« on: 13/03/2022 13:44:15 »
MOD EDIT: Despite warnings, this poster decided to post yet another long, misleading monologue in another person’s thread.
The post has been removed.
The post has been removed.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Therefore you need to throw dice to account for the mystery of naked DNA being active.NoWhat you said was correct;Well, I guess that makes one of us.Water is unique in that has two hydrogen bonding donors and two hydrogen bonding acceptors.Not really; ethylene glycol has them too.
They tell you only in 2 dimensions. To determine if 3 dimensional space is flat you need to show that 2 x flat 2 dimensional planes that start out parallel, stays parallel forever in 2x2 perpendicular directions i.e. all along the x and y axii.
The current version of evolution should...You have made it clear that you don't understand the theory.Explain why water is not included in every analysis for evolutionBecause evolution is about change and the water is constant.
If water was treated as it should be, mutation analysis would be required to include a water analysis for its half of the total affect.Do you realise that's bollocks?I am not against evolution,Then why not learn it?
I still think there's should be a thread set up to divert PP's off- topic ramblings and hijacks to.
Yet we are told water is not that important in terms of making things work.
I know of literally no one who has said such a thing.
And after the Big Bang, there are scenarios that explain the expanding observable universe, a universe that seems to have no center because the expansion seems to be accelerating in all directions. But then, an infinite and eternal universe would have no center, would it.
Natural selection is not a random process.No.
But the mutation is random (or, at least nearly so, and evolution would work with random mutations.)I prefer the analogy where the technicians know what they are doingNeither I, nor reality, cares about your preference.
Time is still not a vector.
You need to stop telling that lie.
The equivalence principle very elegantly explains gravitational lensing. The equivalence principle basically says that, if you were inside of a room with no windows, you wouldn't be able to tell whether the room was sitting still on the surface of the Earth or whether it was out in space away from a gravity source accelerating upwards at a rate 9.8 m/s/s. No experiment could distinguish between the two scenarios.
Now imagine that you have a flashlight held sideways in this upward accelerating room. When you switch the flashlight on, the light beam moves out of the flashlight in a straight line. However, the floor of the room is accelerating upwards toward the light beam. From your own perspective (if your senses were good enough) it would look like the light beam was falling towards the floor.
Since the equivalence principle states that the behavior of light in this accelerating room is identical to the behavior of light in a room in a gravitational field, that means the equivalence principle predicts not only that light will bend in a gravitational field, but also how much it will bend.
If we had a purely random driven mutation model there would do more wrong choices than good.It does.
The few lucky ones go onto dominate the next generation.
So you are trying to wedge entropy- which you do not understand- into a discussion about natural selection - which you also do not understand.
Why do you do this?
sub-particle alloys like kryptonite.
I'm sorry, what?time vectors
Why do you keep using this term? What does it even mean?
In particle accelerators, which is the source of most data connected to the substructures of matter, we cannot control pressure, as easy as temperature.Pressure is a measure of the number of particles in a given volume.
It is perfectly well defined and controllable in an accelerator.
As usual, PuppyPower is talking hogwash.
I can't understand why he hasn't been kicked out for trolling.
The entropy of a pure crystalline substance at absolute zero temperature is zero and there is no disorder at all. But it is true that there is the ground state of the atom: At absolute zero the system must be in a state with the minimum possible energy. Entropy is related to the number of accessible microstates, and there is typically one unique state (called the ground state) with minimum energy.
But we can learn that: The third law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches zero. The entropy of a system at absolute zero is typically zero, and in all cases is determined only by the number of different ground states it has. Specifically, the entropy of a pure crystalline substance at absolute zero temperature is zero. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/introchem/chapter/the-third-law-of-thermodynamics-and-absolute-energy/
Entropy still exists at absolute zeroHow then to define the entropy when it is at zero? The entropy of a system at absolute zero is typically zero.
It would being like saying we have 6.022 X1023 dice and will throw all these dice at the same time, a thousand cycle. What we finds is each time we do this, they will add to the same total amount of constant entropy. This defies all known properties of statistics, but this is observed. The deniers need to wake up.
If I throw a mole of dice the total score is going to be very close to NA times the average score for a single die which, I think, is 21/6 or 3.5.
How far from that value would you expect the score to be?
The property of stats that answers that is this
and the answer is that it's so nearly a constant that we can't hope to measure the difference.
When someone saysWhy do you keep posting your ignorance of entropy?it isn't a rhetorical question.
Why do you keep posting stuff that shows that you do not know what you are talking about?