swansont

Convex and concave mirrors give very different results. Of what utility is a mirror — quite far from the earth — whose magnification is less than 1? Also, getting the surface smooth enough to be a substrate for a mirror isn't going to happen.

I thought we were discussion science. Maher will never be confused with being a scientist; he's more of a crackpot. To support an hypothesis you need evidence rather than innuendo. Wouldn't one expect biases to get cancelled to at least some extent if funding comes from multiple, independent sources?

If by this you are referring* to China, I imagine it was China's. Which, as a sovereign nation, can choose to do what research it deems appropriate. (*The US has its own history of tainted baby formula and other foods, so I'm not sure) ! Moderator Note I should also point out that slurs against people are not only bad form, but also a violation of our rules (2.1. and 2.4, since this is an ad hominem) Please stop doing that.

And these were actual promises and not hyperbole? Popular, eh? Then providing citations to several of them should be no problem. You give one example, which is a coastal city so the overall climate is tempered, and not representative of Canada as a whole.

You quoted me, but I don't see how this addresses any of the points I made

Andrew William Henderson has been suspended for repeated and blatant soapboxing and failing to argue in good faith.

You didn't show anyone's reply to be wrong. Examples were given. Nobody conceded that atomic particles cannot be identical. You're just making all that up. Or is it that you just didn't understand the answers? It occurs to me that you haven't presented anything here that's an independent thought, based on an understanding of science. You've been parroting what others have said, and quite obviously with limited comprehension. Your prowess in Googling and copy-pasting doesn't measure up to people who have actually studied science, and have an understanding of it. Things were OK when you asked the question, but to reject responses because you don't like them - they don't fit your worldview or whatever, rather than pointing to established scientific concepts - that's not OK. Oh, the hubris to think this.

There you go again, making unfounded expansive claims. You sure seem to "know" a lot of things without having much knowledge about science. People have made these measurements I've discussed, so "never" is just flat-out wrong.

Can be different if they are in different states. Which what I've been saying. What Dr. Baird is ignoring is that a small (fraction of a gram) chunk of some material will have >10^20 atoms in it. Some will have some excited electrons, but normally the majority will be in the ground state. And there will be a bunch of excited-state atoms that are in the same excited state. Are they all identical? No. Some will be in a different state. But most are identical. IOW, not being in an identical state is an exception. That bit at the end, about the Nobel prize, is Bose-Einstein condensation, which I've mentioned. It's impossible to do if the atoms aren't identical. If you have a chance, ask Dr Baird why the electrons in any atom aren't all in the ground state, if they aren't identical. And stop cherry-picking answers (and also, cite your sources). I notice you didn't include the very end of Baird's post With that said, don't think that atoms have individual identities beyond what has been mentioned here. If two carbon atoms are in the exact same molecular, atomic, electronic and nuclear states, then those two carbon atoms are identical, no matter where they came from or what has happened to them in the past. Translation: he was explaining the exceptions to being identical (and ignoring some physics in doing so)

Two electrons can't be in the same state in an atom. Their macroscopic state of travel has no effect on their quantum state. They do not have different masses. Iron has different isotopes, which have different masses. But an atom of Fe-56, for example, is that same as any other atom of Fe-56, and if the atoms are in the ground state they, too, are identical. Atoms that are fermions have been seen to follow the Pauli Exclusion Principle.

It's the scale, and the laws that dictate the reactions. There are a limited number of ways you can put atoms together to form a molecule. Often it's just one, for simple molecules. (AFAIK, molecular isomers tend to happen with bigger molecules) Once you are combining one molecule with another, the number of possible configurations increase.

! Moderator Note As a matter of policy here, this is absolutely not the case. Thread hijacking is against our rules

Atoms are the same in terms of composition, as long as you have the same isotope. Larger composite systems have opportunities to have differences, where there are multiple ways for things to connect to each other, or you can have contaminants. Something with 10^20 parts in it have a lot of ways they can be put together with subtle differences. Something with 2 parts might only have one way to be put together.

And it is because they are otherwise identical that fermions must occupy different states in an atom, owing to the Pauli Exclusion Principle. This is one way we know that particles themselves are identical. Another is that we can form Bose-Einstein condensates, which is another phenomenon that has a basis in particles being identical. The reason atomic clocks work so well is that the atoms are identical, so the quantum state oscillations are at the same frequency, which is preferable to an oscillator that is manufactured and would have small differences from item to item. IOW, the notion that these particles are identical has been experimentally verified.

! Moderator Note I've had enough of the arguments in bad faith (violating rule 2.12) and the soapboxing (violating 2.8) Scientific discussion has to be backed up by science. It's not just saying "Nuh uh" to each rebuttal. You had ample opportunity to add some rigor to your argument, and you didn't. Don't re-introduce this topic.

AYFKM?

I can’t produce something when something is as ill-defined as your parameters are 1. You only asked for this after asking for something else 2. If that’s what you want: there are multiple chemical reaction that will produce e.g. H2O - there is the familiar combustion of H2 and O2, but this will happen with hydrocarbons as well. CH3—COO—H + C2H5—OH → CH3-COO—C2H5 + H2O CH4 + 2 O2 -> CO2 + 2 H2O Multiple dissimilar reactions producing the same common product <awaiting a moving of the goalposts in 3…2…1…> Which is a narrow requirement for no legitimate reason. Why must stalagmites be identical? What scientific principle is at stake?

Not meant as such from me. More of a “what spurred you on as a kid, without an internet at your fingertips”

You've been rebutted on all these. Is it really necessary to do that again? Ignorance of science isn't evidence, and your ignorance is rather profound. (and if your argument is true, I can't rebut you again, because nothing is ever observed to happen twice. Right?)

Still untrue, despite being repeated. Then you have been really bad at framing this question Is the point you want to make is that dissimilar conditions do not give identical results? Or is it dissimilar processes? Or is it that results can never be replicated exactly? I would argue that none of these are necessarily true, or that this matters, but we need a decently-defined premise to discuss, and you haven't provided one.

Nothing about this has been about "dissimilar natural process producing something the same" You claimed that "Nothing in nature is observered (sic) to happen again or twice ...have a look yourselves! " You said nothing about processes or results. But you keep returning to a particular, narrowly-defined example that doesn't happen, where nobody is surprised that it doesn't happen, or rarely happens. This is known as moving the goalposts, and it's a dishonest debating tactic. ... I remember someone I knew long ago that argued that evolution is false because a dog never gave birth to a cat. He thought that was a persuasive argument, when in fact it just showed how little he understood about evolution. I see a similar phenomenon happening here.

A similar path I had was a set of Time-Life books on science. We had a Grolier encyclopedia set, which was a prize contestants (my mom) got for appearing on Jeopardy!

I haven't seen you use scientific fact and reasoning yet in this thread Again you have made a vague prediction. If the pattern holds, you will then move the goalposts when this is shown to be false, and you will apply a much narrower set of criteria to try and cover your error. A sun doesn't have to be the same as ours for it to be a sun. Again with the intellectually dishonest reasoning. Life would be biological, even if it were different that what was formed on earth.

Interesting, as you have not defined life at all, and this suggests you would artificially narrow the definition to be DNA-based. You didn't specify that it had to be the same water until after your argument was rebutted. I'm not aware that worms evolved into humans. Certainly not any extant species of worm. You can't possibly know if it was fast or not.

This is getting tiresome. Repetition is not proof. "Nothing" has to include all cases, and the only examples you can show are for very specific cases. You can't extrapolate from that to a general truth of the statement. Not reputable? I'm not required to, in order to disprove your statement. You can't limit responses to a specific avenue of proof. It's an intellectually dishonest requirement. We can't be sure life on another planet would be based on DNA. There's no requirement for the results to be identical, other than your artificial narrowing of the answer you will accept.