Leaderboard

Greetings. Living in USA, and used to the way dwellings are built; the thermal considerations take priority over other risks as fire, wind damage, rigidity... Insulating and poor thermal conductivity materials is a part well taken care of in construction practices. How is thermal losses taken care in Europe, what are the modern building techniques ?

What's cute and fluffy and passed out on the lawn? The ether bunny.

Your right you and I do have a different notion of explosion. Particularly in so far as what a geometry would look like if the explosion resulted in what we perceive as spacetime expansion with regards to what the resulting metric would look like. Particularly in what the resulting distribution of mass and its behavior would entail. The primary distinction you keep avoiding us an explosion always results in a preferred direction continously posting math that has no preferred direction will not change my mind. Of course there is a reason why any good cosmology textbook will specify expansion as opposed to explosion. You might want to consider that detail in so far that there is reasons that is the case. I don't know perhaps/perhaps not you might notice the difference if you take a multiparticle system and model each case in vector space would help you see the difference. Expansion after all involves thermodynamics.... Perhaps you can ask yourself how something like the critical density formula even work in the explosion case. Perhaps you can describe the difference between an expanding gas due to temperature change as opposed to one being forced in a particular direction such as popping a balloon might help to understand the difference

Yes, like @joigus and @swansont I don't follow this. Fluorocarbons don't require any less carbon than hydrocarbons, for a given chain length. The virtue of carbon, surely, is its unique propensity for catenation, viz. forming long chains, linked by covalent bonds. Your proposal does nothing to lessen dependence on this so far as I can see. Fluorine forms only a single bond, so can't substitute for carbon in this role. By looking at fluorocarbons all you are doing is substituting F for H. As H is the most abundant element in the universe, that would seem, on the face of it, an exercise of doubtful value. Graph of relative elemental abundances below: From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements You also need to pay some attention to what solvent a life chemistry will use. Water would be fairly useless with fluorocarbons, I suspect. Are you envisaging HF or something as the solvent?

It seems like they do. Close to 50% as much carbon as fluorine for fluoroalkanes. More if double bonds C=C or higher occurs (or other radicals). Linear chains 2n+2 F's per n C's cyclic chains 2n F's per n C's 2-cyclic chains 2n-2 F's per n C's That assuming nothing else is goin on but C-F bonding, which sounds pretty boring. Carbon is still the structural scaffolding in FC's. And F is monovalent, which leaves little room for anything interesting going on IMO.

Or perhaps the poster meant not volume but bust measurement. That would presumably be a bit less without support.

Why would whether they are in a bra or not affect volume? I would expect the volume to be the same, but just the shape to be different.

Make Christianity Great Again! Looking forward to seeing him in court making water into whine...

Knowing what consciousness is and how it works depends on one's definition of consciousness. Excluding various faiths and philosophies, the science suggest to me that consciousness is merely a basic awareness suggested by an organism's observed behavioral responses to stimuli and nothing more than that. In my view, every living organism potentially has some level of consciousness, which is simply some level of sensory awareness of its environment. In my view, consciousness and mind are not synonymous--consciousness is a precursor to or prerequisite for mind. Although some ascribe consciousness with some salient or spirital quality, for me it is merely a term that identifies an organism as having a sensory system. Having a sensory system, for me, does not suggest that an organism has a mind; however, having a sensory system is essential for building the response systems essential to the construct of mind--mind is a product of our brain's response systems. For example, during dream sleep, your identity of self relative to your life and sleep environment is lost to that dreaming state. It is only when you awake from the dream state that you become fully aware of who you are relative to physical reality. This happens because our brain does not have full access to the body's sensory system amid the dream state. We regain our full sense of self when we arouse from dream sleep as our brain reconnects to the body's sensory because that connection stimulates those neural pathways our brain uses to navigate our physical/material reality--it is our connection to our body the reminds us of who we are relative to our reality when we awake. Mind and consciousness are not the same because, in my view, having mind is reserved for organisms whose behaviors suggest a thought process. Before ascribing mind to an organism that organism's should demonstrate it's ability to engage behaviors contrary to its instinctive behaviors. For example, if you heard a sudden loud bang from behind, your instinct might be to distance yourself from that noise. If instead the noise came from a person in front of you who popped a balloon, you might not react from fear because you could visually assess the balloon pop threat level--your ability to engage thoughtful behaviors contrary to your fears suggests you have a mind.

Needs cream cheese!

As always, context is critical to the understanding of quotations. Lavoisier was talking of matter not being created or destroyed, in the course of chemical change. You seem to be trying to apply this saying inappropriately, to heat, which is not matter, but a form of energy. Energy is a property of physical systems that is also conserved, i.e. neither created nor destroyed, though this principle was unknown in Lavoisier's time. However energy can and does change from one form to another in the course of physical processes. In the case of the growth of trees, there is chemical potential energy (which is not heat) stored in the molecules that make them up. That chemical energy does not come from heat but from the energy of sunlight, which is captured by the tree in photosynthesis. The Earth is not a closed system, where energy is concerned. It receives energy from sunlight all the time and radiates heat off into space. These two should be in balance. Climate change results when the rate of radiation into space is reduced a bit, due to the atmosphere slowing down the rate of escape of heat. It is caused by the absorption of infra red radiation (heat radiation) by gases and vapours such as water, carbon dioxide and methane.

Magister colin leslie dean proves Kants Critique of Pure Reason is shown to be a failure and complete rubbish As stated https://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/papers/kant2.htm “The Critique of Pure Reason is unified by a single line of argument involving just two or three central ideas, which, in spite of a certain complexity and obscurity in its development, can be fairly summed up as follows: Kant poses the question, "How is synthetic, a priori knowledge possible?"” a priori knowledge is https://www.britannica.com/topic/a-priori-knowledge a priori judgments are “Latent in the distinction between the a priori and the a posteriori for Kant is the antithesis between necessary truth and contingent truth (a truth is necessary if it cannot be denied without contradiction) The former applies to a priori judgments, which are arrived at independently of experience and hold universally).” kants notion that mathematics and euclidean geometry is a priori is shown to be rubbish thus his claim that mathematics and euclidean geometry is synthetic a priori is rubbish thus Kants Critique of Pure Reason is shown to be a failure and complete rubbish http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/Kant.pdf or www.scribd.com/document/690781235/Commentary-Kants-Critique-of-Pure-Reason-is-shown-to-be-a-failure-and-complete-rubbish-criticisms-epsitemology-ontology-metaphysics-synthetic-a examples 1)from number theory 2) from geometry example 1) from number theory from mathematics let x=0.999...(the 9s dont stop thus is an infinite decimal thus non-integer) 10x =9.999... 10x-x =9.999…- 0.999… 9x=9 x= 1(an integer) maths prove an interger=/is a non-integer maths ends in contradiction-thus mathematics cant be a priori with mathematics ending in contradiction you can prove anything in mathematics ie you can prove Fermat's last theorem and you can disprove Fermat's last theorem you only need to find 1 contradiction in a system ie mathematics to show that for the whole system you can prove anything https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion In classical logic, intuitionistic logic and similar logical systems, the principle of explosion (Latin: ex falso [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from falsehood, anything [follows]'; or ex contradictione [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from contradiction, anything [follows]'), or the principle of Pseudo-Scotus (falsely attributed to Duns Scotus), is the law according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction.[1] That is, once a contradiction has been asserted, any proposition (including their negations) can be inferred from it; this is known as deductive explosion thus thus mathematics cant be a priori thus Kants Critique of Pure Reason is shown to be a failure and complete rubbish 2) from geometry A 1 unit by 1 unit √2 triangle cannot be constructed-mathematics ends in contradiction proof mathematicians will tell you √2 does not terminate yet in the same breath tell you A 1 unit by 1 unit √2 triangle can be constructed even though they admit √2 does not terminate thus you cant construct a √2 hypotenuse thus you cannot construct 1 unit by 1 unit √2 triangle thus geometry ends in contradiction-thus geometry cant be a priori thus Kants Critique of Pure Reason is shown to be a failure and complete rubbish you only need to find 1 contradiction in a system ie mathematics to show that for the whole system you can prove anything https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion In classical logic, intuitionistic logic and similar logical systems, the principle of explosion (Latin: ex falso [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from falsehood, anything [follows]'; or ex contradictione [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from contradiction, anything [follows]'), or the principle of Pseudo-Scotus (falsely attributed to Duns Scotus), is the law according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction.[1] That is, once a contradiction has been asserted, any proposition (including their negations) can be inferred from it; this is known as deductive explosion thus Kants Critique of Pure Reason is shown to be a failure and complete rubbish

Why politicians only talk about CO2? But, what if they don't believe in the Lavoisier quote(atheism...)!