John Cuthber

There is nothing uncommon about centigrade, apologies if missing out the degree sign confused you. 20C is a typical room temperature (at least in my country) Not many things have yield strengths of 125,000 PSI or 125 KSI or 860MPa , even at room temperature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_tensile_strength#Typical_tensile_strengths and things generally get weaker when they get hot.

Not to the individual who possessed ESP. And that's what makes it an advantage.

This thread makes as much sense as weighing a picture of an elephant rather than weighing the elephant itself.

Tungsten might still have that much strength at that temperature. Not many things are that strong, even at 20C. What are you seeking to achieve?

Science can also point out that every time it looks at this issue the "evidence" gets worse.

Pointing out that the evidence shows that people, even scientists, make mistakes about what they see is a vital part of the scientific examination of UFOs. Otherwise you end up believing everything. The lack of evidence is inevitable, (not least because of what I and others already said) Every time a flying object pops up somewhere where it can be studied properly- ie where evidence can be collected, it is identified and isn't a UFO. So the UFO's necessarily come from the subset where evidence is lacking. The lack of interest among scientists is inevitable because there's nothing to do science on (except, perhaps psychology) and the lack of evidence is also an inevitable matter of definition of "unidentified". When you say " you are making the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority and you should know better. When ridicule replaces logical fallacy, it's an improvement.

Yep. Always. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_canal And then the evidence showed they were wrong.

I did. It suggests to me that you need to learn a lot more science. Ordinarily, I would say that text needs a couple of commas. I tend to think that, without evidence, ... But in this case I think it's accidentally correct. That's true; we can't assume that. However we checked and what we found suggests that they are stars more or less like the Sun. They are not, for example, camp-fires. They certainly are not all the same thing (reflected in a bodged celestial sphere). We can form an hypothesis that they are stars, and we can test that hypothesis. Thus far, for the mots part, that hypothesis holds. Not for the planets, and not for the dark matter, but that doesn't meet this description

WRT "Existence of extraterrestrials all around us and our need to listen to each other." analytical thinking tells me two things: there is no such evidence listening is good, regardless of the presence or absence of such evidence. This thread is not going to be made better by being made longer.

So, that's not "physiologist Russel Targ". It's not " Communications specialist Russell Targ it's "man with irrelevant qualification stuck in to make it look "science' Russel Targ." Do you understand why I'm not going to watch a man with no relevant qualifications tell me something that's intrinsically implausible?

Serious scientific research requires evidence- usually repeatable evidence. So, you can't do research on things that don't provide evidence. That's not a "taboo", it's the basis of science so, if we say we don't need to follow it in this line of research, what's to stop people deciding to ignore it in other fields? Would you like to break the taboo and allow , for example, medicines that have no basis in evidence?

It's possible in some cases, but severe drying denatures proteins too, so that's a sort of decomposition. Essentially, this thread is saying "What can we do about the 2nd law of thermodynamics?", and the answer is "Not a lot".

In principle, most proteins are unstable in the presence of water, they hydrolyse to the corresponding amino acids. That process is slow, but it happens without microorganisms. Fats go rancid without help from bugs. Even if sterile filtered, wine matures which, from a different point of view, is a decomposition (of the stuff you don't like). Chemistry carries on unless you get the stuff to absolute zero (which you can't).

It's quite possible that both views are right. It's not as good as it was (and may be outside the specification), but it may well be good enough for many purposes.

I think we may have crashed into Poe's law here.

Good point. I look forward to the computer language that can parse "time flies like an arrow" and "fruit flies like a banana". If I was trying to classify English as a computer language, I'd classify it as "Bad! Really bad!". Not quite in the same leagues as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck but truly awful. I suspect that failures to properly interpret English give rise to more deaths and injuries than all computer languages put together,

I suspect this thread will be closed soon. In the meantime, why not try to define "lightest" and "colour". Without that clarification you are going to get no science.

It is rumoured that he told his kids about Santa Claus.

Critical thinking skills allow you to make judgements about the relative merit of "Don't trust WIKI" and "Don't trust the person who told you not to trust WIKI". Critical thinking is all about working out what is trustworthy in what circumstances. Incidentally the "planes don't exist" is, of course, invalid. But superficially, it looks "sciency" and it will fool some people, just like the flat earthers do.

Ethanol is a great extraction solvent but it doesn't do a good job of "steam distilling" because it has a lower boiling point and a much higher molecular weight. Also another advantage to water is that it hardly dissolves the clove oil- you can separate the oil easily without having to remove solvent.

There are other similar ideas. https://www.unilad.co.uk/viral/theres-a-theory-that-australia-doesnt-even-exist/ Most of them see to be parody of the flat earthers etc. The interesting question is how do people come to believe stuff that's really just as daft as these spoof posts?

In what way would that be helpful? Can you give us more details about what you did?

As far as I can tell, that's the point. You think that stuff in maths has to represent some sort of reality. But there are things in maths that are clearly non-physical. You don't understand how that can happen because you don't understand that you are wrong. I used to spend a bit of my time at work calculating angles in 256 dimensions. They weren't real (obviously) but the maths still works just fine.

I'm glad you have now realised that liquid nitrogen is not a solid.What you said here implies that you thought it was a solid; that's the implication of the phrase "other cooled solid substance". Smoke pellets seem a much better idea. This sort of thing. https://www.screwfix.com/p/arctic-products-smoke-pellets-5g-10-pcs/64647?tc=BA5&ds_kid=92700020953274192&ds_rl=1249799&ds_rl=1245250&ds_rl=1249481&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI6-PLp4u62gIVaLftCh1lhAXnEAQYASABEgIGE_D_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds&dclid=CP36mauLutoCFaMR0wodD6sE5Q

Did you somehow think that was relevant to the discussion in hand? Do you recognise that the "someone" in this instance is the entity which designed and created mankind- ind short- God? God doesn't have a family tree. The existence or non existence of God isn't a scientific matter.