exchemist

I wonder if that could be an effect caused by a mix of reddish and greenish light, appearing to the eye as a yellow tint. I don't think anything in blood will actually fluoresce, not least because the UV will be attenuated under water more than visible light. But the way light is attenuated by seawater seems to be quite complicated. The red end of the visible spectrum seems to be absorbed more than the green and blue, but UV is also absorbed. And then there is the competing phenomenon of scattering which will scatter the blue more than the red.

Oh I see, because of the light at such a depth. Why fluorescent, though?

Blood? In plants? Or are you thinking of haemolymph in crustaceans? That is blue/green, but not because of anything to do with light absorption.

That's an interesting take on "cancel culture", that I've never come across before. I'm not aware of instances of speakers being denied a platform because they wanted to speak against religion. Normally it is because the speaker want to air views considered abnormally reactionary by the students. Has Dawkins, or anyone else to your knowledge, been refused an invitation to speak against religion? Ciao love and kisses 😆

But surely, if he was complaining about the supposed need to be unduly respectful towards religion over 20 years ago, then today's "cancel culture" (if it exists) shows him to have been rather prescient, doesn't it? Or are you suggesting it is his iconoclasm that has brought "cancel culture" about?

He doesn’t strike me as making a fool of himself in the remarks you quote. He seems to be arguing, rather intemperately, for people to feel free to attack religion, instead of, as he seems to think, showing it undue respect. Well, it’s a point of view, and not self-evidently silly, it seems to me. Why do you think it makes him look a fool?

I found this paper on-line about hydration of starch which goes into some detail: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144861722004477 From this it looks as if the hydration process is the opening up of the starch structure, replacing some of the internal hydrogen bonds between the sugar units of the chains (starch is a polysaccharide) with hydrogen bonds to water. Water that is chemically bound in this way will not make the, starch or dough, "wet", as it is chemically bound in. (In inorganic chemistry you may be familiar with the fact that copper sulphate can take an "anhydrous" (white) or a hydrated (blue) form. Both are dry crystals but there is more water bound chemically into the structure in the blue form. If you heat the blue form strongly it steams, losing water and turns white.) Presumably something similar can happen with proteins. So yes I expect your dough has bound water, which will alter the structure of the starch and proteins by inserting water molecules between chains, and also unbound water which makes the dry material wet to the touch, sticks the grains together in a lump and makes it feel doughy. I don't know how much water the starch will absorb, but I don't think it will be just a monomolecular layer on the outside of each grain. From the paper, I take it that it disrupts the internal cross-linking structure of the starch as well.

You could try Archimedes' method, viz. establish the volume of the object via displacement and then weigh it, thus determining its specific gravity. This would only work for objects with a fairly large proportion of metals other than gold in them, but then that is the case for a number of the alloys used in jewellery: https://www.thoughtco.com/composition-of-gold-alloys-608016

That proved one prediction was right. It does not prove the theory.

Oh ballocks!

According to current models, perhaps.

Surely that is not what science teaches, though? Science gives us predictive models of the physical world, none of which can be proven and consequently none of which can be said to be definitively right.

But surely these all lighten the skin , by breaking down melanins or inhibiting their synthesis. That’s the opposite of what the OP is asking about.

Give them a wash at 60C.

Bye bye - and don't let the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation door hit you on the way out.......😆

This response proves conclusively you have no intelligence. I have pointed 2 clear errors out to you and explained why they are errors. Any human being who was not actually mentally deficient would recognise what these errors were. You are a dumb robot.

That’s what I did. She got on the scales and I put my hand under one breast, lifted it to the point at which the tension appeared to be gone from the upper slope, and noted the decrease in scale reading. Then ditto with the other. Not very accurate perhaps but gave us an idea. She had quite a generous, though not excessive, bust. Most of my other girlfriends had smaller breasts and a less earthy sense of humour, so the subject never came up with them. 😀

Indeed very hard to control for all the variables involved here. Purely anecdotally, my observation is that fatter people often eat more, and often they eat worse, i.e. more ready meals and junk food. Having said that, it is definitely not always the case, so there are other issues to do with varying propensity to convert calories to fat. Some of these effects appear to be hereditary.

I have only had the opportunity to research a small sample ( 12) in the course of a longish life, but in spite of the considerable variety of shapes and sizes I have never observed any musculature in breasts, even though I belonged to a rowing club for over 30 years and married a rower. (I did once try to weigh them though. This arose from a discussion of the old-fashioned appreciative remark “Blimey, you don’t get many of them to the pound!” - a reference to how one used to buy fruit at the greengrocer. She was a nurse, so was happy, in fact highly amused, to enter into the spirit of the exercise. In her case about a lb each so it was true, for her.)

OK, cut the flowery BS, name 2 errors in your posts and show you have understood why they were errors.

Quite. There seems little doubt now that this a stupid bot. If this is what AI is going to be like, I am very unimpressed.

Why don't you spend 10 minutes seeing what is already known about the subject, before you start pulling random ideas out of your arse? There is a theory of what factors are behind the cycles of glaciation already: see Milankovic Cycle.

What? No. What we are saying is a bra that supports the breast will change the shape of the breast but not its volume. That’s all. I’ve come across what you say here about muscles supporting the breast before. I’ve always struggled a bit with it. What muscles are those? My impression has been that breasts are fairly inert, changing shape as they do when a woman lies down, or stands up, or bends over. So I’m a bit suspicious about muscle tone affecting their shape. But it’s not something I have ever got round to discussing with a woman - and I have never gone out with a physiotherapist who might have been an authority on the topic. A quick search threw up this reference, which is in line with my scepticism about any role for muscles in affecting breast shape: https://www.livestrong.com/article/525163-the-results-of-exercise-on-the-female-breast/

See also the 2nd thread started by this person. I'm now suspicious this a bot essay-writing exercise with no science behind it. What is particularly suspicious is that this new 2nd thread purports to address the issue I raised here of the need to consider what solvent alternative life chemistries would use, and was posted about an hour after I raised the issue.

The passage highlighted in red is bullshit. The liquid range of ammonia at STP is from -78C to -33C, a range of only 45 Celsius, compared to a 100 Celsius range for liquid water. My suspicions about this screed of text are now aroused. Like your other thread, It seems be a load of pompous, flowery language, with little or no understanding of science behind it. Are you a real person or just a stupid AI robot, sent here to waste our time? I shall take failure to respond substantively to this as evidence you are the latter.