Leaderboard

Not really, no. Natural selection turned out to be eminently testable. Nope. Last sentence doesn't logically follow. First, it assumes other hypotheses (which were provable) are equivalent in their overbroad structure and unsupported assumptions, which is not at all the case. Second, it's a logic error of the form: My tile roof leaks. Therefore, other tile roofs must leak, too. However, it can be reasonably argued that the savannah hypothesis is ALSO a weak umbrella, on its own particular lack of merits, The fact that the SH remains problematic in no way automatically lends support to the AAH, because there is a universe of other hypothetical choices - it's not a binary thing, where one being wrong means the other must then be correct. You really need to stop shouting and swearing and take time to think through these issues, calmly.

That's why I put particles in inverted commas. The whole idea of a particle is a rather ridiculous one, when you think about it: a notional ideal object, with no dimensions but nevertheless a host of other properties.

Could it also be to ask questions of those who know more than they do ? Is that possible ?

The original theory of touching was put forwrda by Lennard-Jones. Here is a simple version https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Physical_Properties_of_Matter/Atomic_and_Molecular_Properties/Intermolecular_Forces/Specific_Interactions/Lennard-Jones_Potential Wikipedia has a more detailed version with more famous names from the past. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lennard-Jones_potential

Review - notes value in combined therapy - bacteriophage and antibiotic. Suggest folks remember their virology lab with bacteriophages and E. coli from sewage - the ease with which resistance was demonstrated

You've been on this kick for almost a decade now.

Bingo! The Galileo gambit. Well, it was only a matter of time.😄

Yes, in this sense: They are unlike anything that we usually visualize as a 'body'.

Yes and No or not really. All our theories , including quantum theory, are models which only deal with some aspect or aspects of reality. These are all fine within their respective realms of application. Sometimes different models describe the same aspect. In this case we distinguish between when the different models yield the same answer and when they yield different answers. Objective measurement and observation is the final arbiter. When the predictions are the same it doesn't matter which we choose so we normally use the easiest, most convenient one. But when the give different answers, clearly we must operate the most accurate one.

It all depends on what quantum wave functions represent. Ordinary atomic matter is permeated through-and-through by the wave functions of bound electrons, so whether or not the spaces around atomic nuclei are "empty" depends on what electrons "really" are.

Sounds good to say to your mates down the cafe. But don't overthink it. In particular don't mix-n-match quantum theory and mechanical force theory. Orbitals and Pauli theory do not lead to expressions of force, They are energy theories.

Atoms repel each other on contact because their electrons are subject to the Pauli exclusion principle (see stability of matter). Whether or not anything "touches" anything else depends on what the electron wave functions represent, and that's still a matter of speculation. One way or another, though, the repulsion is quantum-mechanical in nature (degeneracy pressure), and it occurs when the wave functions begin to overlap.

Yes. There are no surface-to-surface touching points in atomic and subatomic scales. No, it's not a limit, but a distance where the system has smallest potential energy.

Or Ethan Siegels blog, 'Starts with a bang'.

References to being shut down or banned, men in black (in your previous thread) and so forth. In the latest post it is this passage: " I already had other threads here that were abruptly closed, then reprimanded and banned for simply "bringing up" the same. I guess I'm doing it again, just mentioning I have a YouTube channel, apparently. So damned if I do and damned if I don't (present my own evidence or theories anywhere in this forum)." Unlike normal people, who just get on with discussing the science, you whine about moderation policy, casting yourself in the role of victim. Give us all a break from that. I'm far more interested in your wrong-headed arguments, especially when they get me to explore bits of the history of science that are unfamiliar to me. 😀

Atoms are almost empty. Their nuclei are many degrees of magnitude smaller than atoms and electrons are points with no size. If there were no other forces, atoms would just go through each other. What stops them from passing each other is their electromagnetic fields and a quantum effect called Pauli exclusion principle.

It's one of Brian Greene's catchphrases. It seems like a catch-all for all processes similar to the crystallisation of a low entropy solid phase out of a higher energy solution. It crops up about a minute or so into this.

Hmm. One of the more annoying features of your posting style is the way your evident paranoia occasionally breaks through. I'd cut that out if I were you. And I'm afraid you are rather like a cracked record, going over and over the same ground in different ways, without apparently showing the slightest intention of listening to what you are told and learning. So the threads don't really advance much and it is hardly surprising if at some point they get closed down. You become a bore, in essence. What I do find interesting in your threads though, is the incidental detail, as is often the way with crank threads. I loved your ice engine, especially the insight I eventually got that it was really just like the early "atmospheric" steam engines (work done on the stroke in which latent heat is removed). In the present case, the little excursion into the history of caloric and the realisation that thinking of heat as a fluid, flowing from high to low temperature and thereby doing work, was behind Carnot's ideas, was a new insight for me.

What’s the evidence that the diet has changed? Did all humans stop eating seafood? Is there evidence that populations that eat a lot of seafood have bigger brains? The abundant presence of fish bones and shellfish remains in many African hominid fossil sites dating to 2 million years ago implies human ancestors commonly inhabited the shores, Is this any different in the last 40k years?

I have figured it out. 1) Misspelling: 'in revenge' is 'v mesti' in the OP language while 'v meste' means 'in place'. One letter was wrong before translation. 2) 'Earth' and 'land' are the same word in the OP language. So, the expression, "earth in one revenge", should've been, "land in one place." And the question, meant to be, "Are there planets where all land is in one place?"

This brain argument is pretty much the weakest of the lot of the AAH, and that's really saying something. It should be obvious to anyone who looks at it seriously that it just doesn't stand inspection. The human brain stops growing at age 11 in girls and about 14 in boys. Does their diet suddenly get cut off at that age? Of course not. There's no dietary reason why the brain shouldn't keep growing. It stops because it's reached an optimum compromise, arrived at by the deaths and survival of varied humans over millions of years. The iodine question has been answered perfectly well, with the farming reference. Wild human ancestors would have had a much more varied diet, and would probably regularly attend salt licks, like many other animals do. Farming, with its tendency to cut the variety of food, is modern, and so the problems it brings are modern too, and can't be applied to what was happening millions of years ago.

The publication does not show that 'science supports' your idea, the publication shows that 3 guys have written multiple articles together and separately saying seafood was vital for brain development. The overwhelming bulk of scientific literature on diet and the evolution of the human brain does not support your claim.

Interesting article on how it could destroy the quantum mechanics theory. Yes If quantum mechanics theory turns out to be correct. But what other theories does Alipasha Vaziri, a physicist have to replace quantum mechanics? And interesting experiment how it could destroy quantum mechanics. https://thenextweb.com/news/how-the-human-eye-could-destroy-quantum-mechanics

I think both your discomfort, as well as your reaction of politely declining, are perfectly ok here - those are not examples of homophobia.

Homophobia is a fear. Not just a lack of attraction towards those of the same sex, but fear of those who are gay, and/or (especially) that you might be gay. That sounds like learned behavior.

You probably shouldn't extrapolate from the single data point of yourself.

I wouldn’t have asked if I did. If you either can’t or simply won’t answer my question, please just say so. For convenience, you said: “my problem with the term "homophobia" is that it may be closer to my own personal discomfort at the prospect of a sexual advance from another man than it is to any inability by some to respect the sexual preferences of others.” And I asked: “What would you call it when a female experiences personal discomfort at the prospect of a sexual advance from a man? Why would that be different?” You replied that you like it when women flirt with you. I actually don’t know what you mean or why you think that ought to clarify your stance. Are you here in good faith, or do you refuse to even try clarifying?

Thanks. I’m just a bit shocked that exchemist refuses to engage in good faith. Wasn’t expecting that from him at all given his otherwise really great posting track record. This subject brings out such weird behaviors in lots of people.

You're missing 100cc of brain because of it, sapiens. And today we're draining the world oceans of the brain food. Endemic cretinism will only increase, if we even survive the next century, what with climate change, fission war and whatnot. This is all based on the already known fossil archive along with comparative analysis straight out of Darwinian tradition and sound biochemical observation. Uhuh. Do you even know what this idea is actually suggesting? Do you even give a fuck? That's nice. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07w4y98 No one ever succeeded in proving it false. As little as the cardinals proved Galileo wrong. So why add it to your kitchen salt? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine_deficiency A quarter of the world's sapienses don't get enough iodine. Are you gonna believe the WHO? There is only one general food source plentiful in iodine, as well as the other brain selective micronutrients. And that is seafood. You're denying irrefutable evidence for no other reason than that of Elaine Morgan being an irritating armchair scientist that is not supposed to have a point. You're all acting out of sociological bullshit, not scientic enquiry. And it needs to stop, 'cause her studies have over time revealed why we have been losing our brain for 40 millenia, and why it will only continue for any foreseeable future. Without Morgan, we would simply not know this. Stop pissing on your own giant already!!!

I said the moderation policies around here "cramp my style". I like video. I have dozens of recorded video experiments. It answers toward credibility so others can see what I'm talking about and judge for themselves. For example, I say my engine got "stuck", apparently frozen. People can watch the video and judge for themselves, they don't have to take my word for it. I've been banned from the forum previously for simply mentioning or "bringing up" a video. That is not paranoia that's FACT.

Having a beef with draconian moderation policies applied arbitrarily and making mention of the fact is not "paranoia". Uhhh.. "men in black" in a previous thread? What was the context? No doubt another joke or something you took too seriously. You only NOW come to the realization that Carnot viewed heat as a fluid and a heat engine as some kind of water mill heat flowed through? This was after I simply made casual MENTION of one of my YouTube videos that happened to be in an old closed thread. Banned for simply making casual MENTION of one of my videos of an experiment. What exactly is the purpose of someone starting a thread on a forum anywhere other than to make a presentation of some ideas. I was continually bludgeoned with "moderator notes" and warnings for simply doing what people generally do on forums. Have a discussion or try to.

What fucking racism??? We're all subjected to endemic cretinism!!! For forty thousand fucking years!!! It's right there on the god damned skulls!!! Aaand there goes the theory of evolution. That sure as hell is an umbrella hypothesis in equal measure. Well done. You just gave creationists their best weapon ever. AAH must be wrong 'cause it's umbrella hypothesis trying to explain way too many seemingly unrelated phenomena. Then a buck load of other umbrella hypotheses must be wrong too. The theory of the heliocentric near-universe. The theory of gravity. The theories of relativity. Of plate tectonics. Of evolution by natural selection. How much are you willing to sacrifice to finally shut that Welsh grandma up?

Fuck you too. And fuck you too.