John Cuthber

Interestingly, WIKI explains that "The standard ordering ≤ of any real interval is not a well ordering" in a single clause "since, for example, the open interval (0, 1) ⊆ [0,1] does not contain a least element." And I wonder if that's what's misled the OP

You have posted nothing but "little mistakes" since you joined the forum. "Yes, vaccinations are linked to cancer," That's a little mistake "cancer is a dying rotten cluster of cells," That's a little mistake "forming things like apses and growths that infect other cells with their excesses." That's a little mistake "this means that, as the vaccination is supposed to be a weak version of the disease" That's a little mistake And so on. Nothing you wrote is correct.

FFS! Thanks for clarifying that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Sorry, they cannot divide as they are not borne of air, I'm making some wine at the moment. The yeast cells are doing a fine job of dividing. Are you deluded enough to think this means they are in the air?

It shows.

"Isn't 'science' education" actually brainswashing?" Science education is teaching people how to do science- training in doing, and interpreting experiments. Learning how to interpret data is the absolute opposite of brainwashing. Which tells me that the OP doesn't understand how science works...

So that's twice more that you were wrong. Cold fusion (1) doesn't work and (2) was never considered to be perpetual motion.

Nonsense. Anyway, in response to the OP's question "Vaccinations Linked to Cancer?" Yes they are; negatively Vaccinations reduce the incidence of some cancers- that's the whole point of them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPV_vaccine And, since most vaccines have no effect either way on cancer, the overall effect of vaccination is to reduce the incidence of cancer in humans. On the other hand, people who get vaccinated are less likely to die from infectious diseases, but they have to die of something- so it's likely that vaccinations will increase the total number of cancer cases.That's fine by me.

Well, if the weather is telling me the truth and the environmentalists are agreeing with it, then presumably, it's the climate change deniers who are lying. I can't say I'm shocked.

The weather is not lying to me.

It's far from clear which way causality works there. there is electricity in the air. This is because Gases conduct electricity. word salad How about , at least, learning to spell the words you misuse. No neither by mass nor by number of atoms. You will see that this thread has been split off from the main discussion- that's because you were talking nonsense. I strongly urge you to stop doing so.

gases are not static. You can just put a wire in sky- no need to condense anything No, it's not. It's not a source of energy And so on.

Patronising, poorly written and inaccurate.

I have seldom seen so many fundamental errors in just one post.

No it isn't.

I suspect that it actually measures activity of calcium. That's usually very nearly the same as the concentration.

Why did you think I included the reference to the arctic tern?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_tern#Distribution_and_migration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_ringing

Faraday did some research on stainless steels containing platinum which is hard and rustproof. How good is your research budget?

Why spend the money?

Belief in evolution and God is possible. I'm not so sure about belief in evidence and God.

Please don't: We don't want to be like America.

You can make germanium and diamond photodiodes so, it's possible in principle to make solar panels. Silicon is cheaper. Diamond only really works in the UV. Germanium works in the visible and further into the IR than silicon

No. Borax is a salt; but borax is not salt. Not really. I guess we will find out when the OP comes back.

Nobody did. BTW, do you know that only an inverse square law gives rise to stable orbits? Nothing else works. Since all the orbits have been shown to be stable (simply because they have been here for a long time) we know that gravity, at least on the scale of the solar system and beyond, follows an inverse square law. It has also been verified in the lab on much smaller scales. Please can you confirm which of these sums up your new idea: "It agrees with the inverse square law and is redundant" or "it does not agree with the inverse square law and is experimentally shown to be wrong"