cypress

To add to and elaborate on Mr. Skeptic, oxygen, carbon and chlorine all have the capacity to fill eight slots in it's most exposed and lowest energy electron orbitals. Thus by geometric fit and by attainable bond energy levels these atoms all have the reasonable ability to form up to four bonds. They will readily form bonds where electrons are surplus or slots are unfilled (these bonds have very low formation energies and high dissociation energies) and they will more reluctantly form bonds within the outer valance in total (which generally have high formation energies and modest to low dissociation energies). Practically, due to energy differentials between the bonds of H2O H3O+ and H4O+2 only the first two will be observed because an H2O molecule will strip off any H from an H4O +2 that might happen to form long before it is observed. CH5 is nearly out of the question for the same reason because the bonding energy difference is so high in attempting to share an inner valance electrons as Mr. Skeptic indicated. In short it is all about energy balance. Bonds with energy requirements that are balanced and in alignment with available energy can coexist will be observed, those that are wildly out of place will not.

Are you being deliberately obtuse and vague? Can you be more specific? Are any of these fields of study evidence that the universe and life in it have a materialistic cause? I don't think so. Is it relevant that unfounded superstitions and falsehoods of the past have been easily overturned by truths count as evidence that the universe had a material cause? Of course it does not. Are we talking about stretches of the imagination or are speaking of evidence? Does science accept conjecture?

I find it very similar to, without evidence, assuming that there is a material explanation for events including the beginning of the universe and life in it.

They are indeed being censored, the question is whether or not it is constitutionally protected speech relative to the governments interest to enforce existing tax law. Censorship is only effective if there is a practical consequence that causes the speaker to modify the content of their speech and in this case the consequence is economic. In most instances where there are competing interests, the predominate purpose of the speech is used as a test. This would prevent someone from setting up a church as a front for a political campaign. To remove tax free status for the occasional mention of political contests seems out of balance with historical treatment of competing interests.

If I understand your questions, I don't see the answer as so much should it be done or not but rather when is it most appropriate. I'll try to explain my thoughts as follows: I think in these situations, it is not that rounding adds uncertainty as it introduces error, since the source of the difference is known and is due to use of imprecise values. with this in mind multiple rounding-off should be avoided until final results are obtained in nearly every case. Indeed they do. The final result after rounding could range from 0.210 to 0.211 and as you suspected is a result of using rounded numbers in a mixed equation where the imprecision is propagated to the solution through multiple roundings. However what is a little less clear is which of these final results is "more correct". Use of intermediate rounding has introduced additional imprecision or more correctly a bias that in this example happens to span the midpoint. This is one of the limitations of using rounding and truncation to express the precision of an equation. If you are uncomfortable with this "effect" then use the unrounded numbers until the final result is obtained, that method should never lead you astray.

Computer models generate the output that the designer intends but they do not provide factual evidence. Statements by the GISS are easy to make, but the articles don't provide sufficient evidence to support it. I quoted the state of knowledge GISS has on this matter and will repeat it again: "Though not fully understood, the increased transport of water vapor to the stratosphere seems to have been caused at least partially by human activities." That is another way of admitting they lack evidence. Your counter argument also lacks support. the next adjustment to introduce is from solar effects over the time period. The articles says this about it. "And let’s not leave out the non-GHG influence of variations in the output of the sun. If the solar output varies, so too will the earth’s temperature. Duke University’s Nicola Scafetta has been studying the potential influence of solar variability on the earth’s recent temperature trends for several years now. His most recent calculations were published last year in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics. He concluded that it is impossible to precisely nail down the solar influence in recent decades because of uncertainties induced from trying to stitch together non-continuous measurements made from several different satellite-borne instruments. However, Scafetta did provide three plausible solar output histories since 1950 and calculated the potential impact of each. He found that solar variability since 1950 could have contributed anywhere from virtually no warming to upwards of 65% of the observed warming. In his middle scenario, Scafetta found that increases in the solar output since 1950 could have been responsible for about 33% of the observed warming since then. If we factor this non-GHG warming out, we are left with a total temperature rise of 0.204°C from 1950-2009—or just 29% of the original “observed” warming." And so by this analysis we have 0.2°C warming unattributed. Less than 30% of the total apparent rise can be assigned to AGHG from 1950 to 2009.

True that the relationship between solvent added and final volume is not likely to be perfectly linear so I should not have said that 90 ml solvent was to be added. Thanks for the correction. It is correct though that the final dilution factor is 10 to 1 by volume and thus the final concentration is 1/10th the original in that the solute volume was 10 ml and the final volume is 100 ml. Again your precision to detail is appreciated.

The root cause of poverty is inability for one reason or another to produce sufficient value to raise standard of living. Moving previously produced value around does not produce any new and unique value so it lacks sufficiency to eliminate poverty. For this reason, transfer of wealth can never solve production problems. It might make some of us feel good to think something is being done, but it is unworkable.

Laminar flow occurs at low velocity where total kinetic energy is lower and less is available to contribute to fluid "sheer" due primarily to fluid viscosity near the solid boundaries. Laminar flow is characterized by low convection of momentum perpendicular to flow as the flow remains largely in smooth sheets with relatively high friction from one sheet to the next. Thus the flow profile has extended distribution perpendicular to flow, and the ratio of resistance to flow vs. total energy is greater and thus a greater percentage of momentum is consumed by frictional losses. In laminar flow fluid sheer is consistent, steady and smooth but as velocity rises the sheer becomes chaotic as the energy gradient is partially able to overcome kinematic viscosity and momentum flows convectively much further into the boundary layer disrupting the laminar sheets and reducing the ratio of friction losses to total energy. The adverse pressure gradient is a related issue as it is a boundary layer phenomena. Boundary layers are established for solid object traveling through fluids. The solid object acquires a boundary layer subject to the same viscus forces discussed previously. As geometry imposes more severe perpendicular flow requirements relative to undisturbed potential flow, dead spots result in kinetic energy converted to potential energy causing adverse pressure gradients. It is not that turbulent flow in boundary layers experience adverse pressure gradients rather it is that they are able to better sustain them without causing boundary layer separation and thus eddies. This is because the convective transfer of momentum in turbulent flow boundary layers provides more energy to sustain the adverse pressure gradient before separation occurs.

No 0.01/0.1 = 0.1 so it will be diluted by a factor of 10 just as you would expect if you add 90 ml solvent to 10 ml solute.

It's your math MrWizzard. C2 = (V1/V2)*C1 so C2 = (0.01/0.1)* 3.115x10-2 M

Histidine is a bit tricky because it has three acid groups and thus three pKa's with three conjugate bases plus the H-A form indicated in the question which was identified as the isoelectric form. See if you can identify the three conjugate bases and the three pKa's plus indicate what range of pH you would expect to see predominately the isoelectric form and we will proceed.

The formula is right but check your math, I get 0.233 Moles N. If you need a one line equation, start with your first attempt but don't stop there just add this last equation onto the end of the previous one. You nearly had it right to begin with, really you did most of the work.

Same equation for the first as well, because dissociation and acidity (measured by pH) goes hand in hand for acids and bases. You first need to identify the formula for dissociation of histidine near the indicated pH and the pKa for that dissociation. Can you do that?

Each La+3 is grouped with 3H and each La+2 with 2 of course. If you were to define fraction of La+3 as X what is the fraction of La+2 in terms of X? Then if you were to multiply the fractions of each with the number of corresponding hydrogens what would that equate to?

By N atoms they mean Nitrogen atoms and while the number of Oxygens in each molecule is the same the number of Nitrogens is not. Looking at your calculations, you have 0.446 moles of Oxygen but how much Nitrogen?

I assume this is homework. You'll have to start it off by suggesting how you would solve these questions and also take a initial try. It won't help you much if I do your work for you. I assume this is homework. You'll have to start off by suggesting how you would solve these questions and also take a initial try. It won't help you much if I do your work for you.

I don't see where NASA GISS has accounted for the long-term net increase. The article says this about it: What percentage of the total net increase of water vapor from 1980 - 2000 is due to methane? I don't see that information in the article. What specific human activities and what evidence other than models (a computer model is not evidence since they have a strong tendency for conformational bias as they output what they are programmed to generate) is available to demonstrate that these human activities cause transport of water vapor into the upper atmosphere? The articles and comments made more recently by Solomon and coauthors plus other atmospheric researchers indicate they don't see a connection between human causes and transport of water vapor into the stratosphere. Instead they indicate the trend follows tropical sea surface temperature.

Outside of what swansont suggested during a dynamic state, there is no material that could stave off a temperature differential as described indefinitely, since that would require unbounded thermal resistance. To maintain steady T2 and T1 temperatures requires heat flux across the T1 boundary and therefore a heat sink in the center white space.

Here is how you described it: "make a point mutation such that it disables an important but non-vital gene. Evolution will rather quickly revert it back to the functional state." You offered mutation of genes in bacteria and noted that this back and forth occurs regularly. I agree it does but since the initial starting point was functional and it still exists the reverted gene does not represent new function and this back and forth falls inside of the constraints of information entropy of a closed system. If we return to the original scenario described by the words quoted, we have an initial condition that was deliberately chosen by the experiment designer to succeed. The experiment set-up made use of a gene configuration that they knew contained a path that would result in a functional gene that a random walk could navigate given the resources available. The designer of the experiment provided the information required to succeed. When we isolate our investigation to the confines of the experiment, then we must note that the experiment designer with foreknowledge, inserted active information into the experiment at the beginning, by selecting a configuration with a known pathway navigable by the algorithm's fitness function. As with all the previous examples, this example succeeds by virtue of a designer. To see more clearly how significant and information rich the set-up was, let's take the same functional gene and then randomly shuffle the base pairs. For a 450 base pair gene, the number of configurations with a starting point similar to the one chosen by your designer is about 1 in 10^70 based on Douglas Axe's work with functional protein configurations. We could set this experiment up with no active information once a second for the entire life of the universe and still have almost no chance (< 1 in 10^30) of any of these experiments having succeeded in generating any useful function by mutation and selection.

Yes, it is all correct. You've got it.

That's a strange direction to take. I have no idea how you conclude that I believe algorithms are omniscient. Another odd conclusion you have ascribed to me. No. But I am thoroughly enjoying your attempt at non-sequiturs. You have had ample time to offer a natural process that can be observed generating functional information at rates greater than what information theory predict of random walks and blind search and as I suspected you offered none.

From your first answer I took the stage divisions to be 0.1 mm, my mistake. But if they are instead 0.01 mm then both answers get divided by ten, and you get 25 um at 4x power for one OU and 0.2 mm for 80 OU at 40x.

No. Other lineage's of the original persist with the previous function. The revived function is a copy of existing function with no net increase in information just as copying a research paper adds no new information. I do agree that what we observe of evolution by mutation and selection seems consistent with information theory. We observe that mutation and selection on average does not generate information faster than that predicted by information theory and thus many orders of magnitude slower than predicted by the geologic record. Therefore based on observation we can say that so far mutation and selection does not generate functional information fast enough. Only a mind has been shown capable of generating functional information at rates consistent with and greater than that required to explain observed diversity. Nonsense, a bird's nest is designed as is a beaver dam. The algorithms we have discussed are tools of a mind, and require active information provided by the designer in order to functions. The designer's mind is responsible for the accomplishments of the designer's tool the tool was just the medium.

Noting that an object contains a specific component and then noting that that component thus far has only one known cause is not incredulous. It is however making an inference to a logical conclusion using a process of downrating potential causes that, acting in the present, don't generate the noted effects. It is not incredulous to ask that a potential cause should be shown capable of generating the postulated effect and if it can't rating it lower than a cause that has been shown to be capable. After trimming away possible causes that are not known produce the effect, one is left with the remaining causes that seem more plausible because they are known to be capable of producing an particular effect.