exchemist

There seem to be 2 sites called "askabiologist", one, which is active, being run by Arizona State University, and another, based in the UK which is defunct and was supposedly aimed at schoolchildren. You are asking about the defunct one. I wouldn't bother.

A YouTube video is a bad place to start. YouTube is full of crap. A spinning gyroscope weighs the same as a stationary one, so if your video suggests otherwise that is false. The special property of a spinning gyroscope is that if you try to change the direction of its axis of spin, it will tend to move at right angles to the change you are trying to making. For instance if it is upright in front of you and you push the top away from you it will move to the left or right, depending on the direction of spin. It's hard to visualise why, but you can make sense of it by considering the momentum of 2 bits of the spinning rotor, on opposite sides of the axis, when an attempt is made to change the direction of the axis of spin. Bit hard to explain in detail without a diagram, though.

Yes that much seems to be agreed. It is certainly more theological in style than the synoptic gospels: the "Word" in the prologue, more worked out ideas about the Trinity, etc. And it has some extra stories, I think, that are not in the others, e.g. the woman taken in adultery.

Well it is interesting that the English translation seems to come out the same in different versions of the bible, which is far from always the case. But your view that St. John's gospel was written by a theologian is intriguing. There is certainly a distinct whiff of theology-building in it, which distinguishes it from the synoptic gospels. However I was not aware that the authorship of this gospel had been established with any certainty. From where do you get this information about an Alexandrian?

Quite right! I had overlooked this.

That's anthropomorphising, though: typical for YouTube videos but not good science. It's nothing to do with whether there has been any conscious observation. The issue is whether there has been an interaction with them or not. You can't observe a system without interacting with it, as a rule.

It depends what you mean by "inexplicable". The behaviour observed in the double slit experiment is just as predicted by quantum theory, so it does not pose a problem for the theory. The problem is to envisage how to interpret what both theory and experiment say about the nature of things. So it is more of a philosophical problem than a science problem, really. If one belongs to the "shut up and calculate" school of (non-) interpretation, there is no problem at all! https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9649&cpage=1

Where did Jesus say he was not from this world? So far as I recall, he said, according to St John's gospel, "My kingdom is not of this world", (John 18:36) which is very different. More generally, almost all the information about Jesus that we have comes from religious texts (the New Testament), with very little corroboration from independent sources. That includes the accounts of miracles, which are reported events contrary to our experience and our science. So how do we know we can trust these sources?

I was not aware that radical scavengers would actually increase risk of cancer. Surely it is the reverse? Do you have a link to an example of a study showing this? My understanding of the position was more or less as explained here: https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/antioxidants-in-depth. viz. antioxidants in the diet are generally protective, but there is no evidence that further supplements add to that protection. Note this refers to what is apparently a considerable body of research, though it does not provide the specific references.

Quite.

In the same way that a tiger is bunch of forest plants, light and shade, you mean? And in the same way that you are asking these questions in good faith? 😁

You have just told us they are mantises. Now, perhaps you can work out, from this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantis whether or not a mantis is a plant. Can you manage that?

Yes I've been thinking about that, and I'm sure he as as well. In the information age, and as an actor, he will I'm sure be well aware of the impact that a dramatic public confrontation with his potential executioners could have - a bit like Yeltsin with the tanks. If they gun him down in cold blood, that will put Putin and the Red Army beyond the pale permanently and will ensure a rolling resistance movement against the occupiers for years to come. If they are wise they won't do that. But he may not want to be taken alive, for fear they may torture him, to or use his captured family against him to get him to surrender. A grisly choice. Putin wants him dead, I have no doubt, more than ever now that he has thwarted the original plan. Zelensky has his place in history already, though.

Yes, it's hyperbole. One has to understand Zelensky has an agenda, which is to bind the fate of Western Europe, and the EU in particular, as tightly to Ukraine as he can. His (wholly unrealistic) request that Ukraine be allowed to join the EU on an emergency basis is part of the same thing. The guy has his back to the wall and is pressing all the buttons he can. He's been calling everyone, including the pope, to drum up support, and trying everything he can think of. I take my hat off to him for his astounding energy and bravery - he knows he's dead when the Russians get hold of him - but one has to aim off a bit when evaluating some of what he says.

Is it also the case that Li is used because of the small size of the ion, which enables it to form reversibly the intercalation compounds with graphite and CoO2 etc that are used in the Li ion cell? I don't know much about the battery chemistry but I can imagine a small ion being less disruptive to the structure of the electrodes, as it enters or leaves, than a larger one would be.

Why don't you leave, then, and we'll all be happier? Win-win.

None of this makes sense. But if you are river a.k.a current, that's not a surprise. An amber warning light to that effect has come on. 1) Metals take part in chemistry just like any other chemical substance. "A metal has nothing to do with chemistry" is an absurd statement. 2) If they did not take part in chemistry, a lead/acid battery would not work. Such batteries rely for their operation on electrochemistry, in this case the reversible reaction between Pb (metal) and PbO with H2SO4. 3) The transmission of sound waves in water is not a chemical process. If you have a source that says to the contrary, I'd like to see it. 4) Uranium is denser than lead because its atomic nuclei are more massive. The nuclei play no role in chemical reactions. Chemistry is all about the valence (outer shell) electrons. It is the therefore the number of atoms and the behaviour of their valence electrons, not their mass, that is responsible for the energy change obtainable from the chemical reaction in a battery. 5) The notion of a battery that might last "long enough to replace fossil fuels" is nonsensical. Batteries are a temporary energy store that needs to be recharged. 6) John Hutchison [sic] , i.e. not "Hutchinson", is a crank and self-publicist whose ideas don't work: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/John_Hutchison

...[click]....

So you simply dismiss my correction of your wrong statement by saying "even so"and just repeating the silly error. This is a waste of time.

It hardly needs saying on a forum like this one, but your post is idiotic. Your "e" is "E", meaning (rest) energy. E is proportional to m, c being constant. Furthermore m is mass, which is not how heavy something is and thus does not depend on the force of gravity.

I'm not a smartypants, though it looks as if you may think you are. Offhand, I can see no reason to think U would be an improvement over Pb in a battery. Its chemistry is quite different from that of Pb, it is even heavier, making power to weight ratio even worse and even depleted U is radioactive, making it unacceptable in domestic or road transport use. The fact that the end product of its radioactive decay (after numerous intermediate steps) is Pb is irrelevant to its chemistry.

How can a speed be a particle, godlike or otherwise?

Light is not energy. Light has energy. Energy is a property of a physical system. It is not "stuff".

Then why present a conclusion, effectively accusing the science of being slipshod, before you have gathered the evidence? That is bound to invite criticism.

Try this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2911546/ I quote: "The effect of gross changes in vitamin K intake on anticoagulation is a classic. Since the early years of warfarin use myriad case reports and case series have described decreased anticoagulant response due to sudden excessive vitamin K intake. The causes were usually vitamin K rich, vegetable-based, weight reducing diets and food supplements or multivitamins. The culprit amounts of vitamin K consumed ranged from 25 to 6000 µg day−1, but other causes for therapeutic failures were not always excluded [28–31]. Excessive anticoagulation has also been described after unrecorded dietary modification or discontinuation of multivitamin use [31, 32]. Suggest following up these references if you are interested. But I would observe you did this with climate change as well. You jumped to the conclusion that the findings were an "assumption" and that some crucial piece of experimental work had not been done, when the problem was your own lack of understanding of the relevant science background. I suggest you would do better to ask your questions before you start drawing conclusions that there is something wrong with the science.