DrKrettin

I would personally limit that to computer science. Have you claimed your million dollar prize yet?

The relationships between modern dog breeds are shown in this cladogram published in Cell Reports. An impressive diagram.

Quoting from that joke of a newspaper should be made illegal. Note that they deliberately confuse "premature" and ELBW (< 1 kg at birth). The sample is only 100 adults who were ELBW, and they then try to draw some general conclusions. Yet more Daily Mail rubbish.

So from what has been said, is it the case that the mass of a spinning Earth is greater than that of a non-spinning one by virtue of the increase in kinetic energy Iw2? (that's an I omega squared)

I'm interested in the principle, even if it's not measurable. I'm gobsmacked, to be honest.

OK - let me try and put my question more generally. Suppose you could isolate a plant and its environment including all gas, water and nutrients which the plant will take up whilst growing. Suppose you could weigh all the components when the plant is a seedling and weigh the fully grown plant. The only difference would be the sunlight it receives. Would the weight of the sum total of the original material be the same as the weight of the finished plant, or would there be an increase in weight directly attributable to the energy of the photons in sunlight converted into mass as mc2 ? I don't know how else to ask what is really a very simple question.

"Many women"? Does this apply in a marital relationship (generally)?

Yes, I know that, but I'm amazed that the mass of a sugar molecule is larger than the sum of the masses of the CO2 and H2O components. I had just assumed that the sugar is in a higher energy state with no increased mass. If that is the case, why are there headlines like this one? It makes no sense spending 80 years trying to achieve something when it happens all the time anyway. I'm rather confused - can somebody explain?

Slightly differently? What a masterpiece of understatement combined with an ingenious positive suggestion.

But surely in this process, energy is conserved without any change in actual mass? Radiation is not converted into mass in the relativistic sense, is it? You've got me worried.

I did the survey too. I don't quite see why the disparity between the sexes is a problem.

If you think that's large, try working out the time it would take for somebody to read all the stuff typed and confirm that one of them is indeed Hamlet.

I don't think time does box, actually.

Then why do you persist in arguing about issues which are clearly way above your abilities? That's not fair either, because people on this forum spend their time trying to argue with you when they could be doing something useful instead.

Glancing over the OP, I get the idea that he has some expression in bold, which is then one of the grammatical options below it. One is in bold, which I guess is his choice. If that is the case, he is wrong several times because he can't distinguish between a phrase and a clause. The difference is extremely simple - a clause contains a finite verb, a phrase does not. If he's still around, he should re-visit that and try again. The snag is of course to decide whether a verb is finite or non-finite........

Which is exactly what you are doing in this thread.

Why not? Because that is precisely the experiment. Please refute the findings if you object to it.

Wrong again - only particles with mass. And yes, it is blasphemy, but only to silly people who think that science is a belief.

I have a fossilised fish (paleoperca) from the Messel Pit which is now about 47,000,040 years old. It is now closed to amateur fossil hunters

Let's start here. Blasphemy is a concept restricted to religion. You do not view science as a religion. Good. But then you start what you claim is blasphemy. Total non sequitur. What amazes me about your objections w.r.t the M-M experiment is that you read one small book and then decide that mainstream science has been incorrect about a fundamental concept for the last century. Does it not occur to you that the objections you raise would have been raised by thousands before you? People who are professional scientists? Most of them will have read more than one book.

Blasphemy is meaningless in the context of science, because science is not a belief. The problem with your idea of the ether is that the M-M experiment determined the speed of the ether with respect to the earth to be so small that if the earth were on the other side of its orbit round the sun, the difference would be measurable. The experiment was repeated six months later with the same result. How do you explain that?

This does not help any more than the above post, just general interest. You could also start from basic principles and work out the dimensions: a sheet of area 1 square metre is A0, half that is A1, half again is A2 and so on. The ratio of sides is such that the shape does not change when cutting in half to get 2x A1 from an A0. You could then work out the dimensions of an A4 piece of paper (involving the fourth root of 2) hence the thickness at 80 g/m2. All this is extremely useful if ever you need an extremely small but accurate weight. This has absolutely nothing to do with a small pair of scales and cannabis. Edit: I've just noticed the thread necromancy

Your ignorance knows no limits - Ancient Greeks (generally) did not ridicule him, and at least they could spell his name correctly.

That's also priceless - I hope that the terrible use of "degenerate" as a transitive verb was intentional irony.

And then there was the student trying to learn English who finally gave up when he saw the billboard "My Fair Lady - pronounced success"