studiot

What please is your definition of a 'creationist' and in what way do you align with them ?

The simple fact remains that you made the absolute claim in the first place and repeated it twice (rather like someone in the Bible ?) Since you introduced it as a 'scientific fact', and since it would be a very fundamental fact if substantiated, I am asking you to substantiate it properly. Please note I am also responding to your general posting which seems to show a proper scientific nature rather than something different. Is that too much to ask ?

Exactly. That is why I am asking, as clearly as I can, for the required level of support for an absolute claim such as You, sir, have stated this absolutely at least three times now, without consideration for alternatives. Or do you deny that alternatives exist ? The very title and question of this thread would suggest that the OP (and I ) acknowledge that we (and Science) do not know if there is a definite answer, let alone what such an answer might be.

I made no such claim. If you want claims about biology, ask a biologist. I merely pointed out that your statement How do you know ? Rejects all other possibilities. However I would observe that in the geological record at one time there was (almost) no free oxygen on Earth. All early life must therefore have been anaerobic. The presence of Life did indeed change the planet geologically. I would also observe that following each of the 5 great extinctions known, many, if not the mojority, of lifeforms were quite different before and after the horizon in the fossil record. A good study of this is given by Professor Benton of Bristol University in his book "When Life Nearly Died." Another study, unfortunately only stretching back to the Cambrian, is by Professor Beerling of Sheffield University "The Emerald Planet". This one is the only detailed paleohistory of the atmousphere that I know of. Finally, in case you think that I support the clarion call you here to often in these forums, "Science must be Mathematic", here is my favourite passage showing how rational thinking can be at least as strong as an equation.

That's only evidence. You made a much strionger statement. In particular you precluded the possibility that the same or similar sequence of events occured more than once on Earth.

I didn't ask for a consensus, I asked for Mathematics. Chemical kinetics is maths, not unsupported waffle. How do you know ?

Edit Thank you for that link. I did not appreciate the comment about Science, where did I say it was ?

So perhaps someone with sufficient biological knowledge might like to address my points about the chemical kinetics of the reactions that led to life and its precursor chemicals. All I know about them is that the kinetics of these reactions are some of the most complicated known, many without a (known) closed form solution.

I note that @Evomumbojumbohas been online a while back. So I would like to remind members that he is still unable to reply to their posts as he has yet to pass the 5 posts in the first 24 hours limit. Several have asked for clarification of his position and I, for one, do not understand it so am unwilling to say whether I consider it right or wrong until he has had a proper chance to clarify.

OK so maybe RNA is an autocatalyst. But how did the first molecule of RNA from ? (This is equivalent to asking did Adam have a navel) Actually lots of folks have considered this question. https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-GB&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=RNA+autocatalysis&iflsig=ALs-wAMAAAAAYenPdzZGQshq61NkRjjw0ZBSHtq2UEo0&gbv=2&oq=RNA+autocatalysis&gs_l=heirloom-hp.3...1082.5864.0.6258.17.17.0.0.0.0.306.2478.2j7j3j2.14.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..6.11.1842.0XdHvwMhTXo

I would be very wary of expecting parallels between modern biological processes and primordial ones. This is because of the large number of bio-catalysts that modern life employs for its processes. Primordial chemical processes will not have had the benefit of these catalysts, as we would have to believe that not only did the right components come togther for the protein etc to form but also the right components for the catalyst as well. (Most such catalysts are complicated biomolecules in their own right). Indeed it begs the question, which came first the catalyst or the product protein ?

Some quotes from the evolutionary biologist JBS Haldane. http://www.quotehd.com/quotes/j-b-s-haldane-quote-the-creator-if-he-exists-has-a-special-preference-for

Rainbow cave, Horumuz Island, Iran. https://www.geologypage.com/2020/12/rainbow-cave-hormuz-island-iran.html

Thanks for the reply. I really can't evaluate the 'intelligence' of octopussys, tomatoes or similar. That would involve know exactly what intelligence is . However the more we study Nature the more examples of 'intelligent ' activity we discover, even in the plant kingdom. David Attenborough's latest 'planet' series has some striking new examples, some based on time lapse photography. This is ideal for plants, which operate over a generally longer timescale than more mobile 'creatures'. But Attenborough's time lapse video shows many plant behaving in a similar way to creatures over months or even years rather than minutes. Such a tolerance of many years of timescale would give space travelling plants an advantage. On another tack, it is well known that ants are livestock farmers. But (again thank you Attenborough) on Sunday I found out that they are also arable farmers. Apparantly they collect and compost (readers of the compost thread please note) suitable leaves and then feed them to certain fungi which produce substances the ants want.

Let me offer a few choice ones. Courant and Robbins What is Mathematics ? Matt Parker Things to make and Do in the FourthDimension. David Wells The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Geometry. Acheson From Calculus to Chaos. Mark Levi The Mathematical Mechanic. J E Spice Chemical Binding and Structure. Pauling and Pauling Chemistry Fred Hoyle Ice Hermann Bondi Relativity and Common Sense Robert Millikan Electrons ( + and -) Protons, Photons, Neutrons, Mesotrons and Cosmic Rays. PS thanks for the thread, +1 Swinnerton Solving Earth's Mysteries Steven Vogel Cats Paws and Catapaults

Not exactly an explosion, but then it is difficult to ignite some hydrocarbon deposits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_Lake

I have been asked by a member to comment on this worked example question encountered in an online tigonometry course. The temperature during the week oscillates daily between 48o and 74o. (presumabably Farenheit). If the minimum occurs at 5am, at what time is the temperature at 65oF ? The lecturer chooses a sinusoidal model for the variation, but uses a very overcomplicated method where he arrives at and solves the following equation. [math]f\left( \theta \right) = - 13\cos \left( {\frac{\pi }{2}\left( {\theta - 5} \right)} \right) + 61[/math] Here are my comments. The lecturer has chosen to use a cosine wave as the model, using radian measure for the angles, and has come up with a 'grand unified' formula which is fraught with the dnager of miscalculations as will become clear. It is vey important to solve and understand the Physics as well as the Mathematics of a model. I have shown the Physics in Fig1, covering both the day in question and part of the day before and part of the day after. The lecturer failed to note the characteristics of a sinusoidal wave - that it passes throuhg its speial points (its peaks and zeros) at spacings of 90o or 6 hours or 'quadrants'. This is possibly because he thought to work in radians. It is worth noting that most scientific instruments that measure angle use the degrees, minutes and seconds units. Almost none read directly in radians. Maybe this is why he made the incorrect statement that we cannot locate the peaks, troughs and zeros of the model wave, only the minimum at 5am. I have labelled the important ones A, B and C in green in Fig1. I have also shown where the target 65oF intersects the model curve at P and Q within the target day and at R on the day before. It is also worth noting that working in DMS (degrees etc) has advantages in some disciplines since time, latitude and longitude in geography and azimuth and right ascension in astronomy are measured in these. So 15o corresponds to 1 hour. The lecturer also points out that there are actually many angles that satisfy the inverse trigonometric equation, but goes on to make very heavy weather of choosing the right one. He doesn't stress enough that a calculator or set of tables will only provide one of these angles, not necessarily the one you want. So I have shown in Fig2 and Fig3 the standard way of overcoming this issue. If positive values are taken the calculator or table will always give you the first quadrant anngle (I have called A to distinguish from his theta). A mnemonic based on the english word CAST is shown to help remember which trig functions are positive in the other quadrants as well. Fig3 shows how to establish the angles to be used in each quadrant. So here are 3 separate ways of working this out, without solving that overblown equation. We will see how my comments pan out as we work through them. So starting from point A which is the normal starting point of a cosine wave, where the cosine has a value of +1. This must be two quadrants of 6 hours ie 2x6 =12 hours back from the minimum at 5am (point B). That is 5pm the previous day. Counting from point A Sorry I see I've used A for both the angle and the point, hopefully this will not cause too much confusion. P is in the 4th quadrant, Q is in the 5th quadrant, but one day later than R which is in the first quadrant and therefore at the same time of day as Q. for point R, cos A = 4/13 therefore A = 72o or 72/15 = 4.8 hours later than point A So R is the point at 1700 + 4.8 hours or 21.8 hours, the previous day. So Q is the point at 21.8 hours on the target day in question. P is in the 4th quadrant so is (360-A) = (360- 72) = 288o . 288 degrees is 288/15 = 19.2 hours So P is the point at 1700 + 19.2 hours or 1700 +6+6+6+1.2 hours = 12.2 hours the following day. Counting from point B In relation to point B, P is in the second quadrant and Q is in the third quadrant. Thus both P and Q will have negative cosines. Using a calculator to calculate the inverse cosine of -(4/13) will correctly give the correct angle of 108o. However there is a trap here as this will not give the value for Q directly. Better to ignore the -ve and follow the standard procedure of Fig3. For P Angle = [math]180 - {\cos ^{ - 1}}\left( {\frac{4}{{13}}} \right)[/math] ie (180 - 72) ie 108o or 108/15 = 7.2 hours For Q Angle = [math]180 + {\cos ^{ - 1}}\left( {\frac{4}{{13}}} \right)[/math] ie (180 + 72) = 252o or 252/15 = 16.8 hours So P is the point at 0500 + 7.8 = 12.2 hours and Q is the point at 0500 + 16.8 = 21.8 hours. Counting form point C Since C is a zero it would be the natural point to count from if modelling with a sine wave, rather than a cosine wave. P is then in the first quadrant and Q in the second so both are then positive. So Angle is [math]{\sin ^{ - 1}}\left( {\frac{4}{{13}}} \right) = {18^o}[/math] ie 18/15 = 1.2 hours So P is the point 1100 + 1.2 = 12.2 hours For Q we have Angle = (180 - 18) = 162o ie 162/15 = 10.8 hours So Q is the point 1100 + 10.8 = 21.8 hours. So all three methods come up with the same answer (and the same one the lecturer obtained) But it shows the value of solving the Physics as well as the fancy trigonometry.

A very recent study by workers at Bristol University that is awaiting its peer review suggest that covid looses its infectivity as it dries out. The study concerned particles in the air and found that at 50% RH the particles quickly dried out compared to 90% RH, as they spread, and so the effective range was decreased at low RH. I wonder if this is part of the reason why countries with persistent high RH, such as the UK and Eire experienced greater infection rates than drier ones. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/11/covid-loses-90-of-ability-to-infect-within-five-minutes-in-air-study

Maybe not a great example, but I meant it as a ballpark example along the following lines. Classically, (without QM) bonds are just links of electrostatic origin. That is the bond energy is contained in an electrostatic field of some sort between the atoms. Si is 4 valent and B is 3 valent. So one can measure or look up the bond energies. And also the mass difference between a silicon atom and a boron atom. So one can get the energy difference in substituting 1 in X silicons by a boron and reducing the bond energy by four Si-Si bonds and adding back three Si-B bonds. However this substitution will also introduce strain energy into the lattice which will tend to zero as X tends to infinity.

If you want a classical answer you could consider the decrease in mass due to changing a silicon atom for a boron one in a silicon lattice, since this would decrease the charge by 1,thus reducing the field slightly. Since we are then talking about a solid lattice, momentum would not be involved the simple e = mc2 would suffice.

Thank you for your thoughts. Since we have not yet heard from exchemist, I hope he is OK. However there is a clue in the name. I suspect he is more interested in the field of the nucleus than the fields of astrophysics at the scale of the universe. Particularly as he specified 'static' fields. If the universe is actually infinite then the global mass integral must also be infinite so adding mass in any way does not change that result.

A few quick suggestions. 1) Get to know (buy them a pint ?) your nearest CD/DVD repair shop. Some will have laser calibration equipment. 2) Hire a laboratory light source, you can get ones from NPL standard to school grade. Don't know if Griffin and George are still in business. 3) I think Radiospares or CPC offer calibration diodes for suggestion (1) at reasonable cost. 4) You are right, using the Sun presents special difficulties. This is why the earliest observers (Tyndall and then Piazzi Smythe) went up high mountains to observe the solar spectrum. It is worth reading the science of this in Chapter 3 of Sarah Dry's book "Waters of the World". She also references the original material.

I was looking up Earnshaw's original paper. The contents list of the 7th volume of the Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society is quite stunning. Earnshaw (Paper 5 page 97) is in the company of Green, Stokes, De Morgan, Airy, Challis and O'Brien to list but a few and the subjects covered as well as the presentations could be offered today. And yes any force field has a source, which itself has inertia. So much can indeed be done classically, but the Lagrangian calculus of variations refers to a conservative field using continuous linear mathematics so obviously has limitations in a quantum sense. However I am waiting for exchemist to spell out exactly what he wants to achieve.

Details discussed in the full article here. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59960949

Quite right, here is a lovely chapter from Frank Wilczek "The Lightness of Being." You will need to get the book for the previous chapter containing the calculations.