Leaderboard

@william1952 In the meantime, here is a paper that could be a starting point for further reading: "On the dimensionality of spacetime". https://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.pdf The paper explains how there are issues with any idea that requires another number of dimensions than 3+1. The paper also provides references for further reading.

I'm kind of a stickler for language. I would say entropy is not experienced by systems. Entropy is a property of some systems about other systems they are measuring, observing or describing (if they are thinking systems.) So it's a correlative property (system A watches or describes system B.) Or a property of the description (system A describes system B.) In order to describe a system, you (another physical system) must produce in your brain an ordering, a structure that, as closely as possible, reproduces features of, or resembles, the described system. In order to do that, you unavoidably must ignore some variables of described system and probably own variables too. Thereby the necessity of an entropy. In the universe chances are that things won't repeat themselves because the universe is describing a sequence of more ordered states to less ordered states (IOW, the initial state was far more ordered than the later ones.) Also, the accelerated expansion may render complete thermalization impossible. Poincaré's recurrence theorem only works for closed systems after they completely thermalize, so that thermal fluctuations, given enough time, get you as close as you want to a previous condition or, AAMOF, to any particularly bizarre condition (Boltzmann's brains.) So, on second thought, the OP may be right in that "anything that may happen will happen" for thermal systems, given enough time. An example would be a thermally isolated gas in a box. Given enough time, some bizarre dynamical configurations might appear as a result of thermal fluctuations. They would last a gazillionth of a second, I surmise. The universe is not like that.

This is awesome. A picture of the dust cloud around a star 520 light years away. But better than that, there are signs that a planet is forming. Full story here: https://www.eso.org/public/news/eso2008/ Note that this is a real image, not a simulation or "artists impression"

Pervert .

Well exothermic reaction is defined as one in which heat is generated. And is therefore negative. I am always reminding posters that this refers to heat, not to energy. Remember also that Chemists usually work in a lab with open reaction vessels so under constant surroundings pressure. So work can be calculated on the surroundings side of the boundary.

1) is a misunderstanding. Prior to the the bubonic plague folks that reached adulthood were expected to live well above 60 years. 2) yes that is a big one. But note that even if take a disease from modern times, such as the Hong Kong flu- in the US an estimated 100,000 folks died. For COVID-19 the US is at over 93k now. So responses are also a factor (I think some would also argue for population size, but in case of disease spread it is less of an issue, as folks do not stochastically become sick, they need to be in contact, which goes back to isolation measures). When it comes to the value of the graph, to me it says that despite all the tools of modernity at hand, we are still struggling with disease outbreaks. Not sure what else one could read from that, considering the pandemic is not even over yet.

Lack of context? Comparing apples and oranges? Political bias? Strawman argument? Take your pick.

I see. Thank you +1. My memory was blurry. Germanium wouldn't work for polymer backbones, would it?

! Moderator Note We need more than assertions here. Please provide some calculations based on your model that demonstrate that your model produce quantitatively correct predictions. ! Moderator Note As you very obviously don't have a clue what the big bang model is this claim is obviously false. It might be a reasons for mistaken and largely ignorant beliefs about the Big Bang, but that is not really relevant. ! Moderator Note Ah, "a vortex", of course. I wondered when we would get to that. I see little point in this thread staying open. Unless you can produce some mathematical predictions that are testable (ie. quantitative). And that is part of the problem. Why not study some physics before pretending you can overturn it. Imagine going to a car maker and saying, "I have no idea how the internal combustion engine works, but I have invented a better one"

I think I have mentioned that before but in order for a seroconversion to happen, you'd need a signficant amount of exposure (most commonly during actual infection). Or at least strong exposure to inactivated viruses. Licking body fluids form recovered folks does not seem prudent.

These are all carbon containing and classed as organic. Amorphous silicates are macro molecular and inorganic. This covers aerogels, silica nano particles, quartz like structures and the like. You can get polymers where the backbones are made from silicon too.

Besides the people who died merely by following his shit advice directly (drink Clorox?), there’s also the issue of all the weeks he spent downplaying things and trying to spin information so he wouldn’t look bad... every second he was unclear and was prevaricating could’ve instead been used manufacturing tests and PPE and generating support for a collective “we’re all in this together, let’s wear masks” response. Even today, wearing masks has become political, he forces his people to take them off in meetings, and he’s contradicting the advise of his own experts. Tens of thousand of deaths could’ve been avoided, but he was too busy blaming Obama like a fucking toddler

President Trump's strategy is simple ... He ran on a platform of 'draining the swamp'. He's fired four IGs in quick succession; the latest for investigating Pompeo's misuse of resources. I guess without IG overseers ( or free press ), he can claim there is no swamp. Similarly, since infections were found in White House staff, everyone there is tested daily; The rest of the country is way undertested. I guess without testing, he can also claim there is no more virus. What bothers me is his supporters, who defend him and buy into his crap. Abuse and overreach of power, nepotism, pay to play, bribery, corruption, and the worst response to the pandemic of any civilized country, and he still has that kind of support ( people thinking he's doing a god job ) ?

So while the issue with pre-/post-fusion proteins is an issue, I would like to note that in many cases one would frame it more about the conformation of the protein rather than overall energetics. There are several ways to stabilize a particular structure, independent on whether protein is ever part of a virus, or involved in membrane fusion or not. I.e. it is helpful when we think in terms of the dynamics and mechanisms of viral actions (as it needs to be performed within an energy gradient) but it may be less useful when we talk about other things, such as in this case recognition of structures. Specifically, a particular structure is formed in dependence on its milieu, its amino sequence as well as other elements such as chaperones that help in folding the protein a specific way. Perhaps more importantly, recognition of the molecule by the immune system is only dependent on a fairly small part- the epitope. Moving on to RNA vaccines, in other viruses it already has been shown that antibodies raised just by simply introducing the primary sequence has resulted in antibodies that are able to bind pre- as well as post-fusion protein structures. They also stabilized the pre-fusion structure by introducing additional sequences (not dissimilar to the wiki article linked above) but the overall titer did not shift much. This is not to say that this is not an issue with SARS-CoV-2, but it does not seem to be a fundamental issue, at least.

So if I understand you correctly, and I think I do, you're proposing to go after a galaxy that's receding from us at close to the speed of light (because of the universe's expansion) by going after it at close to the speed of light, and then, you will: 1) Catch up with it after having given the galaxy a head start of 14 billion-odd years 2) When you do, you will be there seeing it at rest from your spaceship Do you see where the problem is? Or maybe it's nearby, in which case it's not receding very fast from us (Hubble's law,) but a really considerably head start is still there, and if you want to catch up with it, you will have to squeeze the brake! Out of the box is OK with me. What you're proposing is not out of the box. You can't even see the box right now. And, believe me, I applaud your enthusiasm and share that longing with you of embracing the stars.