1

Chemistry / Re: Is there a complete and easy to use and free database of chemical reactions?

« on: 11/04/2019 06:37:59 »

I don't recall any of my questions asking about anyone's opinion on what to do in life and other ridiculous suggestions.

The naivety of your questions and the deep ignorance revealed by them prompts a concern for your academic welfare. If you do not wish to receive well intentioned advice then stop posting silly questions.

As for the rest, I ask question, if you don't like them, don't answer them, simple.

Now you tell us!

90% of people in the academia are idiots so you may have more luck to 'impress' someone else than me.

And yet you keep coming back to this little corner of academia asking questions for which you lack the intellect or skill to answer. What does that tell us?

And in most cases, academics are completely and dangerously ignorant outside a very narrow topic they claim they master

That is certainly preferable to being completely and dangerously ignorant about just about everything, as revealed by your aforementioned naive questions.

 

I don't care to learn to draw molecules because I don't need it.

Perhaps not, but rejecting helpful suggestions from a professional chemist is dumb.
Perhaps not, but rejecting helpful suggestions from a professional chemist is discourteous.

 

So please go preach your students who are paying you, not me (thankfully I didn't pay for my degree otherwise I would get depressed thinking that I paid a bunch of idiots who brag to be professors).

Based upon all your input to this forum you certainly got your money's worth.

2

Physiology & Medicine / Re: What stimuli triggers different regions of the brain?

« on: 09/04/2019 10:33:12 »

This suppresses normal brain function.

I've found watching soap operas has a similar effect.

3

New Theories / Re: Destroying the big bang and Hubble .

« on: 08/04/2019 01:12:47 »

On the basis of semantics 

You need a new dictionary. You don't get to redefine words, not if you wish to conduct intelligent conversations.

Now luckily I've been at this for a very long time  and I have the ''fix'' . 

I think you may have been at it rather too long.

All you  have to do is agree space is fixed and immovable and time is expanding into space .  Time is indistinguishable from space but is independent of space .  Time is a quantifiable measurement directly proportional to aging , I can demonstrate this . Everything is time and beyond time is absolute space , time is expanding into absolute space and time has mass and density .

Word salad that has been out of the refrigerator, in the hot sun, for way too long.

Thank you for your responses. Don't waste anymore time on replying. I certainly shan't be wasting anymore on reading what you write.

4

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Am I one of the greatest scientists?

« on: 07/04/2019 21:07:24 »

I have yet to see any evidence that you are a scientist. Thus far, based on your posts, you don't even make the grade as a bad scientist. Perhaps you should start again at the beginning with some formal courses, Then, at the very least, you might be able to appreciate just what it takes to be a great scientist. I think it is worth a try.

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Could String Theory become useful (anytime soon)?

« on: 07/04/2019 21:01:07 »

We should not underestimate the considerable value of string theory. It has provided a steady income for a significant number of mathematicians, ensuring they do not seek employment as shelf stackers in supermarkets, a task for which they are likely ill equipped.

6

New Theories / Re: Destroying the big bang and Hubble .

« on: 07/04/2019 20:57:15 »

You have no evidence that the Universe is expanding , you have no evidence that space itself is expanding , you have evidence that observed bodies are receding away from the Earth .

Would you agree they are also moving away from each other?

Yes , of course , they are definitely moving away from us and each other .

When conponents of a system, in this case the universe, move away from each other, this is called expansion. On what basis are you claiming it is not expansion?

7

New Theories / Re: Destroying the big bang and Hubble .

« on: 07/04/2019 20:24:45 »

You have no evidence that the Universe is expanding , you have no evidence that space itself is expanding , you have evidence that observed bodies are receding away from the Earth .

Would you agree they are also moving away from each other?

8

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Is there any grant or support for blue sky research?

« on: 15/03/2019 19:02:04 »

Nice banter, any serious reply?

At least a part of the research done in universities is  blue sky.

Definitely not the externally funded as it requires lots of pilot data.

The semantic content of that sentence appears close to zero. Would you like to rephrase it?

9

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Do you think Tau Ceti e is inhabited?

« on: 11/02/2019 18:01:12 »

Yeah your right.  Silly mistake on my part.

Janus, having benefited from your concise, informed posts on this and number of other forums for several years it was a relief (and a delight to discover that you are, nevertheless, human!

10

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: How Long Would Heather Live If Not Turned Into Meatballs ?

« on: 25/12/2018 02:26:10 »

Carp- 100 years- gives a whole new meaning to carpe diem!

What is "carpe diem"?

Seize the day.

Note: since, before your post, this thread was last active in 2007 we appear to have an example of (very well) aged beef.

11

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How far away can you hear a nuclear bomb?

« on: 12/12/2018 15:32:01 »

If you are standing too close you won't hear it at all.

12

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does the position of the Sun change?

« on: 06/12/2018 18:30:57 »

CMEs can have velocities from 20-3200 km/sec, with an average of 489 km/sec.   The escape velocity from the surface of the Sun is 618 km/sec, so the higher speed CMEs will escape the Solar system.
As to how much this will effect the Sun's motion:
The average mass of a CME is 1.6e12 kg.  If we assume a top end velocity for the CME, the velocity change generated owuld be in the order of 2.6 picometers per second*   At this rate, it would take the Sun ~12378 years to move 1 meter from its original position.   During which time, other CMEs will have occurred, all pointing in different directions,  On average, they will cancel each other out.  So the net movement of the Sun due to CMEs over any time period will be exceedingly small, and over long scales averages out to being none.

* This number is a tad high, as it just used the CME ejection velocity directly, and doesn't account for the effective velocity loss caused by climbing out of the Sun's gravity well.

Very informative. Given that the trajectory of the sun is determined in part by the gravitational influence of (primarily) the rest of the galaxy does the loss of mass caused by nuclear fusion have any effect on that trajectory?

13

Technology / Re: What is better to colonise, Venus or Mars?

« on: 06/12/2018 18:25:25 »

The numbers & facts I used are well within the established norms , with the exception of the time-frame , which has too many variables to be precise .  I welcome constructive critique though .   P.M.

In the absence of detailed justification for your assertions the only appropriate critique is "unsupported opinion".

14

New Theories / Re: How do proto-planets form?

« on: 04/12/2018 23:10:08 »

@ P.M. How would you test your hypothesis?

15

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What is a moon of a moon called?

« on: 04/12/2018 23:04:24 »

Moonlet would work. Then poets could speak of a moonlit moonlet.

16

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Which cat species can interbreed?

« on: 04/12/2018 22:58:06 »

If you are talking about "successfully" breeding and the conventional definition of "species" then the answer is none.
Any offspring are infertile.

As an absolute statement this turns out to be incorrect. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger#Fertility

17

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Could a star orbit a planet?

« on: 24/11/2018 18:28:57 »

Thank you. Agreed, Just was interested to know if it at all was possible, what would the dynamics of this "Monster Planet" in regard to life on the planet be? Especially if the Sun is orbiting it

Since the planet, to meet your requirements, must be of great mass the gravity will be considerably greater than on Earth. This likely would present difficulties for the development of complex life. Also, the sun, of necessity to meet your requirements, would be small and dim. Combined with the long "days" and "nights"  the planet would probably struggle to maintain any liquid water.
That said, I am piling speculation, based on guesses, allied to improbabilities and founded on random thinking. However, I doubt the situation could ever actually arise - the "if" in your question seems to large.

18

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Could a star orbit a planet?

« on: 24/11/2018 17:28:12 »

Would it be possible for a Star (Sun) to orbit a planet on condition that the planet is larger than the Star?

Yes, but the key word in your question is "if". At present our understanding of planetary formation would exclude planets that were so massive.

19

Just Chat! / Re: The DOGMA of science........

« on: 24/11/2018 17:19:09 »

I am deleting my account never to return  to  science, they can kiss my ......I would not help them even if the earth was at stake

Hmm. Two posts since you posted the above statement.
Your return has quite ruined my celebration.

20

Chemistry / Re: What are the bio/med applications of electrets?

« on: 24/11/2018 16:34:53 »

Hi!

What are the bio/med applications of electrets?

Please list.

Note: I dont have access to fulltext.

Thanks!

Have you checked google scholar? (If not, why not.)
The query "electret medicine" returned 4,370 hits.

What do you mean by stating you don't have "full text access" ? I suppose you could mean that the article you linked to has its full text behind a paywall, but that is only one potential source of information, so it would be silly to suppose that's what you really meant.