Essay

That's the number, but what about The Law?

The question 'how does that amount of salt placed in 25ml of water effect the temperature change?" -ellabarker99 === How does it "effect" or cause the temperature change, is a qualitative question. How does it "affect" or change the temperature change, is a quantitative question. Are we sure which question is being asked? ~

The change isn't the same, or linear, but there is another trend. It is a curved or nonlinear progression, though depending on how it is estimated, it could be below zero too soon. I'd go with a 'best estimate' and ask questions about if some other strategy could work. I'd like to know about another way to guesstimate this. Good luck ~

...especially considering the limited (and only roughly accurate) initial data.... That seems like a logical strategy, and a reasonable answer. Can you do the same with ionization energy? ~

So if size increases as you go down the group, can Cs size be predicted by the trend of sizes, in the Cs group, above Cs? ~

So do you know about a relationship between radius and ionization energy, or can you see such in your graphs or trends? What trends have you identified so far? ~

"...they would no longer retain the properties of either matter or energy." Well that certainly sounds outside of the box. But painting a picture with languages can be fun. Good luck! ~

Thanks for fixing that ...as much as possible.... In addition to those qualities, which a good theory needs, I'd also hope a simple equation or descriptive sentence could be offered up as a clue or indication about the new unifying perspective or paradigm shift. ...especially for any other folks who can "see them in" their minds too. ~

F'n touch screen! Can somebody erase the -1 rep, and change it to +1, for the previous post. Sorry.... ~ Thanks!

I was sloppily using the 'plume' terminology to indicate a convecting mantle; but they are different, so thanks for helping us relearn/recall the difference. This was news to me: "The geological record suggests that until three billion years ago the earth's crust was immobile...." "...and tectonic plates did not become cold and dense enough to spontaneously sank." === I would have thought the effects of various 'snowball earth' phases, and the 'recent' effects of continuous cold deep ocean water --especially flowing into and along the deep trenches--would have been an obvious cooling mechanism; but apparently not! LaboratoryEquipment.com/news "The mystery of what kick-started the motion of our earth's massive tectonic plates across its surface has been explained by researchers at the Univ. of Sydney." Wow! Spreading continents kick-started plate tectonics http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v513/n7518/full/nature13728.html ~

After watching that recent Nova episode on vaccinations, and the long history (back to ancient times!) of vaccinating people, it also occurred to me that it is your future grandchildren that you put most at risk, by not having your own kids vaccinated now. ~ ...think of the children grandchildren!

Plumes make sense for the ocean crust and seafloor spreading, but as for the continents and subduction.... ...some periodic redistribution of mass? ~

Oh, sure, that reasoning wouldn’t apply to just vaccines, but to all injections…. …and hey, what about the statistics on oral vaccines? === But as to the genetic angle: The rise in autism does coincide closely with a radical shift in diet and lifestyle, unprecedented in evolutionary history; and autism seems to be more prevalent in regions most affected by those shifts. Also, look at the infant mortality rate (over 1/3) until modern medicine came along. Many kids with these ‘problems linked to vaccines,’ such as allergies and autoimmune disorders, would not have survived long enough to contribute to the gene pool, until recently (or their parents, like me, wouldn’t have survived). And, if you look at the long and broad history of infanticide, and the historical tolerance (or lack thereof) for social deviance, and the strong religious proscriptions for normative behavior, then you could see another reason why it is only recently that ‘more variant’ genes (especially those genes affecting ‘social interaction’) began surviving to reproductive age. ~ istm

Neat idea, about that sort of 'auto-immunization' occurring as a consequence of the physical process of vaccination. However, those reactions aren't associated with vaccines (statistically, afaik), so another association might prove more insightful. === Did you know that many of the same genes, which are associated with autism (and linked to late-stage fetal brain development), are also used for the development of the digestive system, during an earlier stage of fetal development? I was not surprised then to hear how the exact chromosomal regions, containing those dual-use genes, were also subject to a novel mutational mechanism whereby rearrangements and duplications and deletions are enhanced. === Maybe the transition from a paleolithic diet to a modern agricultural diet, as well as the transition to upright walking, is putting some pressure on those 'digestive system' genes to shift and adjust. The consequences to brain development are interesting, and are providing for even more diversity and opportunities to evolve. ~

I was just thinking about this a few days ago ...after hearing this tidbit on the news about (essentially isostatic) rebound, due to water loss. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140821141542.htm It seems too easy to imagine a ratchet-like mechanism, whereby the continent (and its 'wedge-shaped' root) rises up away from the ocean crust (not pulling ocean crust up with it, but letting ocean crust fill in below), and then sinks back down (with increasing hydrological mass), dragging down the ocean crust with it. ...or more simply: It seems too easy to imagine a ratchet-like mechanism, whereby the continent rises up away from the ocean crust and then sinks back down, dragging down the ocean crust with it ...as a part of some yearly or other climate-related, continental-scale, hydrological cycle. ~

Do you believe that is "at odds with" the quantum "stuff?" ...if you think reality cares what the observer believes, then... This would be another example of wishful, or magical, thinking. ~

Vaccines are much easier, and much less risky, than sending your child off to fight for your country's future. Part of being a good parent is being a good citizen. The future that your children inhabit will be shaped by fulfilling our civic responsibilities now. ~ connecting good science with good citizenship.

I'd suggest answering #3 and then #5 (about glucose and then the toxin Oubain), second; after you answer #1, but before answering #2 and #4. What is the book title and author and date, that you're studying? The book must talk about glucose and the sodium/potassium pump specifically, or is that wrong, and only in your notes? Is a particular sentence, about your information on glucose or the toxin, unclear or confusing? Can you easily answer #1, and tell what would happen to the cell ...or at least what would first happen to the water inside the cell? ~

…Those are good questions, and a great perspective from which to ask the question about the status of our planet’s health; assuming you’re not asking about ‘fecundity’ or productiveness, but rather asking about the ‘nutrient status’ of the planet. If you take a strictly geochemical view of the planet, and account for 'life' as a geochemical reservoir for salts and metals (the bio-nutrients, not counting carbon or the Hs and Os), then the cycle of nutrients, and their changing availability, both become easier to see. I’ve been studying a path by ‘following the carbon,’ but “follow the nutrients” would probably be a more informative choice. === I think in general you’ll find that the greater the biodiversity, the greater the accumulation and concentration of nutrients; since life seems to be a concentrator of nutrients, and time can serve as a great accumulator of those concentrations. And of course, rich soils and other sediments can become increasingly concentrated reservoirs for various nutrients, including carbon. Calcium, phosphorus, and iron deposits around the globe are often traced to bioaccumulation, it seems. === But “good and rich” agricultural soils, fisheries, and forests, is where the ‘availability’ angle becomes important; and where productivity, on a sustainable basis, also needs to be accounted for. “Half of the topsoil on the planet has been lost in the last 150 years.” “The effects of soil erosion go beyond the loss of fertile land.” http://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/soil-erosion-and-degradation And, iirc, according to David Laird; USDA, ARS, National Soil Tilth Laboratory, over 50% of the “carbon richness” in soils has been lost to erosion, globally, over the past few hundred years. That’s a lot of nutrients! Surprisingly, nutrient-rich, good agricultural soils, only evolved within the past few million years, and are also called "interglacial soils" or mollisols or chernozems (which you can research ...and wonder about where all the nutrients were before those soils evolved to predominate [maybe oceans & forests?]). Nutrients are retained more readily, and for longer, in carbon-rich soils; and so that permitted “some civilizations” to improve the nutrient density of their resources, and sustain themselves longer, and against rougher odds, in general. It will be much easier and rewarding to improve our soils, rather than our crops. Follow the Nutrients! ~

@Dr. F., I think you're confusing nature's random variations, which eventually manage to survive the random selection process, with "anticipation."

It sounds as if you think huge doses of steroids would be fine, since small doses of steroids can be therapeutic; simplicity itself, right? === I’d agree we don’t want to return to ice-age conditions. To intentionally lose 10,000 years of a relatively temperate climate, which still makes agriculture possible, would be fairly insane. === This level of GHGs seems to have offset the natural orbital (ice-age) cycle… (but the above graph only records GHG levels up through “pre-industrial” levels) …which gave us millennia of temperatures looking (fairly stable) like this; allowing civilization to survive: So you can see how if the amount of GHGs (above) kept the climate level for thousands of years, then you should also see we may not want to intentionally upset that balance now, with those same emissions …now shown up through 2005 (below). These chemicals will force a larger difference, greater than between the ice age and today, which will change the climate. I’d be skeptical of your suggestion that adding more GHGs ...to this already huge and rapid spike in GHGs ...will help maintain our relatively stable climate. ~

...or maybe 20 thousand years would help your perspective. ...very, very, well-educated guesses, which are then checked and tested and scrutinized and challenged and retested and validated, as with most science, medicine, and technology. ...and as with this overview of the information, published in Scientific American Magazine. ...Scientific American v.292, p.46 - 53 (2005) by William Ruddiman ...but it is just the orange and red parts that you might be worrying about, when you recognize how civilization just barely survived that (relatively stable) "actual trend," the yellow period. ...if you're the worrying type. ~

If you have some particular curiosity about the details, ask away; but in general: They can tell how much CO2 comes from burning fossil fuels, because that carbon has a different “isotopic signature” than volcanic (or other) sources of CO2. So when they say we are adding ‘over 30 billion tons’ of CO2 each year, to the atmosphere, they can fairly well account for it all on the balance sheets of giant corporations who pay to dig it out of the ground. As to the effect it is expected to have on the climate, there are theoretical predictions (based on the spectroscopic properties of “greenhouse” gases) that also agree fairly well with the geological record, which show how CO2 keeps the planet about 10 – 15 degrees warmer than it would be without CO2. There is lots of evidence, from many different sources, across many disciplines, and over a century, which all lead fairly narrowly to the same conclusion …that “consensus” view. Probably, when you hear about 'man-made' global warming being different (from "natural warming cycles"), it is referring to the extreme rapidity (relatively, on a geological scale) that our contribution to the planetary cycles is occurring. http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v305/n1/box/scientificamerican0711-56_BX1.html ...not counting the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs.... The "PETM" (in blue) is the most comparably drastic geologic analogy, which exists for us to compare and judge "rapid change" by. ~

The "purpose" of diversity would be to provide more options and opportunities for evolution to utilize, as the climate/environment itself develops through ongoing cycles and changes.

Nicholas, I think this is mostly a problem with your definition of homogeneous. While homogeneous means 'all the same' (I think), it needs to be thought of relative to (or compared to) the 'heterogeneous' alternative. In other words, what are the criteria (or rules or qualities or characteristics) that you would use to define something as heterogeneous? It is by those standards or "rules" that you should consider whether or not something else is homogeneous, rather than defining homogeneous as meaning "exactly the same" everywhere. === It might be better to think of 'homogeneous' as meaning an "evenly mixed" or "evenly distributed" mixture of stuff, whereas 'heterogeneous' would be an "unevenly mixed," or an "unevenly distributed" mixture of stuff. You're right that nothing can ever be exactly the same everywhere, if you examine each and every detail. But if you are only interested in certain details, such as the physical laws that govern motion or energy transfer, then you can overlook the little differences that aren't relevant. Homogenized milk is the "same everywhere" except at the molecular level, where it is still a mixture of water and proteins and some fat molecules. But non-homogenized milk has differences in the distribution of that same stuff; so it is only "relative to" non-homogenized milk, that homogenized milk can be thought of as "all the same" stuff. ~