Moontanman

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Exactly...

The kind that some people see, some don't want too look for and the rest are blind anyway.

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with any of the Bible's if you read them with a good moral compass.

Look what happened when Hitler read Nietzche.

So stoning unruly teen age boys to death because they won't behave is morally good? Slavery is morally good? Genocide is morally good? Rape of little girls is morally good? You have a seriously flawed sense of morality. 

1 minute ago, MigL said:

It is.
And at very low concentrations ( less than 10 ppm ) tends to smell of garlic and makes me hungry.
( seriously, limits are 0.3 ppm; at higher concentrations you lose the ability  smell it )

Now can I get it in a spray can to use against yellow jackets! 

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

Less than 2% by weight.
Mixed with either CO₂ or N₂.

Odd question... is phosphine heavier than air? 

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

OF course it is, bc we're not discussing relativity and the reality of light; we're discussing a very different kind of light.

What kind of "light" are we discussing exactly?  

1 minute ago, MigL said:

What is real Moon ?

If I'm moving relative to you, I measure a different reality than you do.
Which one of us is at rest ? Which one moving ? Who measures the real 'reality' ?

I do an experiment and measure a 'particle'.
You do one and measure a 'wave'.
What is the 'reality' ? For that matter, what is reality before wave function collapse ?

Being a bit pedantic there aren't we? In our everyday lives do any of those things really apply? Is our perception accurate enough to need to include those things? If we want to go that far then nothing is real and my vat is just as real as yours. 

This thread is about religion and our thoughts on it, religion is not part of objective reality, my opinion on Islam is the same as my opinion on mother goose. 

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Well my reality is probably a bit sadder than yours ATM, but how do we define by how much?

I would say there is no way to measure emotional pain but objectively your sadness is not part of our shared reality. 

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Who's?

There is, by definition, only one reality, our interpretation of the perception of reality exists nowhere but inside our heads. 

Just now, dimreepr said:

But not in this context, for instance, "Brave new world" objectively, is a bloody good idea bc everyone is happy.

I am sorry, I thought we were discussing reality. 

A new solution to the warp drive problem has been found that does not require negative energy or negative mass has been suggested in this paper by Erik W. Lentz 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2201.00652

Quote

Solitons in space-time capable of transporting time-like observers at superluminal speeds have long been tied to violations of the weak, strong, and dominant energy conditions of general relativity. This trend was recently broken by a new approach that identified soliton solutions capable of superluminal travel while being sourced by purely positive energy densities. This is the first example of hyper-fast solitons satisfying the weak energy condition, reopening the discussion of superluminal mechanisms rooted in conventional physics. This article summarizes the recent finding and its context in the literature. Remaining challenges to autonomous superluminal travel, such as the dominant energy condition, horizons, and the identification of a creation mechanism are also discussed.

 

On 2/23/2024 at 8:00 AM, dimreepr said:

Why?

If that's an extention of "relativity", you should know, that it doesn't work for everything...

It has nothing to do with relativity, it has to do with reality being objective by definition. 

19 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I sort of regret my earlier post, which was meant as a bit whimsical, suggesting that sugar was the most dangerous chemical.  I did understand that danger, in the OP context, was meant in the sense of extremely toxic in tiny amounts and not "might give you pancreatitis or diabetes in a few decades of nonstop bingeing."

I was offering it in the same way that someone will say mosquito when asked what's the world most dangerous animal.  True answer, but often not what the asker had in mind.  Danger must be defined, it having multiple meanings.  Ask an electrician and they would probably say "squirrel."  🙂

There is enough dihydrogen monoxide on our lovely blue planet to kill every human on Earth many times over. Dihydrogen Monoxide... you can't live without it, but it can and often does kill people... of course I'm talking about water. Until you define what you mean by "danger" anyone is free to define danger in what ever way is most meaningful to them. To me numbers killed is most significant, to others the amount needed to kill an individual is most significant, chemical reactivity is probably closer to what the op had in mind but failed to specify. 

1 hour ago, sethoflagos said:

Not what the OP was asking.

I don't live in the US. Sub-saharan diets typically don't include added sugar except for rare treats so your issue is less of an issue for the rest of us.

 

The op... "Most Dangerous Chemicals" 

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

On the other hand, the reason you are unlikely to be exposed to deadly chemicals is because they are so deadly, and thus kept behind lock and key.

Is radium no longer dangerous now that girls don't ingest it while painting the hands of watches?

We are all much more likely to be exposed to radium than we are to chlorine trifluoride, which is more dangerous?

6 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

You're right, it's a question of degree. I seem to remember seeing the LD₅₀ of carrots set at 40 kg. A bit much to eat at one sitting perhaps, but a caution to be wary of some extreme carrot concentrate.

But the previously mentioned botulinum toxin is at an entirely different level. And cumulative poisons with no known positive biological function like lead and arsenic really have no clearly definable upper safe limit. 

 

Shouldn't the danger a chemical represents be tied to the likelihood of actually being exposed to it? Botulinum toxin occurs in nature and often results of major kills of wild life... ducks come to mind. But a railcar full of chlorine trifluoride? Let me know when you see one, I'll be buying lottery tickets. 

1 hour ago, KJW said:

According to Wikipedia, nitrogen triiodide is more sensitive, being the only known chemical explosive that detonates when exposed to alpha particles and nuclear fission products.

 

 

I doubt that. It is my understanding that the most toxic known substance is botulinum toxin, with an estimated human median lethal dose of 1.3–2.1 ng/kg

 

 

Interestingly, what might actually be the strongest known acid, the only known acid to protonate carbon dioxide, carborane acid, is considered to be "gentle".

 

 

I often walk past 1kg bags of sugar while shopping in a supermarket. I do so without any fear that my life is in danger. I can't exactly say the same about lithium-ion batteries in the home. And if I saw "chlorine trifluoride" written on a railway tanker somewhere, I think I would very much like to be somewhere else.

 

 

38 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Sugar is simply not in the same league. It just happens to be something many of us choose to consume to great excess despite knowing that it will harm us.

I managed to wean myself off sweets in childhood to the extent that even artificial sweeteners can make me feel quite nauseous.

Yet the moment my weight drops below 70 kg (bout of malaria) I experience an intense craving for sweet tea. Quite a shock the first time it happened. But I learned that when my body really needs some glucose fast, it will tell me in no uncertain terms.

So I don't buy that sugar is intrinsically 'deadly': quite the opposite. The real problem lies elsewhere.

12 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

You're right, it's a question of degree. I seem to remember seeing the LD₅₀ of carrots set at 40 kg. A bit much to eat at one sitting perhaps, but a caution to be wary of some extreme carrot concentrate.

But the previously mentioned botulinum toxin is at an entirely different level. And cumulative poisons with no known positive biological function like lead and arsenic really have no clearly definable upper safe limit. 

 

1 minute ago, Moontanman said:

Shouldn't the danger a chemical represents be tied to the likelihood of actually being exposed to it? Botulinum toxin occurs in nature and often results of major kills of wild life... ducks come to mind. But a railcar full of chlorine trifluoride? Let me know when you see one, I'll be buying lottery tickets. 

20 minutes ago, KJW said:

Sugar a most dangerous chemical??? You people have a weird notion of what a dangerous chemical is. I'm going with the stuff that burns through concrete.

 

 

So some deadly esoteric chemical we're unlikely to ever come in contact with is more dangerous than the common but deadly chemical that is in nearly everything we eat? 

Just now, John Cuthber said:

Pumpernickel is a fine option; but about 50% w/w carbohydrate.
There's essentially no difference nutritional between brown and white sugar (I accept they taste different.)

If you look really carefully, you can find honey with a higher fructose content than some HFCS.

https://draxe.com/nutrition/what-is-pumpernickel/

Oh yeah, I know, I use it because I like the taste not for its sweetness (to me honey has always tasted kind bitter for some reason) but I use it very seldom, a 16 oz jar has lasted me more than a year. I am exploring stevia to get my sweet tea fix now days, house wine of the south you know! But mostly I eat meat, cruciferous vegetables, and I am slowly adding some pasta back and a small amount of rice (once a month or so) but my main problem is exercise. nerve pain prevents me from getting much exercise. I miss things like maple syrup, bread or food made from flour, potatoes (checkers French fries) Its gonna be a life long fight but the fight is what gives me more life. I eat a lot of eggs, chicken and seafood.   

3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

As addictive as hard drugs. I've kicked smoking, drugs, but can I give up sugar... NO.

That is really true, I beat oxy but sugar is on ongoing battle, I doubt I will ever really win. I have managed to reverse my type 2 diabetes 

15 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

High fructose corn syrup is  consumed in the US 50x more than in EU... 50 pounds vs 1 pound p.a. I wonder if there is a per capita correlation in the relative incidence of mortality related to obesity with that.

 

I quit eating sugar almost a year and a half ago, its made a big difference in my life, my cognition has improved, I've lost weight, I feel physically better than I did. I'd recommend to anyone to stop, you have to be ruthless, HFCS is in everything, sometimes hidden quite well. I eat very little sugar now, if I do its mostly in the form of honey or brown sugar and very little of it, almost no white sugar except in the tiny amount of bread I eat. I've cut carbs about as far as I can and still eat. Pumpernickel rules!   

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

There is also a lot of individual variation. Some of my dogs seeing a mirror the first time were at least curious, others basically immediately dismissed, one of the dumber ones barked a few times before realizing that no one else was reacting and so on. One of the issues that are often not documented (because they don't make a good hypothesis-driven paper) is that animals fail tasks because they are simply not interested.

You should try training basset hounds, they are very smart but also very stubborn and have little to no desire to please you!

I've seen octopus do some really odd things in captivity, I spent three years keeping them, from intentionally squirting water at me to get attention (they are very accurate too) to observing their excitement in getting an usual object to add to their fortress. They can open bottles, kill out of boredom-maybe even spite, show emotions through color changes, they are almost a never ending display of WTF! One of the oddest was crawling out of their tank through two other "freshwater" aquariums to get to their preferred food, live crayfish, and crawling back to their tank to feast on the crayfish. They are, IMHO, a lot like cats in their behaviors. 

I'd really like to try cuttlefish someday, if anything they are even odder than octopus.  Or bob tailed squid, I tried to have several bob tailed squid shipped from Hawaii back in 1978, the live coral arrived in great shape but the squid didn't survive. Those squid have light organs under their bodies.

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

You can but dream...🙏

"Fantasy will set you free"... Steppenwolf

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Your overlords aren't going to invite you to dine on them.

You never know, females eat their mates, maybe if I'm loyal enough they'll share. Or maybe I'll get to watch them eat you. 

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Well I think they're icky...

But they taste so good!

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Well at least they haven't waged war on us, yet... 😉

Only a matter of time, I for one welcome our cephalopod overlords!

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I think his point is, the octopus had it's reasons and the woman put her own interpretation on the event; in the parlance of a ghost denier, she was primed, she knew the octopoid show intelligence.

It could be a simple as, "this is where I get fed by humans".

I have to agree, we can only see it from our own biased perspective, from our perspective its provocative but it could be much more simple. On the other hand the octopus could be our intellectual superior and thinks of us as animals who are relatively smart but can't really understand true communication via chromatophores.

I've heard some bad things about organic mercury compounds, a minuscule amount resulting in a slow, but inevitable, degenerative death?