exchemist

You might want to brush up on the Electrochemical Series. That tells you which metals are expected to react with acids to liberate hydrogen (basically anything with an electrode potential that is -ve relative to hydrogen, which is set at zero by convention.) An example here: https://chemguide.co.uk/physical/redoxeqia/ecs.html According to this, Mg is expected to react, and Cu is not. Zn however is slightly -ve, so would be expected to react, but not as vigorously as Mg. But there may be a protective oxide layer that interferes - I can't remember. The reaction product with Mg should indeed be MgAc. If the Mg strip has an oxide layer, I should think rubbing with wire wool (i.e. a scouring pad without soap impregnation) would be one way to get that off. Other, less ancient, chemists may be able to add to this or correct it......

I think this will just add confusion for our questioner, quite honestly. We have not been talking about the double slit experiment but about light reaching us from stars. All the stuff about the principle of least time etc. notwithstanding, nothing about the current QM model suggests that light quanta do not travel, for all practical purposes, in a specific direction, nor that their associated waves do not have a direction of propagation, even if it is only, strictly, a predominant one. The idea our questioner has, that a single photon has a wave that spreads out uniformly in all directions, is not correct and we need to make that clear, I think.

There is one big misunderstanding here, which is to think each photon spreads out in all directions. It doesn’t. An individual photon is emitted in a particular direction. So the issue of something behind the emitter absorbing the wave before it gets to you does not arise.

According to my (limited) understanding of Rovelli's relational interpretation, the wave function applicable from the cat's perspective is different from the wave function applicable from our perspective, so long as the box remains closed. There is not necessarily a single, absolute, wave function describing a quantum system: it depends on the informational state to which it relates. The cat, being inside the box , is in a different informational state from those outside and so a different wave function applies, from its perspective.

By being out of phase. Nothing to do with charge. What nonsense. The same wave (i.e. a single excitation) passing though 2 slits will form an interference pattern on the far side. This is basic.

Er, well, mastodons, sabre-toothed tigers, etc. appeared about 40m or more years later, from the Miocene onwards. The mammals that existed at the end of the Cretaceous were indeed small and shrew-like.

I have no experience with boiling chestnuts, as I usually grill them in their shells. I know that some things intrinsically tend to cook more evenly than others, though. Jerusalem artichokes (topinambours in French, aardpeeren in Dutch) are a bastard, some being still hard by the time others are disintegrating. Maybe chestnuts are like that. I suspect a (continental) cookery website will be the best place for advice.

You are attributing to me something said by @Airbrush

Waves of alternating electric and magnetic fields, at right angles to one another and to the direction of propagation. Pictures, and explanations, of this can be found in many places, for instance here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation

I don't know this book but I imagine it may mean that the specific reduction reaction he is talking about has a negligible reverse rate. He can't mean alcohols cannot be oxidised to aldehydes or ketones, obviously. (I presume that, in this reaction, the leaving group in question may be hydride or something.)

OK so this was a disc-shaped radar reflector suspended from a balloon, which nevertheless prompted press reports of flying saucers. I see.

The probability of a new zoonotic disease being found at a random place is whatever it is. Whether there is a virus lab there or not has no effect on that probability, any more than finding it in a place with a river, or a place where the buses are red. Monkey and typewriters is a complete non-analogy as far as this is concerned.

Think of a long railway train. A locomotive starts to pull one end. The far end starts moving almost instantly, even though the speed of the train is very slow. So a signal can be transmitted very fast, even though the medium transmitting it moves slowly.

When you put your hand near what you may think is steam, it is just condensed water droplets. For real steam, i.e. vapour at 100C, you would need to put your hand into the invisible stream issuing from the spout of a vigorously boiling kettle, i.e. the inch or so before it becomes visible as a cloud of "steam". If you ever do that, you will scream and need to see a doctor: the scald will be far more intense than from boiling water. Do not try it. That's because of the latent heat.

No it isn’t.

You are making a mistake regarding probability. If there is a one in 1000 probability of you stubbing your toe on any given day, then doing so on the first Sunday of the year when there is a full moon does not make that probability lower. It is still 1 in 1000. So if there is a certain probability of the virus being zoonotic in origin, based on previous experiences of zoonotic viruses of this type, that is not reduced by the virus being found at a place where there is a virus lab.

Radioactive decay, chemical change, erosion etc. If you look a railway track that is out of service for 6 months and look at it at the start and end of that interval of time you will see the appearance has changed. It seems a stretch to ascribe that change to movement - though at the atomic level there has been motion of oxygen atoms, I suppose.

It seems to me it is not movement that makes intervals of time useful to measure, but change. Motion involves change (of position), but not all change involves motion.

There is no reason to think this article is wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disc_rot

Post your idea here if you want a response.

Your mistake is in treating light as if it is a perception, like colour. It isn't. Light, or to be more general, electromagnetic radiation, is a physical thing.

Well obviously. It's other people's religions where the problems can start.

The two ways I've tried to this, in neither case from scratch I have to say, were reproofing a Barbour jacket with wax ( a tricky process involving melting a tin of proprietary wax in hot water and applying it with a cloth) and spray proofing a raincoat with Scotchgard, which I think is a silicone. It sounds as though with your gloves going the Scotchgard route would be the thing to try. I found it needed several applications to be fully effective and even then was not 100%, but it's a lot better than nothing.

Gibberish.

No you need to discuss your ideas here, in words. If you have been changing the appearance of copper coins, that sounds like chemistry rather than astronomy and cosmology. Is there a reason why you chose to post under this heading?