John Cuthber

The body is generally quite good at converting chemicals. Starch, for example, is quite rapidly degraded in the stomach to form glucose which is then absorbed. About a quarter or a half of the fructose is converted to glucose- the rest is metabolised via different pathways. What is in beer that makes people fat is, essentially, calories. It doesn't matter much if those calories are in the form of sugar or alcohol; if you eat more energy than you use, the body stores the excess by making fat. Incidentally, a linguistic point; when talking about people in English, fat is not the same as thick. Fat means they weigh too much. Thick is usually taken to mean "thick headed" i.e. stupid. So, yes, beer makes people thick- but not in the way you meant.

You have the wrong idea.

It may be your worldview, but it's not actually correct.

Good point- at physiological pH it might also be bicarbonate/ carbonate rather than a "free" proton.

A quick look suggests that there's something else strongly affecting some of the data. If you remove the first two rows of data the remainder fit very well to a linear model. Given how much easier it is to work with linear approximations than with anything else, I'd go with that. Was there anything special about the first two point? Are you able to monitor the temperature of the battery?

Hydrogen ions in any solvent at all will stick to a molecule (or several molecules) of that solvent. It's typically something like H9O4+ As part of the process of being pumped, a proton might temporarily be stuck to a protein.

First question: are you using Excel? (I'm not sure how it works with other stuff). Second question. Can you get it to plot a scatter plot of miles vs charge (or whatever)? If so, it should be a matter of Right clicking on the graph and selecting "add trend line" then selecting the type of trend line you want (polynomial or whatever adn clicking the buttons for "display equation on graph" (or something like that.) Failing that, I'm curious to know what the data looks like. If you post it here I will stuff it into a spreadsheet for you (as long as there's not huge amounts of it).

Yes, you can. (neodymium glass is famous for it) But it's unlikely that they do. Those glasses are worse than useless for two reasons. They could fool people into thinking they were "safe" and also, because they will attenuate visible light, the pupil of the eye will open up to compensate making it more likely that you will get the beam in your eye.

If you are buying them as fancy dress for a party...

You can fit other curves.

You can use a spreadsheet (excel , or the open Office versions should work) to fit data to a model. It will also plot graphs which is handy.

His position was to start off by quoting someone out of context. If you start from there it's pretty clear you can't do any better. Perhaps he was hoping we wouldn't notice.

Is it Friday yet?

Perhaps, but he's not the one spreading that abuse of Penrose's work here It's not sound anyway- as has been pointed out. Anyway, if he's not clever,. he's not worth citing. If he is clever then we can assume he understands the conclusions from his own work; and he's an atheist. If you think he's mistaken then you need to show what mistake he made.

It's "interesting" that someone is saying that Penrose has used maths to show that God exists. Here's what wiki says about Sir Roger Penrose " Religious views[edit] Penrose is an atheist.[31] ...." So, at best, he is being quoted out of context. At worst, someone is deliberately lying.

Walk away, and think twice about coming back when it has stopped.

Be careful what you wish for. As far as I know, the only immortal human cell lines are cancers.

Or causation, but in the other direction. Maybe MS causes jaw problems.

When we were babies we were in the position of the person trying to decode a language that was unknown to him and with which he had no previous link. We did OK. Why wouldn't he?

I think most people would become terrorists if pushed hard enough. Trump just announced his intention to push harder. I suspect the outcome will not be good for humanity.

Are you going to get upset when someone points out that any religious belief that stems from reason isn't religious (I'm a staunch atheist, but I will believe the same thing if you show me that it's based in rational thought) so the only things that are based on religious faith are not rational?

What do you mean by by "metal paint "?

Good catch; 30 years or so would do. It hardly matters.

A couple of years worth of decay for enriched uranium would get it a couple of parts in 700,000,000,000 towards "like that". I wasn't kidding about the ice age.

Well, you are right about "it doesn't matter". You may find this shocking, but before they make bombs out of it they have to remove practically all of those impurities and they only return on a timescale comparable with the decay rate of uranium- billions of years to get back to equilibrium, so... As long as the terrorists are not using enriched uranium produced- say during the last ice age- the fact that uranium is, itself, a very effective screen would solve most of their problem on the alpha , beta and gamma score. It's the neutrons that are a bit of a giveaway. And it still doesn't matter. Nobody is going to point a detector at the container until it is unloaded. If it's "booked" for through travel to, say, Canada, but goes off in the US nobody will ever know what ship it was on, never mind what container. This is why it's really important to keep weapons grade uranium and plutonium well guarded. Fortunately, for the most part, the people responsible for making the decisions do understand that weapons grade uranium is a pretty near pure alpha emitter and you can't rely on Geiger counters at the port.