Leaderboard

We convert yellow/white Phosphorous to red, and sparge it with steam in a highly acidic/ hi-temperature environment to produce Phosphine gas ( Hooker Chemical patent from the 60s ), inerts and other impurities removed to about 95 % purity, then compressed. It is further distilled to hi-purity ( 99.99996 % or better ) semi-conductor grade, for doping, mixed for use as a fumigant, or reacted with different olefins to make organo-phosphorous derivatives for mining chemicals ( extraction ), biocides, and even medications.

So stoning unruly teen age boys to death because they won't behave is morally good? Slavery is morally good? Genocide is morally good? Rape of little girls is morally good? You have a seriously flawed sense of morality.

It is. And at very low concentrations ( less than 10 ppm ) tends to smell of garlic and makes me hungry. ( seriously, limits are 0.3 ppm; at higher concentrations you lose the ability smell it )

Why? This subject has been done adequately, hasn’t it?

Many countries have used assassination to eliminate threats and enemies. I would not be surprised to find that this was the result of either an accident or an assassination. If it is proven to be an assassination I'm afraid more bloodshed will follow.

When I was in Paris ,aged 15 my host family took me out for the day to look at the Arc de Triomphe. As we looked at Napoleon's different victorious battles and dates that were inscribed on the monument I asked out loud and in complete naiveté "Where is Waterloo?" To complete silence . I was completely unembarassed .I think I was put right when we got home. Later I amused my friends by describing bad things as "terrible" when that actually means "really good"( a mistake categorised as a "false friend") Ps "espèce de con " or "espèce de conard" is a fine insult and "Le Canard enchainé" was the main satirical weekly magazine back then.

He also clearly said at the outset that he was talking about future knowledge - “the day will come” and “I’m imagining a future” and you are just completely ignoring these caveats and end up overstating what he claimed. Do we know of chemicals that make people depressed? Do we know of ones that don’t? Yes. Is this knowledge exhaustive? No! But he’s not claiming that it is.

More and more I see this effect (I think it's this effect), especially on the younger generations. They're online and some bot is trying to get them to click on something, not necessarily even to get them to believe something but simply targeting what they already believe for the sake of getting the click so they can be exposed to some product or whatever. So they have this opinion, thought, or what have you...and it gets reinforced...probably in most cases no conspiracy to do it other than to simply get the click (for some monetary gain /advertisement or whatever)...but when they live online it gives them a very different sense of the balance of reality that we might have had at the same age...even if they are otherwise better informed than we were given all the extra online information (true or otherwise). Distorted reality.

Are you by any chance using translation software? If so it is not very good; I think "technobabble" is the correct definition for the above.

I think it's important to point out that a thousand year old text (God or no god) was written by people who were basically going through the same shit that we are today; and they were just a skilled (intelligent) as we are at living within our culture. There are some good idea's amongst the bad, even things like stoning adulterer's can be good, with the right cultural pressure; we are clearly inteligent enough to know that stoning people is not an appropriate punishment today. When are we going to realise that both Jesus and Mohamed got really pissed off with our banking system, for a reason? “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” - George Santayana

The opening post does not make much sense; what do you wish to discuss?

Thank you for repeating that. Proteins are made out atoms which have electrons. So at the very most basic level what is happening is literally ionization from light in the dna composing the retina. Yes when you get to the cellular level things like photosynthesis seem more complex but it's all just light and electricity interacting with each other just like the computer.

Wrong guess. Mathematics does not seem to be your thing, lets look for something else that may suit your style of conversation. Ok, Lets use emojis. 🍏🌐🎯 🌐🍏❌

On previous drawing light clocks were not perpendicular (movement direction of light dot) to direction of movement of mirrors (v2). Here is explanation for light clocks (movement of light dot inside the clock - system / event 1) moving perpendicular to v2(movement of mirrors). The observed length ( orange do) in non moving (t=0)and moving (t1=1 s) of light dot trajectory of clock 2 which is observed by observer 1 id the same when mirrors are at rest and when mirrors are moving at speed v2(clock 2). In both cases speed of light dot of clock 2 is c and time travelled is 1 second. The difference is that when t=0 (time explains that two clocks 1 and 2 and their observers 1 and 2 do not move realtive to each other . Both light dots are moving - they are event 1 - reference event. They both travel at the speed of light c and travel the same distance 3x10e8m This is constant - this never changes. Observed trajectory direction is changing but the distance light travels in 1 second never changes. That is the hole and only purpose of light clock in time dilation experiment - reference light signal. From known light speed of light dots(vertical sytem/event 1) and observed angle Alfa between do- orange observed distance and direction of horizontal speed (system /event 2) we can calculate relative speed v2 between any two objects anywhere in universe . But instead using all of this - why do not we just make xyz greed for time and apply classic physics and get the total time . Than we make xyz greed for distance . Than from formula v=d/t find the speed . ?

I think that the ideas I've presented on my thread "The simplest cause of the accelerating expansion of the universe" could be tested by means of relativistic N-body simulations. Do you think it's feasible ?

The idea that an electron could be simply a particle's conservation of charge is an interesting concept but doesn't fully capture the nature of the electron in the context of modern physics. Let’s break down the concepts involved: Electron as a Fundamental Particle: In the Standard Model of particle physics, an electron is considered a fundamental particle, meaning it is not composed of smaller particles. It has intrinsic properties such as mass, charge, and spin. The electron carries a negative elementary charge of approximately −1.602×10−19−1.602×10−19 coulombs. Conservation of Charge: The law of conservation of charge states that the total electric charge in an isolated system remains constant over time. This principle applies to all processes involving particles, such as chemical reactions and particle interactions, ensuring that the net charge before and after any interaction remains the same. Charge Carriers: In various physical processes, electrons act as charge carriers. For example, in electric circuits, the flow of electrons constitutes electric current. The electron's charge plays a crucial role in electromagnetic interactions, as described by quantum electrodynamics (QED). Electron and Conservation Laws: While the electron itself is not merely a manifestation of the conservation of charge, its existence and behavior are governed by this fundamental conservation law. In particle interactions, electrons are produced and annihilated in pairs with their antiparticles, positrons, to preserve charge neutrality. For instance, when an electron and a positron annihilate, the result is the production of photons, which are neutral particles, thus conserving the net charge. Quantum Field Theory: In quantum field theory, particles like electrons are excitations of underlying fields. The electron field is responsible for the presence of electrons and governs their interactions. Charge conservation in this framework is related to the invariance of the system under certain symmetries (Noether's theorem). In conclusion, while the electron is integral to the principle of charge conservation in physical processes, it is more than just a representation of this conservation law. It is a fundamental particle with distinct properties, whose behavior conforms to and exemplifies the conservation of charge. The existence of the electron allows for a wide range of physical phenomena and interactions that are consistent with the principles of modern physics.