbish, with all due respect.

Next time just read what I said and think about it, don't just come back at what I said with desperately defensive nonsense.

 

 

I may be a Christian/Catholic, but I base scientific conclusions on scientific observations. Have some leniency here.

Well if you are going to try to change my belief in God it ain't going to happen. I respect your beliefs and I hope you turn out to respect mine.

Well, then, it's clear that you're here in the hope of someone reinforcing your irrational idea that- following a religion and studying science are two activities which don't contradict. They completely contradict.

This may well sound ridiculous, considering I'm only a year older than you. But literally a year ago, maybe a little bit over, I was in the exact frame of mind you are now: complete denial. You can take offence to that, I really don't mind; but I was force fed Christianity my whole life, was very dedicated to it, and only a year ago, I was completely convinced nothing could come between me and my faith.

Looking back now, that wasn't true at all, and I'd been denying the fact that I didn't truly believe in god for years. Because I'd lived my whole life believing that I could talk to god (because I was told I could), that made it hard to have any free thoughts of my own... because I was afraid to even consider that god didn't exist, because after all, god can read my thoughts, and I wouldn't want to piss off god. I was too afraid to consider a godless world, and on top of that, I was afraid I'd go to hell for eternity. Because my parents were kind enough to teach me that hell is very real, at an age as young as primary school, which I'd now consider child abuse. But anyway, my mind was trapped by fear, fear to even consider that god isn't real or that 'Satan' provoked such thoughts. That's what religion does, it's evil.

Despite this fear, I had quite a scientific mind, always had done but it was suppressed for years because of my religious beliefs. I found myself gradually looking outside the box my mind had been in for years, and just questioning whether it was possible that there could be no god at all. For about a year I poked at the idea again and again and again, while still god-fearing, so not questioning too far. Eventually all those short moments of daring to questioning god's existence added up to quite a lot of questioning, and I found myself eventually realising how illogical it is, I became less and less scared of god and began to question my beliefs... before finally realising I didn't believe at all.

I started looking for videos that discussed whether or not god existed- now that I wasn't mentally trapped by fear- I eventually came across Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, both whom explain the absurdity of religion (not just Christianity) in clear terms, with evidence and logic. That finally reinforced my atheism to the point of solidarity. The day I shed religion was honestly the best day of my life, I could finally have clear thoughts and learn scientific facts without any conflict at all, and have my own mind to myself.

Religion is nothing more than a mind virus, a fear-induced mental illness, paranoid schizophrenia. You can question anything EXCEPT for religion, and for good reason... because as soon as you do- and if you're at least reasonably intelligent- you'll be free of it. You'll wake up and realise it's complete rubbish, and that you've wasted a lot of time you'll never get back, fearing a god who isn't there. That's why religionists are offended by the questioning of their faith, because they're terrified that the person questioning it might be right, because deep down most of them know religion doesn't add up, but won't admit it to themselves.

You seem to be at the point of questioning god's existence indirectly, if only very slightly. I could be mistaken, but I really doubt it. Keep it up and you won't regret it.

 

While I agree that school should be religion-free, you can't stop people from choosing to pay for private religious schooling for their kids. There should be no religious teaching in public schools, ever, and that the taxpayers should have the ability to enforce.

 

I look at it this way. Learning involves being able to discern between what is being taught as mainstream and ideas that challenge the mainstream with better explanations. You have to be able to question the answers, and I just don't think most religions are willing to have sacred tenets questioned that way. If you can ask questions, and challenge your teachers, you're being educated. If you can't, you're being indoctrinated.

Indeed. I think the law needs to be more involved in the regulation of education, and to outlaw the child abuse that is faith teaching. I guess my vision is that in the same way there aren't schools dedicated to indoctrinating a particular political view, economic theory, or whatever; one day there will cease to be schools dedicated to the indoctrination of a particular idea as to how the universe came about, especially ones that fall back on zero supporting evidence.

 

Federal aid is taxpayer funding. Right now, churches get an exemption on property tax and donations are deductible. They get no other aid from the government, and they aren't allowed to get mixed in politics.

 

If they chose not to claim the exemption, they'd be like any other private citizen group, only with a church's organization capabilities. They could donate to campaigns, they could back specific campaigns and talk about them from the pulpit. I think the only thing that keeps them from doing this is that they don't want the government in their books.

Alright thanks for explaining, I agree in that case. I don't know to what extent, but things work differently in our countries, so that might not be the case here. Federal aid needs to exempt religious organisations is all I can say.

 

 

Well, no. I want to strengthen the separation between church and state. Why would I want it eliminated? I don't want religious influence on the government. They have their own schools, they have their own tax-exempt churches, it should be enough. The government should stay out of the People's religion, and the religion should never try to affect the way the government is run.

I'm 100% against faith teaching in any schools... the line should be drawn further. It interferes with the learning of science and it's cruel to make children believe something, which is purely belief, such as religion. School is a place to be educated and that's as far as its duties should be made to go. Preaching should be banned from all schools, and if they refuse to stop- the schools should be re-defined as specialised churches which educate non-faith subjects on side of indoctrinating.

I'll firstly just state for the record that my original comment :

 

 

Christianity and Islam especially with their billions of members worldwide, I'm sure if they all chipped in a little to their community they'd manage alright.

was said in order to implicate my agreement with the principle that was being given in icecream's quoted statement; rather than a literal suggestion that we naively do away with the current church/state coexistence model without considering any of the implications of doing so.

...Said principle being that if such a large community wants to exist, for purely non-business motives and for no real gain or purpose, they should fund themselves, because it's their project and should not expect force everyone else to rescue its continuation by means of unwilling contribution.

 

If you tax them, they become eligible for all kinds of federal aid...

What makes federal aid worse than tax payers funding, out of interest?

 

 

We should be strengthening the separation between church and state, not trying to eliminate it. We should do away with faith-based initiatives on principal as well.

Strengthening to the point of elimination, I would hope?- if when you say state, you mean; all governing bodies of the state, and in the bigger picture i.e. a given country's central government.

In the UK the CoE is tax exempt, yet Church members still have seats in the House of Lords where they can be part of the debate on decision policies which affects everyone in the UK. I'd far prefer it if the Church funded itself AND kept its nose out of influencing politics. It has absolutely no place at all in politics.

You can copy, edit, and make another post.

What does that mean?

 

Except that if you tax them, they get to use their influence in government, something they aren't supposed to do now.

They already do.

 

 

and if it were up to me religious institutions would have to pay 100% taxes ... I mean Their god can finance them, right?

Christianity and Islam especially with their billions of members worldwide, I'm sure if they all chipped in a little to their community they'd manage alright.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v4Rn2NjlFM

I don't take them so seriously when I watch this guy careless navigate his way through them and slap them on the head like you might a dog if it really misbehaved, but I don't think I could even go near a non-venomous one. The bites look nasty on all the videos of this guy I watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21UBSL_nV_Y

1.Freedom of religion,assembly,speech, and of the press

Also importantly, freedom from religion, e.g. keep it out of politics (as best as possible), out of education (in worship and fictional sense) etc... keep it on a personal level. The written rules of religion often inhibit of people's freedom of speech, assembly, press etc.

2.The right to bear arms

I think the only reason this one appears so often as a fundamental freedom is because USA has an outdated article in its constitution. This arguably conflicts with your desire for peace.

3.The right to due process and trial by jury

Agreed.
4.The right to face one's accusers

-
5.The right to be free of arbitrary arrest or long imprisonment without trial

Yeah.

6.The right to own property

This one is an issue in the UK, where lots of people have the 'right' to have somewhere to live, but also express no desire to pay for the place where they live, and so live off tax payers money. Unless we adopt some form of communism where it's all provided to everyone by default, and everyone has to settle for what's given to them, determined by what the government is able to provide; as opposed to what you've worked to afford.
7.The right to be free from slavery

Agreed.
8.The right to equal protection under the law regardless of race, creed , color or country of national origin

Y
9.The right to equal opportunity regardless race or sex

Yes to the race part. As for the sex part, I think some prejudice is inevitable in some places. Women and men are equal, but people confuse that with 'men and women are the same', which is obviously not true. Being a woman, in reality, for whatever reason, may restrict your ability to take up certain jobs- or at least in the same proportion as men in the profession. At the same time being a man might affect your chances of taking up certain employment.
10.The right to self-government by direct voting

-
11.The right to access to mean of mass communication

-
12.The right to all scientific knowledge

Y
13.The right to knowledge of all government activities

Idealistic but unrealistic, by the very nature of a government. The only way I could personally see this working is if all governments by some miracle all cooperated with each other and didn't conspire in secret, or a world government- but that comes with a huge risk.
14.The right to be free of involuntary military service

Y
15.The right to emigrate or immigrate

If the people of a given country have the right to directly vote, and they vote in a majority to stop immigration, there's conflicting freedoms. If this was put in place governments worldwide would fail and immigration would literally become an invasion, as people flood into countries without any realistic hope of finding a job or a home. Theft and crime would sky rocket, economies would collapse.
16.The right to free education

Definitely
17.The right to practice any profession

Only if you're qualified surely? Do we not already have the right to this so long as we're qualified?
18 .The right to opportunity for useful employment

Again it's not so much about right, arguably in a free market and free country you make opportunity for yourself. If a government said to its peoples "you have the right to opportunity" it would be meaningless. Availability of opportunity renders this redundant.
19.The right to initiate enterprise

So a free market economy? If so I'd argue for some regulation still.
20.The right to invent and implement new technologies

Sometimes this right comes a cost, when these things become patented. This could potentially conflict with your 'right to all scientific knowledge', if someone won't share the science behind their technology because it's been patented because they have the freedom to in a free market economy.
21.The right to build and develop natural resources and improve nature

The right to do so, implies they also have the right not to. This one should definitely be mandatory, not a right.
22.The right to have a child

And then who pays for the child when it's born into a family with no money? How about the right to provide for your own child if you decide to have one?
23.The right to a comprehensible legal system based on justice equity

Y
24.The right to be free from extortionate lawsuit

Who decides what this is? Who's the ultimate authority on what's extoirtoinate and what isn't.
25.The right to privacy

I agree, but what do you think about those people who demand safety, and the only way to achieve safety is to take out privacy?

This is post 769 and you need to time travel more carefully.

And if you time travel too recklessly you get deleted from history. I learnt that the hard way.

Thanks for the reply lota!

 

I'm afraid that doesn't necessarily answer my question though. I am aware of the healthy effects methanol poisoning can cause. I am specifically looking for whether or not distilling moonshine would produce a concentrated amount of methanol that could be enough to cause harm if ingested.

Fair enough, but the key information there is "500 milligrams per day of methanol is safe" because you can work out the overall methanol content regardless of whether the distillation successfully removes it, to work out how much you'd need to drink for it to be over the safe limit (of your theoretical mixture) and compare that to the safe intake per day limit.

If I were to have 100 gallons of solution, comprised of 10% ethanol, .02% Methanol, and 88% water. Would the methanol separate from the solution during the distilling process, and would the amount of methanol be enough to cause harm if ingested?

 

I appreciate any help. Thanks!

I was interested in the answer so I googled it, instantly got an answer and thought I'd share what I found: http://www.methanol.org/Health-And-Safety/Safe-Handling/Methanol-Health-Effects.aspx

lol they do look good. Remember to delete your search history after searching pork products online.

Me and the electron have " similar traits" grin

I'm slow on getting physics jokes, so you might have to explain that one!

 

What life forms on Earth are able to survive the conditions you mentioned? They're likely not creatures I've heard of.

One example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrade

"For example, tardigrades can withstand temperatures from just above absolute zero to well above the boiling point of water, pressures about 6 times stronger than pressures found in the deepest ocean trenches, ionizing radiation at doses hundreds of times higher than would kill a person, and the vacuum of outer space. They can go without food or water for nearly 120 years, drying out to the point where they are 3% or less water, only to rehydrate, forage, and reproduce."

Just because you haven't heard of them doesn't mean they don't exist.

The energy density of TNT is slightly lower than that of a chocolate chip cookie. (Lower because part of the mass is taken up by having an oxidizer as part of the compound)

Yeah I saw carbohydrates in the table too, although I didn't know the reason for it ranking above TNT. So basically what you're saying is cookies make better bombs than TNT?

The soul, or whatever you wanted to call it is an illusion created by a human level of conciousness. Every animal has it and would recognise it if they were more intelligent. I suppose it's just the way brains operates.

 

Oh, the most common Croatian beer called "Ozujsko Pivo", or "Zuja" for short (both 'z' letters actually have a small inverse hat above them - common in Croatian language.)

 

 

Sure, few hundred/thousands years longer to develop technology means a bit more probability for a large comet/meteor strike or similar event that will reset any progress. Therefore, some lucky 'shortcuts' do slightly improve probability that the high tech level will be achieved.

I often go for a beer that happens to be native to a place near you, Peroni, from Italy. A bit more expensive than the regular brands, but brilliant stuff. Enjoy your Zuja!

Few hundred years more or less to grow into communication-capable civilization is not a big deal.

It all depends but I agree. I think when there's a will there is a way, and maybe oil and coal are very convenient to have, but it's by no means the only path. Other simple chemical processes are usable, namely by using simple oxidation and can be modified to be more effective as knowledge grows. Although it's not immediately obvious what can fill in the gap that coal an oil do, or how comparably effective it'd be. But then I'd go back to your point of such time spans to account for these disadvantages are insignificant next to the time taken to evolve into intelligent beings in the first place.

By the way, what beer are you opening?

Edit:

This being said, I just checked out the table on energy densities Swansont posted, I thought explosive nitro compounds (as an example) would be quite high, but TNT ranks lower than wood lol. Just goes to show higher explosiveness greater instability doesn't mean more energy.

Until a simple and effective substitute can be found, I guess we'll have to assume that without oil and coal, it's still not looking good for the aliens.

Looking at " PORN" ???? shame on you!

Pork. I look at pork online, it makes me hungry.

 

I don't see us making the jump from water power and burning wood to solar and nuclear, without coal and oil in between. Or even perhaps a century or two of coal. That would be asking us to basically skip the 20th century, and some (or all) of the 19th. Lots of innovation was driven by, or made possible by, the industrial revolution.

Good point I probably should have seen it.

 

First, the 'rude' is probably bad word choice. Sorry... I was thinking that it is somehow 'impolite' to pretend that we even know what a favorable condition could be. Their world could have, say, a hundred times faster wood production than our world - so they could use it for burning. Or they could have an animal that is ten times as strong as horse and very easy to work with... But this are all pale examples because we cannot even imagine what would be favorable for them. (What would be a favorable condition for orcas, I wonder?)

I was thinking on similar lines but wood can't produce comparable energy results to that of fossil fuels. Who knows maybe other civilisations will exploit simple nitrogen-based substances for their explosive reactions and harness said energy. The conditions on their planet could result in this, or numerous other energy alternatives perhaps. The potential for nitrogen based life forms is still being researched I think, due to its similarity to carbon in many respects.

http://www.chemguide.co.uk/

This site has each topic covered with very good explanations.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/workedchemistryproblems/a/workedproblems.htm

This site has each topic again with short explanations, but it also has problems each with worked solutions so you can see how it's done.

Interesting,

Yes, if intelligence and an advanced technology requires heavier elements, as ours does, one has to wait for a few generations of stars for the supernovae and any other processes to form these elements. Also, our history thus far has relied on fossil fuels, so our technology is dependent on the fact that intelligence arose after hundreds of millions of years of other life had come and gone and formed carbon-containing deposits in the ground that we were able to exploit. Thus, older intelligent life may have been at a disadvantage in terms of developing our current level of technology. There could be intelligent life out there that was not able to make it out of their bronze or iron age for a lack of coal and oil.

But do you think perhaps if we didn't have crude oil, natural gas, coal to rely on, other means could easily have been innovated as a result? For example, another civilisation elsewhere might have far superior solar utilising technology because it was their only plausible energy solution. Or radiation, energy from other chemical sources etc. So what I mean is, does it necessarily have to put them at disadvantage not having Earth like conditions? Bearing in mind I recognise you used words such as "may have" and "if" whilst saying this, and were speaking in terms of the Fermi Paradox idea.

One answer to the Fermi paradox is that we are the first. There is sound evidence that make this solution plausible: namely the requirement for high metallicity GMCs to deliver habitable envirnments and the times required to generate sufficient volumes of such GMCs; and the extensive length of time (a significant proportion of the age of the universe) for intelligence, with a technological capcity, to emerge.

Thanks for contributing that. I'll be reading into this Fermi Paradox it looks interesting- I had a quick read already. The time length of these processes really does sound like a limiting factor then. Has it be known anywhere in the universe that these processes speed up significantly or are they always so lengthy? Is the Fermi Paradox essentially saying that the universe is young in some respect- and that further down the line life will be more common in the universe because there will have been time for more of these GMCs to form? Young is a relative term and we have no way of knowing how long our universe will be (I've heard of heat death for example), but in general terms.

If so then could "matter" know it is being watched by people.

I hope not... because it won't like the way that I look at it, when I'm on my computer looking at por... nevermind it's a bad joke, it doesn't matter.