StringJunky

It is simplest to say; For those things that have no evidence we can dismiss them with no evidence.

Jenner and Pasteur must be turning in their graves.

It's an emergent property of chemical reactions that occur in a particular way or sequence. It's information or data.

Volume to surface area is much greater in a commercial vat than the vessels you work with (7800L vs 4.55L to 25L) and there are several of these in a confined space; this difference causes more heat to be retained. For maximum flavour, as hyperV says, you want to work with the lowest temperature that keeps the process going to minimise the loss of volatiles, like esters, which give the beer/wine their particular character.

Cooling. It doesn't react with the fermenting liquid - not to the extent of affecting flavour - and it transfers heat efficiently.

About 200 million light years then expansion takes over, so something a bit less than that could be said to be its effective operating distance. This is my own conjecture.

Thanks for the clarifications.

So he has no real need for the rest of his Republican kin to support it, or am I wrong? I must admit I'm not looking very closely. Can they bring him to task?

So, can he just keep doing them and suffer no consequences, constitutional or not?

Is there a precedent set for when the number of executive orders issued is seen as abuse? I mean if all he did was produce these then he'd become an autocrat, wouldn't he?

The way i look at is: a baby and an adult's emotions are the same set. Let's assume emotions are the drivers/motivators, the difference between the two is one of nuance and complexity. The adult will refine how they get what they want whereas a young child will just try and take what they want, with no consideration for the consequences or effects on others of their actions. So, increasing consciousness can be one of increasing sensitivity and subtlety, or even deviousness if their intent is completely selfish. The purported determinism comes from the fact that elements, compounds react in predictable ways in a given set of conditions, and then, determinists extend and extrapolate that to mean that freewill is not possible because at the lower level things are determined.

"Fantastic" is the one that amuses me.

The body responds to a build-up of carbon dioxide which causes the suffocation response, not loss of oxygen. As long as the carbon dioxide is removed or dissipated you will breathe normally until you pass out. Dr Jonathan Miller, perhaps twenty to thirty years ago, demonstrated this on TV, under controlled conditions, on himself! The programme series was called The Body In Question.

Yes. This is what I always understood.

The big BUT though is that the OP won't have the required aseptic techniques or environment.

Agree with Strange, a current dictionary records modern usage and some reflect historical usage as well. The study of the origins and components of words is called 'etymology'.

Or not seeing the positives.

The idea of stationary is dependent on the observer co-moving with an object i.e moving in the same direction with the same speed. Along with motion, it's always relative to something. If you picture yourself on a rock in space and there''s nothing around you except another rock coming towards you... or are you moving towards it? There's no way to know because an absolute reference doesn't exist.

Because they have Inertia, which is resistance to change in velocity or position when stationary which is a function of their mass and/or momentum.

Isn't there away to have a group of suitably knowledgeable people to create an online list of vetted and approved journals that have to meet certain criteria?

It's only electrostatic repulsion that makes something seem 'solid' and 'existing' according to our sensory apparatus and commonsense.I think mordred has said that it''s all just excitations within fields really and a thread we've had recently on what fields are is a rabbit-hole all of its own... or should I say "rabbit-warren".

OK. understood.

Just because someone has come up with one, or some, good ideas doesn't mean that they don't produce crap ones as well.

They are single-piece memory metal glasses; usually titanium but can be other cheaper mixes. Like this: Go to bottom row: http://www.reykjavikeyes.com/index.php/collection/ Not single piece but hingeless: https://www.amazon.co.uk/LianSan-titanium-Rimless-eyeglasses-Sunglasses/dp/B00EFKQ1E0/ref=sr_1_5?m=A2KFJMIBXZCZJ7&s=merchant-items&ie=UTF8&qid=1487410733&sr=1-5 http://www.optical4less.com/hingeless-eyeglasses/HL007/