exchemist

I see a bit of problem with this. The density of an alloy will in generral not be a simple linear interpolation between the densities of the components. There will be a degree of interaction between the different elements present, according to their mutual chemical affinity or otherwise, and effects due to the packing of atoms of dissimilar size in the metal lattice. This is addressed for example in this piece of work: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0364591619302524. in which the enthalpy of mixing is used as a way to estimate these effects. I am also rather confused by the following sentence in your post: " In this pursuit, we have found evidences of chromosomal structure of probability distributions of the probable iso-density compositions, butterfly effect stemming from alloy density, principle of vernier caliper in multi-dimensions etc." What is meant by chromosomal structure of probability distributions? What is meant by a butterfly effect in this context? What is meant by principle of vernier caliper in multi-dimensions?

No it was indeed about the heliocentric stuff, but he explained it, as I recall, in the form of an argument between two people, the nitwit being the person with the pope's ideas. Not a clever thing to do! I think describing house arrest as life imprisonment is not really right. Obviously he was not a free man, but he was not incarcerated in prison.

OK, my comment about Galileo’s tactlessness was he put some of the pope’s ideas in the mouth of a fictional character in his book, for the purposes of argument, making this character out to be a bit of a simpleton. Not a great move, considering how jumpy the church authorities were at the time! Not sure why you mention execution. Galileo was put under house arrest and told not to publish any more.

While it may be the object of religion to provide meaning in life, that is not the job of science. Trying to set science and religion up against one another, as if they are alternatives in some way, or even rivals, is to misunderstand science. Science is the study of nature to understand how it works. As others have pointed out, people can derive a sense of meaning and purpose in life from all manner of things they do, which give them a sense of achievement and fulfilment. Science can be one of them. Ethics is an entirely separate question. Immense damage was done, over a century ago, in the United States, by the ideas of somebody called Andrew Dixon White, the first president of Cornell in the late c.19th. He promoted the so-called "conflict thesis" which claims science and religion are inherently opposed to one another. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis This is a rather discredited notion, belied, for example, by the number of clergymen and religious people who have played prominent roles in science. About the only serious example of conflict, historically, was the Galileo affair. This was largely a result of paranoia in the Catholic church about "heresies" at the time of the Reformation, combined with tactlessness on the part of Galileo. Dixon White's perspective was no doubt coloured by the upsurge of creationist, extreme Protestantism in N America at the time, which of course had huge problems with Charles Darwin's ideas, but that is hardly indicative of an intrinsic conflict between science and religion. Nevertheless the idea of conflict has taken root in some quarters and remains influential to this day.

I'm not sure the number of people available to give the injections is normally the limiting factor in the take-up of vaccinations. I think it's more a question of getting enough doses sent to the right place and getting people to come forward to be vaccinated. Nurses and even nowadays pharmacists can administer injections. The local clinic I attended last Saturday for my 'flu' and covid jabs (which I am automatically offered now that I am over 65 years old) did 400 people in a single morning. But regarding members of the public doing it, I do not think that is a good idea. People need to trust the process if they are gong to come forward to be vaccinated, and there are plenty of ways it can be messed up in unqualified hands, ranging from unnecessary pain during the process to bruising, or even introduction of infections if proper sterility is not maintained. I certainly would not be willing to risk it.

Yes I know the story. The Greeks didn't do algebra, so I was baffled by the reference to "density equations" attributed to Archimedes. What he did for the king was to measure the volume of a complex object by the water it displaced. There is no obvious equation to be derived from that other than V(crown) = V(water)! And Archimedes's Principle is just F = ρgV, which seems to have no bearing on an alloy composed of 2 or more metals, not submerged in any fluid.

OK, thank you for clarifying that you are indeed using other input data relating to the constituents. That makes sense now. Saying it was "encoded" in the density number was misleading. You are combining density data on the alloy with density data on the compenents. But tell me, what are "Archimedes' density equations"? I am aware of Archimedes' Principle (not equation), but that relates to the upthrust due to buoyancy on an immersed object. That does not seem relevant here. Are you referring to something else?

I don't disagree at all. Trying to read across that hypothesis to the Earth, even if it makes sense on Mars, about which I am agnostic at this point, is pretty ridiculous.

No, present an example here please. This is a discussion forum and we should not be required to go off and read other material in order to understand your claims. You should be able to describe the principle your technique uses and give one simple example of how it is used. Secondly, the passage you quote, which I have highlighted in red, is nonsensical. You cannot say something is "encoded" if there is no code present, which there is not in a single number such as density. If you are drawing on other information, such as limits on possible ranges of density of certain alloys, or on compositional ranges, then that information is not present in the density number but in the other information you are drawing on. Furthermore the generalisation describing density as a "magically unique and extraordinary numerical value" conveying compositional information about, not just a limited range of alloys, but matter in general, is absurd and completely unwarranted.

It is apparently hypothesised that the core of Mars may have ceased to develop a magnetic field due to phase changes or fractionation of the mixture.

OK, I have to say the attempt an an analogy with DNA sounds seriously overblown. I understand of course that alloys often have a range of possible compositions and so if you know the elements present you may be able to work out what combinations are possible that could give rise to a measured density. But this stuff about "encoded information" being present in a density makes no sense to me. What are the symbols of the code? In DNA we have a 4 "letter" code: A,C,G,U, denoting the 4 base pairs. A density, being a single number, has no code whatever. Can you perhaps give an example of an alloy with, say, 3 components and show how you deduce its composition from density alone?

What is meant by treating density as encoded information? Density is just one number. Unless, I suppose, you superimpose knowledge of limits to the range of densities possible for given combinations of elements. Is what you have done something like that?

This is getting a bit silly now. The disagreement is quite clearly about the legitimacy of the term "centrifugal force", not the formula. You can specify a rotating frame of reference if you like, but if you try to apply Newtonian dynamics in a non-inertial frame you get into a lot of complications: https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Classical_Mechanics/Variational_Principles_in_Classical_Mechanics_(Cline)/12%3A_Non-inertial_Reference_Frames/12.05%3A_Newtons_Law_of_Motion_in_a_Non-Inertial_Frame Which is why it is in most circumstances not a good practice.

This is interesting. I found this article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK127546/ according to which people with the A version of the gene do not produce odour precursors while those with the G type do. The A type is very highly prevalent in people of East Asian descent and in fact only 7% of them use deodorants. By contrast, those of European or African descent usually have the G type and so it is these societies where deodorant use has become the norm.

That article makes clear that a similar process is not expected to occur on Earth, or not until a billion years from now.

Why would water suddenly start escaping into space if the temperature of the upper atmosphere is lower than now, as it would be in a runaway greenhouse scenario? The proportion of water molecules with a velocity > escape velocity would be decreased, not increased. And what new mechanism would cause water to disappear into the ground?

My point is there is a huge difference between a slight smell of sweat or traces of body fluids in the groin, for which washing is quite sufficient, and the powerful odour of unwashed and non-deodorised armpits. If you just wash your armpits, and don't use deodorant, they smell really rank after as little as 12 hours. Nobody's groin ever smells remotely like that.

Why then does nobody bother with deodorant for the groin?

Sure, it is rather speculative. But the possible correlation of the appearance of the enzyme with the rise of the primates is an interesting finding.

OK so that shows the groin area does not produce body odour in the way the armpit does, right?

Well nobody puts deodorant on their groin, do they? And I’ve never had any complaints.

Hmm, I see the link actually says the space station was designed to simulate lunar gravity. As to the radio clip you linked, well I think you have got deGrasse Tyson bang to rights! 😆 How very sloppy of him. Sort of fits with my feeling he tends to be a bit glib. it must be very annoying for the film makers to go to the trouble of getting something scientifically right (God knows, it is rare enough for them to bother), only to have it traduced by a public science “personality” who should know better. By the way I rather like the “Kardashian Index”. I was delighted to see that, though their Exhibit A is Tyson, Exhibit B is Britain’s Brian Cox. He is someone I have always found irritating -and again, glib - so I’m glad to see I’m not the only one who finds him so. But his index is an order of magnitude lower than N deG T. Should this have a logarithmic scale, perhaps?

There do seem to be rumours about him farting uncontrollably, e.g. in a recent court appearance.

Erm, that would be an angular velocity of about 0.1/sec, wouldn’t it? So an acceleration ~ 1.5m/sec2, about the gravity on the moon. Is that right? But where do you get the radius of the space station from, and the rotation rate? And when and where did Tyson make this claim? I can’t seem to find a reference to it.

I'm not aware of any such reports. Please don't start a silly discussion about UFOs based on crap YouTube videos.