John Cuthber

That may explain some of your mistakes. So why bother?

In the real world, most of the replies show consideration of your points. What they don't show is blind acceptance. There's a reason for that; your underlying point* is so weak as to be useless. You can hardly expect the discussion on a science site to go along with what you say just because you believe it. At the very lest, people are going to ask for evidence. Some, like CharonY, will point out counter-examples. If you are not able to defend your position against valid criticism then you should change your mind (or at least, shut up). It's not reasonable to expect us to only discuss what you want to hear. * You said "people DO migrate for sunlight advantages and people DO have natural habitats that pose greater advantages for their skin color."

That's obviously something you have made up. Apart from anything else strong magnetic fields "quench" superconductivity. A superconducting galvanometer would behave just the same as an ordinary one- but with zero resistance.

Can I check on something? Does either of the points have angels dancing on it? If so, how many?

You need to find out what "in principle" means. No. Why would you think that? You don't, but the people who understand how superconductors work do kow this. No Where do you gt that silly idea? Apart from anything else, if that were the case, I' not have used it as an example. It is the same topic- it' s just that you don't understand it. You are looking at the power lost in the meter- due to imperfect design and muddling it with the power delivered to the load. They are different things. I can show that by a thought experiment where you use a meter with zero resistance. Unfortunately, you think you are too clever to learn- so you won't listen. No No, you don't see. You don't understand that the current is limited by the bulb.

You can, but there's a potential problem which has been overlooked so far. The particles of barium carbonate will get coated with barium oxalate and the stuff trapped in the middle might never react. If you dissolve the barium carbonate in, for example, acetic acid then add a solution of an oxalate (for example sodium oxalate) you will get a better product. You can make the sodium oxalate by reaction of oxalic acid with sodium carbonate or bicarbonate. If you want to avoid having sodium in the product you may want to use ammonium oxalate as the reactant. SImilarly, if you have a furnace you can heat the barium carbonate until it decomposes to give the oxide. Then you can add water which will convert it to barium hydroxide which is slightly soluble (3 or 4% at room temperature) . then react that solution with oxalic acid solution.

The original experiment would have have given a positive result if the speed of the Earth through the ether was only 3km/sec or about a tenth of that calculated from the Earth's orbit round the Sun. What they didn't recognise at the time that the Earth's movement round the milky way is much faster and the experiment - all those years ago- was therefore about 7 times more sensitive than they thought it was. (I'm thinking of repeating the experiment in my garden; with luck I might get a significant null result at this level) Current tests are such that they would detect the ether "wind" if it was passing by at a few nanometres per second. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment#Recent_optical_resonator_experiments

The terms "fixed oil" and "essential oil" are very old fashioned but they (pretty much) mean oils that can not be steam distilled and those that can't. So, essential oils are volatile (by that definition). Almond oil is a "fixed oil".

As I said earlier, in principle, I can make a current meter out of superconducting materials. If I put it in a circuit with a battery and a bulb then a current will flow through it and the meter will turn through some angle. But the voltage across the meter will be zero- because it has zero resistance. So the power dissipated in the meter will be zero. If I use two bulbs in parallel then there will be twice the current. And the voltage across the meter will be zero and the power dissipated in the meter will still be zero- even though the deflection will be twice what it was. You need to distinguish the power lost in the meter from the power delivered to the load.

Name one...

That looks a lot like soap-boxing.

Harumph! According the Daily Fail article " Scientists have developed ‘fartpacks’ that extract 300 litres of methane The methane is then coverted into enough energy to run a car for 24 hours" Well, you might be able to run the clock or even the stereo (quitely) for 24 hrs. Also, that image shows a cow hooked up to measure burps , rather than farts. https://inhabitat.com/spiffy-backpack-traps-bovine-gas/

The easiest (and by far the safest) thing to do is move anything you care about away from the lake. However that's expensive. It is absurd to imagine that the lake water does not contain microorganisms which are using the CO2- but they can only do so at a rate governed by the energy provided by the Sun. And they are probably fairly near to either that limit, or to some other limiting factor. Good luck extracting alcohol from a lake. You may find this interesting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinegar#Production It's not a simple problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Kivu

That's not a funnel, is it?

You are the one looking for the proof...

OK, let me try to kill this once and for all. The start of the rambling about imagination started with this: Perhaps I should have simply pointed out that it's a logical fallacy- an argument from incredulity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_fallacy And yet, as the discussion evolved, Koti somehow claimed that it was my job to provide the evidence to disprove it (even though the proof could hardly be expected to exist, given that it would be a confession of criminality). Well, there's no reason- from a pharmacological perspective- that someone couldn't use heroin for years or decades while living a reasonably normal life (as illustrated by the report I cited). Sorry, perhaps I was a bit of a dick for not making the logical fallacy clear earlier.

The carbon dioxide in the atmosphere isn't the problem. Massive sudden releases of concentrated dense gas that displace oxygen are the problem. I agree- you have pointed out that it's the equivalent to the world's biggest "mentos in coke" stunt.

It makes sense if there is some other material- a drug- in the sesame oil.

No An object in orbit is always falling. It accelerates towards the thing it's orbiting round. It doesn't matter what coordinate system you use. it's still falling. Did it occur to you that it may not be our understanding that is wrong?

If it's a drug, then you need to talk to your doctor or pharmacist.

If that was true then the people who make power stations would have noticed. If your writing style was more readable I might bother to look for other problems in your post.

Why are you doing this? Why can't you add more sesame oil?

Nice place, but I think they still restrict heroin.

Let me know when they legalise it, and I will give it a try.