| Pages:
1
2 |
j_sum1
Administrator
Posts: 6320
Registered: 4-10-2014
Location: At home
Member Is Offline
Mood: Most of the ducks are in a row
|
|
Hmmm.
Do the same for titanium as was done for aluminium. Now there's a patent worth having....
(With a pgm-rich byproduct to satisfy the op.)
|
|
|
XeonTheMGPony
International Hazard
Posts: 1640
Registered: 5-1-2016
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Why are we expecting non existent beings to be doing any thing?
Rockets and space exploration are real, and work because they are real, the entire premise of this thread is deeply flawed and based on a broken
concept of demonstrable reality.
|
|
|
MrWonderful
Banned for trolling
Posts: 25
Registered: 3-5-2019
Member Is Offline
|
|
OF COURSE!!
Nothing made everything and it all turned out SO SWELL, didn't it.
Nothing is a genius!
A Matter of Gravity by Professor John Lennox:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l63-fkyDtOc&t=620s
|
|
|
XeonTheMGPony
International Hazard
Posts: 1640
Registered: 5-1-2016
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Take you meds PHD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdTDBq7ko5Y
Pssss: Your glaring ignorance is showing*
|
|
|
MrWonderful
Banned for trolling
Posts: 25
Registered: 3-5-2019
Member Is Offline
|
|
"Your (sic) glaring ignorance is showing." Pretty funny.
Pssss is air leaking out of a hole in a tire.
You meant to type "Pssst" but you didn't.
You also meant to type "take YOUR meds" but you screwed that up too.
The condescension, the pretension, the hubris of atheists is insufferable.
“Has anyone provided proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close.
Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.
Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences? Close enough.
Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ball park.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.”
― David Berlinski, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions
|
|
|
j_sum1
Administrator
Posts: 6320
Registered: 4-10-2014
Location: At home
Member Is Offline
Mood: Most of the ducks are in a row
|
|
[Moderator hat is on.]
Ok. Mr Wonderful.
You have been here a day and you are already managing to irritate people.
How about you sit back and get used to the place before you stream another 23 posts.
To be clear, it is not the content of what you are saying that is problematic -- I happen to be a fan of John Lennox myself.
It is the manner in which you are communicating which is out of sync with the way that this board operates. We don't argue by firing assertions at
one another. Nor do we do it by lining up pithy cliches and pretending that they are cogent arguments by themselves. Rather we argue by presenting
evidence and using a system of logic developing a chain of reasoning to arrive at a conclusion. For clarity we may state the conclusion first and
then show how it is arrived, but the logical reasoning remains the same. Both the premises we state and the logical steps must be open to challenge
and a reasonable discussion allows time for this before making more assertions.
You will neither convince anyone nor endear yourself to anyone if you continue like this. As much as I (or anyone) might concur with your position, I
will not hesitate to send this and the Science lying thread to detritus and issue a ban on this username.
(For clarity, the statements made upthread concerning meds and PHD infer that you have been likened to a recalcitrant troll that parades here from
time to time. I doubt you are the same person but you should recognise that tolerance for hyperbolic junk is very low around here.)
[Moderator hat is off.]
|
|
|
MrWonderful
Banned for trolling
Posts: 25
Registered: 3-5-2019
Member Is Offline
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by j_sum1  | [Moderator hat is on.]
Ok. Mr Wonderful.
You have been here a day and you are already managing to irritate people.
How about you sit back and get used to the place before you stream another 23 posts. |
Irritating people by pointing out how one can lie with a graph?
But nobody was irritated by the vile profanity of one of your regulars, hissingnoise? Nobody was irritated by the bullying of everyone else?
I responded to one personal attack after another. How petty of all of them. How absolutely petty and you have not a word to say to your team of
bullies who are triggered. Why don't I buy them all some coloring books, crayons and Play Doh.
| Quote: Originally posted by j_sum1 | To be clear, it is not the content of what you are saying that is problematic -- I happen to be a fan of John Lennox myself.
It is the manner in which you are communicating which is out of sync with the way that this board operates. We don't argue by firing assertions at
one another.
Nor do we do it by lining up pithy cliches and pretending that they are cogent arguments by themselves. Rather we argue by presenting evidence and
using a system of logic developing a chain of reasoning to arrive at a conclusion. For clarity we may state the conclusion first and then show how it
is arrived, but the logical reasoning remains the same. Both the premises we state and the logical steps must be open to challenge and a reasonable
discussion allows time for this before making more assertions.
You will neither convince anyone nor endear yourself to anyone if you continue like this. As much as I (or anyone) might concur with your position, I
will not hesitate to send this and the Science lying thread to detritus and issue a ban on this username.
|
Your loyal members asserted repeatedly that I am uneducated. You have no problem with such personal attacks.
How is it that YOU are the very first to use the word "concur" and even then, only half-heartedly?
I will not hesitate to avoid this hate-filled soup of madness you have appropriately named. There haven't been two people here I would wish to
communicate with. You're all a bunch of Antifa hacks from what I have seen.
ciao and have a nice Madness Cesspool.
|
|
|
XeonTheMGPony
International Hazard
Posts: 1640
Registered: 5-1-2016
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
guess we had a visit from reddit user from r/ chem.
I remain convinced this is yet another attempt from phd, the outlandish assertion and claims devoid of logic and reason.
As the Brits say good riddance to bad rubbish.
[Edited on 4-5-2019 by XeonTheMGPony]
ok bed time now, will see remainder of fire works in the morning
[Edited on 4-5-2019 by XeonTheMGPony]
|
|
|
j_sum1
Administrator
Posts: 6320
Registered: 4-10-2014
Location: At home
Member Is Offline
Mood: Most of the ducks are in a row
|
|
We know how to lie with a graph. Yours was
an unremarkable example. That was a comment on technique not content.
| Quote: |
But nobody was irritated by the vile profanity of one of your regulars, hissingnoise? Nobody was irritated by the bullying of everyone else?
|
Don't change the subject so that you can play the victim. You either have a defensible point or you don't.
| Quote: |
I responded to one personal attack after another. How petty of all of them. How absolutely petty and you have not a word to say to your team of
bullies who are triggered. Why don't I buy them all some coloring books, crayons and Play Doh. |
Ditto. Ad hominem does not an argument make.
You are inconsistent when you complain of attacks and do the same yourself.
It is unrealistic to deliberately provoke and then complain at the reaction.
| Quote: |
Your loyal members asserted repeatedly that I am uneducated. You have no problem with such personal attacks.
|
I am not in favour of personal attacks. But I will deal with the bigger problem first.
Your communication methodology does not befit a scientifically literate person. If you are educated, maybe you could demonstrate a higher standard of
rigour.
| Quote: |
How is it that YOU are the very first to use the word "concur" and even then, only half-heartedly? |
And you know I am half-hearted because... ?
Read my posting history on this and related topics.
| Quote: |
I will not hesitate to avoid this hate-filled soup of madness you have appropriately named. There haven't been two people here I would wish to
communicate with. You're all a bunch of Antifa hacks from what I have seen.
ciao and have a nice Madness Cesspool. |
Perjorative and unwarranted.
Don't slam the door as you leave.
Mind if I snib the lock?
Detritus + banned.
|
|
|
j_sum1
|
Thread Moved
3-5-2019 at 21:13 |
j_sum1
Administrator
Posts: 6320
Registered: 4-10-2014
Location: At home
Member Is Offline
Mood: Most of the ducks are in a row
|
|
On reflection, this can be returned to whimsy. There are things that can be discussed here now the troll is dismissed.
I closed the other threads started by the troll.
https://www.sciencemadness.org/whisper/viewthread.php?tid=14...
[Edited on 4-5-2019 by j_sum1]
|
|
|
j_sum1
|
Thread Moved
3-5-2019 at 21:24 |
fusso
International Hazard
Posts: 1922
Registered: 23-6-2017
Location: 4 ∥ universes ahead of you
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by j_sum1 | On reflection, this can be returned to whimsy. There are things that can be discussed here now the troll is dismissed.
I closed the other threads started by the troll. |
Troll removed so he cant ruin the thread anymore, why cant
this remain in the public part? I want this in public part so others can also join the discussion!
[Edited on 190504 by fusso]
|
|
|
j_sum1
Administrator
Posts: 6320
Registered: 4-10-2014
Location: At home
Member Is Offline
Mood: Most of the ducks are in a row
|
|
Ok. Miscellaneous then.
I forgot where this thing started.
FTR, I think clearlynotatara has given the most precise and useful answer to the original question.
|
|
|
j_sum1
|
Thread Moved
4-5-2019 at 04:28 |
XeonTheMGPony
International Hazard
Posts: 1640
Registered: 5-1-2016
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
given the assertion of a non falsifiable being/mythology, I think whimsy was the correct area.
|
|
|
Heptylene
Hazard to Others
Posts: 319
Registered: 22-10-2016
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I think we are blessed to have iron and aluminum among the most abundant metals on earth.
Aluminum is among the lightest usable metal along with magnesium and beryllium. Lighter metals are alkali and alkaline earth metals, which are too
reactive for any use as building materials. Magnesium is borderline vis-a-vis reactivity, and beryllium is toxic. Without aluminum we might not have
planes! Or they might be made of titanium, which is twice the density, and difficult to obtain in metallic form.
Also we are lucky that iron can be smelted easily. It could have been too reactive to be reduced by charcoal. Or it could have melted at 2000 °C, a
temperature much more difficult to reach with a simple charcoal furnace. There could have been no iron age!
I could go on with silicon, but I think I made my point: our world could have been much less hospitable than it is, and our technology could be much
less advanced than it is, if it wasn't for a few "lucky coincidences".
EDIT:typo
[Edited on 4-5-2019 by Heptylene]
|
|
|
fusso
International Hazard
Posts: 1922
Registered: 23-6-2017
Location: 4 ∥ universes ahead of you
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Heptylene | I think we are blessed to have iron and aluminum among the most abundant metals on earth.
Aluminum is among the lightest usable metal along with magnesium and beryllium. Lighter metals are alkali and alkaline earth metals, which are too
reactive for any use as building materials. Magnesium is borderline vis-a-vis reactivity, and beryllium is toxic. Without aluminum we might not have
planes! Or they might be made of titanium, which is twice the density, and difficult to obtain in metallic form.
Also we are lucky that iron can be smelted easily. It could have been too reactive to be reduced by charcoal. Or it could have melted at 2000 °C, a
temperature much more difficult to reach with a simple charcoal furnace. There could have been no iron age!
I could go on with silicon, but I think I made my point: our world could have been much less hospitable than it is, and our technology could be much
less advanced than it is, if it wasn't for a few "lucky coincidences".
EDIT:typo
[Edited on 4-5-2019 by Heptylene] |
Unfortunately, Fe rusts too easily. Hence PGMs would be a better choice as
they're very unreactive but not as soft as Ag & Au.
|
|
|
j_sum1
Administrator
Posts: 6320
Registered: 4-10-2014
Location: At home
Member Is Offline
Mood: Most of the ducks are in a row
|
|
You underestimate Fe, fusso.
It is less dense and stronger than pgms.
Corrosion can be managed by various means.
And its properties can be engineered via alloying and heat treatment in a way that is unmatched by any other metal. (Over 250 different kinds of steel
in a modern jet engine.)
I am not in a hurry to adopt pgms for structural use.
|
|
|
fusso
International Hazard
Posts: 1922
Registered: 23-6-2017
Location: 4 ∥ universes ahead of you
Member Is Offline
|
|
PGMs doesnt need to be in structures. They can be in car cata cons and org synth catalysts. Chemicals & drugs produced from cheaper catalysts will
definitely be cheaper.
|
|
|
clearly_not_atara
International Hazard
Posts: 2787
Registered: 3-11-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: Big
|
|
It’s been done, but nobody can agree who owns the patent rights and the scientists who developed the technology took their flasks and went home.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16555686
Truly a modern comedy of errors!
Re: above — the nuclear instability of beryllium is annoying. It’s far superior structurally and chemically to Fe and Al, but if beryllium-8 were
stable, carbon would be much less abundant. We might not exist at all to take advantage of it.
[Edited on 4-5-2019 by clearly_not_atara]
|
|
|
fusso
International Hazard
Posts: 1922
Registered: 23-6-2017
Location: 4 ∥ universes ahead of you
Member Is Offline
|
|
Assume there's 1kg of PGM falling onto earth evenly every second (assume particle size is optimal so they cant hurt any life), since 4B yrs ago. Now
we'd have 1.26e14T (2.11e-6% of earth mass) of PGMs to use today! (current estimated reserve is 3e10T)
|
|
|
j_sum1
|
Thread Split
5-5-2019 at 14:44 |
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
