DrKrettin

One more totally convincing post.

How wrong can somebody be?

I had to google arabidopsis. It doesn't really surprise me that music has an effect, because any air disturbance encourages a plant to become stronger (that's just a gardener's assertion based on personal experience). The opposite is certainly the case, that a plant grown indoors with no air movement often can't cope with being out on the open.

Try a linear substitution so 3x' = 3x + a and choose "a" so that the 72x term disappears. Then do the same for y

I found one link to a paper here entitled Measuring Effects of Music, Noise, and Healing Energy Using a Seed Germination Bioassay Unfortunately it is published in the The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine So I'll display a certain bias and guess that it is total bollocks. Might be wrong.

What on Earth do you mean? It is Latin, not a translation. Why can't you use Google to find what it means? Here for example. It is quite normal to use Latin expressions in English for a known concept. It's not my fault if you don't understand. While you are researching this, look for non sequitur as well, because you are really good at it.

For a start it's a clause, not a phrase. And it's a perfectly acceptable expression in English when discussing logical fallacies. You clearly have no idea about them, so have a look.

Wow - magister dixit. You must be right.

Hello? Anybody there? Fallen asleep?

The bad good news is that he'll be posting 24 hours a day....

When I was a student, it was obviously necessary to have the occasional night with no sleep at all, just not going to bed at all. The next day was fine, but the day after that I felt awful. The net result was no gain in actual time being awake in a pleasant state of mind. Once however, I didn't go to bed for two consecutive nights, and had no bad effects afterwards. No idea why. I'm too old to try again, I rarely even see the New Year in.....

Yes, the plural of keras is kerata, but just because the etymology of ῥινόκερως is from rhis and keras, it doesn't follow that the plural is formed from the plural of either of these roots. The singular ῥινόκερως is only found 22 times in Ancient Greek sources, and earliest sources give ῥινοκέρωτα as the plural (neuter). But some later sources (e.g. Strabo 16.4.15.9) give οἱ ῥινοκέρωτες (masculine), so there was no conformity. It looks as if we are both right.

Yes, but the problem with that is the name derives from Greek (the rh representing rho, rhis rhinos, nose + keras, horn ) so the plural would be the Greek one, not Latin.

No, because you can't see a non sequitur.

That is at least how classical Latin is traditionally pronounced in English, for example Corpus Christi is Kristee (I've never heard Krist-eye). But some words absorbed in English change to -eye, for example I have never heard Cacti as Kakteee. Likewise I have always said fun-guy, but I've never had to say it much. If you argue that it is the Latin plural pronounced as (we think) Latin was, then you could just as well argue that the word was originally Greek, so the plural should not only be cactoi but spelled kaktoi. I don't see that anyone can claim one is right and the others wrong. But please let's not get into really imponderable plurals such as rhinoceros (-> rhinocetera).

How the hell can an emotion be scientific?

So your argument is 1) Having health problems because of premature birth reduces your chance of having offspring 2) Being gay reduces your chance of having offspring Therefore because both have the same result, there is a "link" between having health problems and being gay With total validity you could then argue 1) Not eating can cause death 2) Playing Russian roulette can cause death Therefore not eating will cause you to play Russian roulette.

That is illuminating, thanks. So the energy expended is a function of the square of the speed of the mass thrown backwards, and the momentum a direct ratio. Thus the greater the mass used, the less the power usage. So presumably, the denser the medium in which you are working, the easier it is to hover.

That's the weirdest non sequitur I've seen for a long time. Why does not having children and having health problems increase the chance of being gay?

Yes, agreed, but the it's not clear to me that this would require more power, and he's assuming 100% efficiency. Ignoring buoyancy, is it the case that the denser the atmosphere, the less the power needed to hover?

Assuming that the heights are such that the change in g is negligible, perhaps you can explain why it takes more power to hover higher. It takes more work to get it there, but that's not the issue.

That was my first thought. I'll join you in looking foolish.

It depends a lot on the efficiency of what you are using to lift it.

I think this is relevant to the thread, and I would be interested in opinions. This link complains about the absence of women in a scientific environment. Don't bother with the Spanish text, but scroll down to the three large pictures, the first one with a space rocket, where in all the characters, there is supposed to be just one woman in each picture. The thrust of all this is that it is very difficult to find women working as scientists. But just a minute - there are so many characters, most in lab coats, so how are you supposed to recognise a female one? You would only be able to spot one if she were wearing, say, fishnet stockings, high heels and with long flowing hair. In fact, you would only see one if she were the very stereotype which the authors would hate. So the inability to spot a woman could be interpreted in any number of ways, not necessarily the way this movement wanted.

I had never heard of a cladogram either, but I had the advantage of being familiar with the prickly pear cactus, a species of opuntia which is endemic where I live. The characteristic fat branches are called pachyclades, from the Greek pachus + klados = fat branch. Duh.