exchemist

Getting at actual production costs is very hard, for commercial reasons, unless one is actually in the business. Data I’ve seen on line for brewing suggests ingredients plus production, excluding packaging, is only 30% of total costs, with another 30% or so being due to packaging. The rest will be distribution, sales and marketing, tax etc. For soft drinks, I imagine these non-production costs would be similar with the obvious exception of tax. As for the production process itself, my guess is beer production is more complex, with more steps in it, than soft drink production, since it involves malting and fermentation, which are fairly subtle biochemical processes, whereas soft drink production is just a matter of blending. Also it takes longer, which increases working capital. I would not like to put numbers to the difference. But you can see from this that even if production costs were twice as high for beer as for soft drinks, that would only make total cost about 15% higher. Tax will be the other big difference. Actually there may be 3rd element in some cases. Glass bottles are a hell of lot heavier than PET packaging. This may have a big effect on distribution costs.

In addition to @Sensei's point about excise duty on alcoholic beverages there is also the need to avoid confusing cost with price. Price is set by supply and demand for the goods in question. The connection to cost can be fairly indirect.

Not to mention their prison camps and surveillance cameras...............

It seems to me the way to control the effects of greed in political life is laws, standards and codes of conduct against corrupt practices, transparency, and a vigorous, free and serious press. (The role of law is vital, which is why recent events in Israel are so troubling.)

What makes you think those in power are any greedier than other people? Do you have evidence for that? Could it not simply be that, when one is in power, the opportunities to satisfy greed are greater? After all, many people enter politics to make the world a better place, as they see it. Most able people, if they are motivated simply by greed, can get greater rewards in other professions.

There is no evidence so far that gravitons even exist. They are just a conjecture at this stage, suffering from problems with the mathematics. From what I understand, detecting gravitons - if the maths is ever sorted out - is expected to be a practical impossibility, requiring enormous, planetary or stellar masses. To date, gravitons are not part of any physical theory, since we have no theory of quantum gravity. The whole idea may turn out to be misguided.

It looks to me as if Rayleigh waves, as observed in earthquakes, seem to be of this type: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_wave

But surely in the gravitational case it is only -ve relative to infinite separation of the bodies concerned, which we arbitrarily set to "zero" by convention.

Could it be a Rayleigh wave? : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_wave

He was clearly that. But then so are many of the best educators. Often, however, these are not the best researchers. Feynman seems to have managed to combine both. But there was obviously quite a big ego at work.

But can't we reach the same conclusion about c being a speed limit just by considering limits? I'm no mathematician, but I understood the point about limits is you can see where a function is going without resorting to infinities.

Plenty of people publish papers who are not "renowned". He could have been a PhD student or something, or he could have simply left academia to do something other than research. Does it matter?

A microwave oven will not generate high temperatures in anhydrous silica gel.

This issue has now been adequately answered by several of us. You are becoming a bore.

No. I'm out of this now.

The point about lack of coherence is that your "arguments" are almost impossible to discern. And frankly, there is no reason why we should all make a superhuman effort, just for a random unknown person on the internet. So you need to get coherent somehow, either by yourself or with appropriate help, and maybe people will pay attention.

Yes, but the issue here is that it is not deception per se. It's more subtle than that. As I understand it, it is rewarding researchers that manage - whether by good science, luck or bending their findings - to get the sort of results the big man hopes for, to support his theory. And presumably by burying the careers of those unfortunate researchers that can't replicate the findings, or get positive results. In medicine in particular, there seems to be a culture of the big man: the eminent doctor or surgeon whom everyone wants to consult, whom everyone wants to study under and who has extensive powers of patronage. So, without any actual overt malpractice, a system can be created that is biased towards finding convenient rather than inconvenient results. And then the temptation to fabricate, to discard -ve data and so forth is there.

The thing about consciousness is a fairly widespread popular misunderstanding, often associated with quantum theory and sometimes, in egregiously ignorant or stupid cases, with relativity. But I won't go further, as your post is not very coherent.

If you are a member of the professional class, active and in work, you won’t see that much of the unhealthy portion of the population. Commuting to work in London, one notices how young and healthy many people are, compared with say a coastal English town that one might visit on holiday. In the US I suspect there is also a strong ethnic divide, with poor health prevalent among groups one meets fewer of. But I see they include as chronic disease anything that lasts over a year and requires treatment. That strikes me as very broad.

I also read that zinc coffins have been used in the USSR to repatriate the bodies of dead soldiers. True, but lugging around a supply of compressed hydrogen would be worse than water.

OK, I may have found the basis of this: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsami.1c02368 Translating the jargon into normal language, this is based on barium sulphate, which the authors say has a high band gap - which makes it non-absorptive, i.e. white, in the visible region of the spectrum, while having a "9μ phonon resonance", i.e. vibrational excitation of the crystal lattice, making it a good absorber and emitter in the infra red. In effect, this paint is white in the visible but "black" in the IR! Very clever. But no Maxwell's Demon. Thermodynamics continues to rule.

Something odd here. An efficient emitter of thermal radiation is a black body, not a white one. Do you have a link describing what they did in more detail? As for Maxwell’s Demon, no. The surface of the ground at night will often be cooler than the air, if there is no cloud cover. That’s because from a radiation point of view the ground is trying to get towards thermal equilibrium with space - which is very cold.

I knew it is advised not to store tomatoes in the fridge, but not why. Is this the reason, perhaps?

Where did you get this picture from?

OK I've found it now, near the end. Thanks.