StringJunky

In effect, they would have helped him to prove himself wrong, like the Michelson-Morely experiment, devised by themselves, to show the existence of an aether but it showed otherwise. He did the experiment because he's convinced the conventional view is wrong.

Studio and Dr Krettin will just have been interested in the experiment setup itself and how to make it work. Done properly, the conclusion would have been the same as the ship observation.

I don't see the point of going to all that trouble when you can just watch a ship disappear over the horizon.

If you are really interested, the path you need to travel down to help your understanding is study the concept of emergence; how new, and 'higher', or more sophisticated, phenomena arise from simpler components that appears to be more than the sum of the parts. In effect, to use an analogy, 1+1=3. This Wiki definition elaborates more clearly: In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence is a phenomenon whereby larger entities arise through interactions among smaller or simpler entities such that the larger entities exhibit properties the smaller/simpler entities do not exhibit. Give it a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Cool. Principles is what I need and want. As you say but in another way, I'm looking for the branches on the tree, not the leaves The book might be old but it's still bloody dear for one written in the eighties. There's a shop online, that happens to be in my city, that's selling it with a "poor" condition hardcover for $35.

Eating meat is an integral part of our biology. We are adapted to it and we require it for certain nutrients, Life eating other life is a fundamental part of what makes the whole ecosystem work.

I'll try to follow that path. Thanks. My aim, up to now is to get a good grasp of the Brock's then, if I'm up to it, specialise and go a bit deeper in specifically focused areas and, perhaps, just on one or two species, like the two mentioned, That's a fair way off yet. i'll just try and enjoy the journey for now until I hit a brick wall. My knowledge of science, in general, is fairly superficial and I've wanted to go to in-depth in an area that interests me for some time. I'm in autodidact mode and not on prescribed course, so, I've no massive expectations of myself; I'll go as far as I can go and be content with that. I found and ordered the Gottschalk 2nd Edition for about $9 secondhand in "good condition" on Amazon with no dust cover and in the UK too. Seems like a bargain when a new copy is well over $100.

Make sure that it is Cerium oxide in whatever preparation you use... it's the finest.

You might as well talk to a mirror

If there is no theoretical or actual possibility of demonstrating that an idea could be wrong, aka falsifiability, it's not scientific.

There is a limit on both IIRC. I think its 3 or 4 on the red ones in 24 hours.

How do you know that the colours you do see are what they really are? For examples: pink doesn't exist, measurably, except as a construct of our brains and the blue sky we see measures more towards the violet end. They are pigments of our imagination. We receive and interpret data in a the way that is most useful or the best compromise.

Right.

I'm sure some of it will be but, hopefully, I'll get some useful stuff from it. I'm expecting to stutter and start quite bit until I've got a better view of the landscape.

I would be flattered immensely if someone lifted an idea of mine of this forum, if I posted one, regardless of whether it was attributed to me or not. Just knowing is enough that it was good enough and from an amateur. The reality is that it's pie-in-the-sky, given the level of training, knowledge and resources required nowadays to make an impression in science. This is a hypothetical discussion about something happening with nearly zero chance of occurring, by any neophyte, here or anywhere else. Eight years ago when I joined here, I naively thought that a non-scientist could do significant things, but not now....it's too hard without the specific training and long experience.

Right. Thanks. That's good to know because I want to keep my learning sphere reasonably compact, manageable and as specific to bacteriology as possible. I'll see if I can find the Gottschalk.

Any ideas on what accessible organic chemistry book I can use to support my learning bacterial biochemical processes in the Brock's book as an adjunct to it? It seems to assume one already has a certain level of knowledge, I think, which I don't have.

You could try cerium oxide glass polish and buffling pad intended for the purpose on a drill or dremel. Here's a method from an auto site:

There's a lot of organisations trying to profile you but they only get a bit of you. The real problems start when someone has whole profiles on everyone. If that happens, the potential for attempting autocratic control and bypassing democratic processes increases substantially, in my opinion, if the wrong people get at he wheel..

Information is power and if they know everything they have absolute power; absolute power corrupts. He's surely a fan of nepotism and that doesn't bode well, being a staple characteristic of a corrupt politician.

Also try - the nuclear option - reinstalling your browser if Koti's suggestion doesn't work.

It makes no sense to me either because time and gravity are effects resulting from the interaction between space and mass-energy.

Fastone Image Viewer is good too, very light on resources and good array of tools.

It's hormonal, it has off days. Takes all sorts of convoluted actions to quote sometimes.

Two things I can think of is that sadness can cause behavioural changes that communicate, through tears for example, your need for help and as a counterbalance to happiness because it is an excitable state which can cause excessive energy expenditure, both mentally and physically. Basically, happiness is not a state of hormonal equilibrium and it can cause you take more risks due to the disinhibition that can accompany it; this is not evolutonarily desirable when in excess or sustained. Also, happiness is not appropriate, and indeed may be harmful, in some contexts. For example: somebody's loved one just died, are you going to smile and be jolly with them? It can be socially reinforcing to mirror their feelings, which is evolutionarily desirable because it enhances the bonds within a group.