Area54

It makes total sense to me, however, you probably wouldn't want to advertise that.

No, you are both wrong. It will orbit the smallest star in the solar system. And, slightly better than the Star article is this from wikipedia. Or this from NASA.

Thank you for your reply. I don't see how the diagram you have offered showing the double bond movement reflects the OP's question. I interpret "shifting all the double bonds of benzene to one side" to mean this. That was the basis for my response. My remarks on the outdated concept of double bonds was based upon poorly remembered concepts of orbitals from an undergaduate Chemistry course in the 1960s and a misreading of the wikipedia article. I believe I am correct in stating that the benzene structure does not contain "conventional" double bonds.

Perhaps the impact that politics has on many (almost all?) aspects of our life make involvement in it important. Perhaps the sacrifices of those who fought for universal suffrage merit us more than dabbling in the arena. Perhaps the political character of the behaviour of all primates, man included, require we invest time in politics. Perhaps the only way to improve the condition and future of individuals, nations and society is to be committed to political activity. Perhaps . . . .

Fair enough. I made this statement: The double bonds could not be shifted to one side since this would conflict with the valence of Carbon . That was my way of expressing what Studiot said in his post, which he summarised as " You can't just move the double bonds without also moving the single bonds." Carbon has a valency of 4. If we shift the double bonds and try to keep the hydrogens where they are it simply cannot work - which is what we are both saying. I accept that this was not clear, though I can't quite see why not. I then made this statement: I understand double bonds are an older concept that has been replaced, in this instance, by delocalised electron distribution. wikipedia has something to say on the matter. I would welcome, for my own education, an explanation of what is incorrect in that statement. Thanks.

Thank you for your reply. My concerns with its weakness and, to some extent, its irrelevance have been addressed by Strange in his subsequent posts. Your latest lengthy reply contains abundant detail. I shall review this detail and comment, or question further, once I have (or have not) made sense of it.

Good. Thank you. We seem to be on the same wavelength on that one. Do you have an approximate notion as to how far "down" the web of life such intelligent behaviour expresses itself? Restricted to primates? Present in amoeba? Somewhere in between? Also, on to the second question: Please justify the claim that as such tasks became optimized that intelligence became more generalised. In the above question "justify" could be replaced by "provide reasoned support for".

I've read those responses. None of them appear to answer any of my questions. Let's take it one at a time: Please define, explain, or at least list "cognitive tasks".

Dimreepr has, Strange has and now I have. Incidentally, I made a sincere attempt to work with you by asking some specific questions as below: I see this has just received a downvote. My hypothesis is that the person with the most likely motivation to downvote that post was you. If I am mistaken then you will be happy to answer those questions. If you choose not to I shall take that as confirmation that you are either trolling or way too smart for me to comprehend. I'll then leave you to your own devices.

1. No one had responded to the plea for help, so I summed up my recollection of chemistry from many decades ago and offered my take on it. 2. I opened with a statement concerning the primary purpose of the post, namely, to prompt a more knowledgable answer. 3. It's disappointing you chose not react to the prompt, but instead chose to highlight that what I wrote was incorrect in some way - a caveat already covered in my opening sentence. 4. On the the off chance that the OP is still looking for an informed answer would you like to help them out with that now?

In the hope of prompting a more knowledgable answer here are a couple of thoughts: The double bonds could not be shifted to one side since this would conflict with the valence of Carbon. I understand double bonds are an older concept that has been replaced, in this instance, by delocalised electron distribution. wikipedia has something to say on the matter.

I'm not sure I agree with your last statement. Life has made the Earth more suitable for the life that currently inhabits it. I'm sure the Archean microbiota found the efforts of the cyanobacteria that oxygenated the atmosphere most unwelcome, disrupting the ideal conditions they had enjoyed for a billion years.

Perhaps it wasn't originally "clarity", but Charity. (That's Chinese whispers for you.) We all benefit from a measure of charity in our communications. Now as to the OP and Tub, who reversed himself and buTted in, rather than seeing Science and Philosophy as separate, I rather consider science a sub-set of Philosophy. A very effective sub-set, but a sub-set nonetheless. Now if the other sub-sets of Philosophy are as distinctive in their methods and objectives as is science, then perhaps a comparison between science and the amalgam of all those diverse sub-sets is going to be monumentally difficult. Possibly Eise couild comment on this thought.

I wonder what complexity, if any, the presence of the moon would add to the process? Just avoid hitting it, or something more involved?

An opportunity to communicate with clarity?

@thoughtfuhk Please define, explain, or at least list "cognitive tasks". Please justify the claim that as such tasks became optimized that intelligence became more generalised. Please clarify whether, as your statement in the last post clearly implies, such generalisation occured across all mammals, or whether it was restricted to certain taxonomic levels. In either instance, what is your evidence for such an assertion?

@thoughtfuhk I can only imagine two reasons why you would be posting your thoughts here, in the manner in which you are posting them: 1. You are trolling. If this is the case, congratulations, you have provided an outstanding example of how to avoid answering direct questions and shift the blame for lack of progress to other participants. 2. You genuinely wish to share your concepts with others. If this is the case your failure to pay proper attention to what others have posted and your persistent failure to answer direct questions has screwed that up. On the basis that explanation 2 is the correct one I recommend the following: Provide specific quotes from cited articles that justify your links between each step in your argument. While this will not prove your case, it will demonstrate that your argument is a plausible one supported by identified research. At present that is, decidedly, not the case.

This is more a matter of philology than science. It would have been better if the changes that occur over time in the universe, in planetary systems, in the interior of stars, in biospheres, etc. had been assigned a different word from that used to describe biological evolution. For want of a better word, let's suppose that generic change had been called development, then there would have been no conflict with evolution (where that term was used exclusively for biological evolution). Further consider that the changes in organic molecules during abiogenesis was called prebiosis, then sentences like this : The development of planetary systems set the scene for prebiosis to occur, which - in turn - provided the basis for subseqeunt evolution. would provide a welcome alternative to this: The evolution of planetary systems set the scene for organic evolution to occur, which - in turn - provided the basis for subseqeunt evolution.

Try this article. Based ujpon observations made during the 2012 approach the authors conclude that the small diameter, elongate shape and fast rotation make it unlikely that the body is a "rubble pile". This narrows the compostional options. This paper notes the probability that the asteroid is tumbling, reinforcing the suspicion that it is not a "rubble pile".

The timing of coitus will absolutely influence which sperm "wins the race". However this will be the case if the timing was influenced by attending the award of the Nobel Peace Prize or exploding a bomb in a crowded marketplace. That is, the events influencing the timing have no effect on the "quality" of the outcome. This is down to the usual effects of chance. (The exception would be, for example, if you insist on exposing your testes to excessive radiation.) If you want to help future generations then educate yourself, follow the Golden Rule and respect the environment.

Keep at it. It will not be easy, but many people succeed. I wish you success.

Then please stop spreading rumours. You are laying yourself open to a charge of libel. That can carry severe financial penalties. (Not to mention the fact that it is impolite and makes you look like a fool.) Thread reported to staff.

On what sources are you basing this rumour? Remember the saying: If you base your work on one person's work you are a plagiariser. If you base your work on many people's work you are a researcher.

If it is accompanied by - implied or explicitly stated "And if you don't do this for me, I'll make certain that no one in this industry does anything for you again" then it would certainly be sexual assault.

I have indicated, in red, which of those assertions you have made that are faulty. Obviously, this is not a rebuttal, simply a contrasting set of assertions. I shall deal with each of them in detail, with appropriate support, ASAP. Real world issues may delay this for up to one week. In the meantime thank you for your participation in this thread.