Show Posts
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.
I'm pretty sure this is just a parody thread. Energon was some kind of thing in Transformers.It's that old story. Sphere today, Energon tomorrow!
Or on second thought, I guess maybe more likely that at the time scale of a glacier, (moving inches in months or years I suppose), it's a matter of constantly melting to match contours and then refreezing long enough to powerfully scrape a few inches, then remelting/refreezing in a repeating cycle?Not always that slow. A Greenland glacier set a record of 150ft/day, back in 2014.
What you say means that you accept that randomness is the key to evolution of life, but not to evolution of ideas. Have you tried to figure out how our ideas could be anything else than biological stuff?I apologise if my earlier posts lacked clarity. I just felt the following statement was unambiguous.
What you say means that you accept that randomness is the key to evolution of life, but not to evolution of ideas. Have you tried to figure out how our ideas could be anything else than biological stuff?
Politicians are not elected to develop new ideas, only to govern, and new ideas don't work as often as old ones, so if they want to be reelected, they better present old ones.Your knowledge of politics appears to be severely limited. You might wish to visit the fall of the Weimar Republic, the emergence of the SNP, or the transition from white-only rule in South Africa, as examples that demonstrate the fallacy of your thinking.
On the contrary, scientists have to look for new ideas if they want to keep their jobs, but new ideas take time to develop, and they don't always work. In fact, most of them don't, and the only ones we see are those that worked, which is also the case for mutations.In the case of scientific ideas, we see many of those that did not work. The scientific literature is littered with them. (We might almost be better to call it litterature.) And try telling any person suffering from a "genetic defect" that we don't see the mutations that don't work.
I see a very strong link between the two kinds of evolution, but you don't seem to, so maybe you are one of those who think that when we search we automatically find. Is that so?I see very clear parallels that make the two processes analagous. None of that renders correct those assertions of yours I have already contested.
Anions and cations are, by definition, charged particles.The difficult part is that water, even pure water contains ions. I have no trouble envisaging a development of terminology in which it therefore became appropriate to describe water as ionic. I understand that such a development did not occur. I would like to have clarity as to usage. I was hoping for such a clarification, rather than a repetition of your earlier statements. I floated such a clarification, expecting you to either agree with it, or explain what was wrong with it. I'm still hopeful that you will do so.
The words anionic and cationic are defined analogously.
Water isn't charged.
Water isn't anionic or cationic.
What part of that is difficult?
I'm drinking blackcurrant juice as I write this.
It's in a green plastic tumbler.
Putting red juice in a green cup does not make the cup red.
Putting sodium ions into water does not make the water cationic.
I share this puzzlement. Even pure water (certainly as pure as can practically be obtained) experiences a few instances of molecules losing a proton (thereby creating a negative hydroxide ion) that immediately attaches to another water molecule, creating a positive H3O+ ion. The reaction is reversible and there is a constant generation and revconversion of ions, though the proportion present at any time is very small.Quote from: evan_ausalty water is simultaneously cationic and anionic waterQuote from: bored chemistNo, the water is still not ionic.I am puzzled by this response.
Can you please elaborate about why salty water doesn't contain cations & anions?
I consider myself has won the discussion and the original idea is using weight and it is great until another member claims it is not.I have carefully read all the posts in this thread. I prefer not to be hypercritical unless the posturing of a poster merits it. Your idea is unworkable. Your sense of scale is non-existent. Your self confidence might be worthy of applause were it not so obviously based upon a self-deluding arrogance. I suspect that many others who have read your proposals have, like me, decided that Bored Chemist has done a perfectly sound job of dealing with the weaknesses of your proposal and so no other response was necessary. However, your ludicrous suggestion that you have somehow won the argument cannot pass without comment. You haven't won. Your proposal is wrong and where it is not wrong it impractical and beyond that grossly uneconomic.
My original question sprang from a conversation I recently had with a friend. I must admit to only being able to define placetime conceptually. For that I am sorry. Let me rephrase...There is no absolute position in spacetime, hence it is only possible to remain stationary relative to another object. That being the case your second question has no meaning.
Can an object remain stationary in spacetime? Is there such a thing as an absolute position in spacetime?
and
If it were possible to remain stationary, would you "see" time passing, and be unaffected by its passage?
Oxygen is the third most abundant element in the cosmos, after hydrogen and helium. So far I know you can't breath on Mars and the Moon. So where is all the oxygen hiding?Given that it is the second most abundant element making up the Earth I don't think we should describe it as hiding. The bulk of the Earth's mass is present in the silicate mantle that, as pointed out by evan_au, contains abundant oxygen. It's almost as abundant, to a % or two, as iron.
By what physics does the cloud collapse?Gravity, though pressure waves from proximal, or embedded supernovae may trigger the collapse.