Leaderboard

This is the kind of problem that is more easily solved if you step back before turning the math crank. Look at y = x^2 and y = 16&x. y = X^2 is a parabola that passes through the origin. y = 16^x is an exponential function, and on the positive x side it rises faster than the parabola-- so it is obvious that there will be no solution for x > 0. On the negative side of the graph, 16^x approaches zero asymptotically, and is already 1/16 when x = -1 (while at x = -1 the parabola is at y = 1). Thus, it becomes obvious that the solution must lie in the region -1 < x < 0. I did a quick sketch of the two functions and it was equally obvious the crossing point had to be somewhere close to -0.5, as stated by Studiot. Understanding the shapes of functions makes trial and error, and heavy math, both unnecessary.

I think you missed the explanation about scientific theory above. In physics theories are not proven, theories are supported by evidence. Or rejected due to lack of supporting evidence.

Chickens require less nutrients to grow up than pigs and cows (which also produce methane gas). They are also cheaper and healthier for customer. Fish farms are better for environment than fishing of wild fishes. Their population is under control of human. Fish farm does not deplete natural population of fishes, so they can reborn. https://www.fcrn.org.uk/research-library/feed-conversion-efficiency-aquaculture-do-we-measure-it-correctly "Higher protein or calorie retention means higher efficiency. The results show that, on average (weighted according to global production levels of the nine aquatic species studied), 100 g of protein in aquaculture feed will be converted into 19 g of protein for the human food supply (19% retention), and that 100 kcal of aquaculture feed will be converted into 10 kcal for the human food supply (10% retention). Protein retention ranges from 14%–28% for the aquatic species studied, and 13%–37% for the land species. Calorie retention ranges from 6%–25% for the aquatic species and 7%–27% for the land species. The best performers across all species considered are chickens, followed by Atlantic salmon."

Me neither, I'm just replying hypothetically to the OP. The main drivers for me are cost and convenience. It's just a coincidence that my consumption doesn't generate much carbon or waste. I'm too mean to throw food away, unless it's dangerous. And the cheapest source for me is also planet friendly. I find that every time you try to think through a low impact food, it has drawbacks. People bang on about meat being worse for the planet, but when you actually take a look, it has pluses as well as minuses. Beef farms in the UK generally have more wildlife living them than crop farms. The fields are smaller, there is less ploughing, and the hedges and ponds are great for birds and amphibians etc. But grain grows more food on less land, reducing pressure on marginal land. It's hard to pick a winner.

I think it's beyond the wit of a judge to direct the jury based on a memory of yesterday. I have never met or even got close to the Queens handbag, but through the six degrees of seperation, it's perfectly possible to find my DNA, in that handbag... Maybe even one, I've shaken hands with the Prince of Wales...

Watching Elizabeth Warren debate Trump will be like watching a nuclear physicist explain gravity to a giant jar of spoiled mayonnaise. lol

Rb-87 has a half life of about 49 billion years. In a 1g sample of Rb that’s of order 1000 decays a second. But that’s not the issue. It’s interactions that give a frequency shift, such as collisions, and having a second isotope around is a source of such interactions. And Rb has two naturally-occurring isotopes.

The General Philisophy section is a good place to ask then. And the philosophical answer (after at least 5 whiskys) is that unless there was both something and nothing you would not be able to distinguish between them.

I never said it is right , you have propably misunderstood (as always)

If it disobeys mathematical laws and doesnt disobey physics laws it still is correct

It doesn't need . If it doesn't disobey any law and is a result of law/combination of laws it is correct.

A man died and went to heaven. As he stood in front of St Peter at the pearly gates, he saw a huge wall of clocks behind him. He asked, “What are those clocks?” St Peter answered, “Those are Lie-Clocks. Everyone on earth has a Lie-Clock. Every time you lie, the hands on your clock will move.” “Oh,” said the man. “Whose clock is that?” “That’s Mother Theresa’s. The hands have never moved, indicating that she never told a lie.” “Incredible!” said the man. St Peter continued, pointed to another and said, “That’s Abraham Lincoln’s clock. The hands have moved twice, telling us that Abe told only two lies in his entire life.” “Where’s Trumps clock?” “His clock is in Jesus’ office. He’s using it as a ceiling fan.”

There is quite a bit work out there focusing on stable isotope work, but not specifically regarding carbon sinking (though one might find some with some digging). A good way to check whether there are updates on a given topic is to look at papers which have cited a study in question. Much of the papers are discussing the role of deserts and semi-arid regions for carbon sinking rather than the Tarim Basin specifically (e.g. Schlesinger Global Change Biology 2016). And this sounds like someone making assumptions without putting any thoughts into it. They obviously described their methodology in their paper.

I simply asked the question as I didn't know the answer. ( that's not against the rules is it ? ) At first I thought the snarky thread title may have put you off, but the fact that you perceive my asking a question as 'calling you out' indicates the title may not have been far off the mark.

It’s rather telling that you assumed I was referring to you

You are just taking fragments of my comments and put them seperately to enforce your position . No comments.

Hi all, Anyone still reads here? I opened a new thread with some new proves to my claim: https://www.metabunk.org/robert-”gimbal-bug”-theory.t10960 See my last messages there. Best regards.

RESTING MASS IS NOT A REAL NUMBER!!! YOU WILL NOT BE USING ATOMIC PARTICLES IN A STATE OF REST! THE CHARGE AND THE PARTICLE ITSELF WOULD BE DIFFERENT. SHOW ME YOUR FUNCTION TO GET "TIME"! IM JUST SAYING THEORY FROM THIS POINT ON IS NO GOOD. EVERYTHING HAS TO BE ABLE TO BE PROVEN. TAKE THEORY AND FAITH BACK TO THE CHURCH :0

seriously, speed of light is a speculated number, can't be proven. but; it's being used as a constant varible in many formulas leaving every one ... let's just say off. It's like when HARP rounded off their numbers... YES SIR!! My point exactly!! This is the day and time we prove everything and have nothing but truth. No more theory. but;' we gots to get off our simple minded solution way of life.

That's how I see you.

If it is then you, this site, and those like you are in trouble. I pray i get to see you, and the species of.... Die. No more human beings.... Ever. People in space will evolve and no longer be human... crunch the numbers ;) There will be no peace as long as where told we can't build the tower of Babel.... 1 gram of NH4NO3 Vs 1gram of C6H12O6