John Cuthber

In order to be useful it would need to make valid predictions. In order to be scientific it would need to do the same thing. (There may be odd exceptions but, if so, let's hear about them)

If you could list just one scientifically valid use for "race" then you would show that it was a scientificaly valid concept. That's pretty relevant.

What a joke. No, that was a joke. But the point is valid- we do all have the same origins.

Non sequitur. The science shows that "race" as it's usually interpreted is unscientific. I'm not sure it would ever have been ethical if, for example, a doctor prescribed different drugs on the basis that "the patient looked Chinese" or whatever. Of course, if he's looking for evidence of jaundice then skin colour going to make a valid difference but "race" isn't- ask anyone with a tan.

Since we all have the same ancestors (if you go back far enough) we are all the same race. It's often referred to as the "human race". I suspect that the apartheid regime in South Africa probably didn't see much difference between the Dravidian people and any other "non- White".

It seems to me that the problem pretty much starts when people compare education or care for the elderly/ poor with "the Pennsylvania Race Horse Development Fund".

I'm not sure there's anything to elaborate really. Here's what I said. Where I said "In which case, perhaps" I implied that, in a different case that wouldn't be the outcome and similarly where I said "If that's what the evidence says" then the clear implication should be that, if the evidence doesn't say it then... My point was that there's a balance somewhere.and we should look at the evidence to find out where it is

I'm wondering why you think that relaxation time is used. Google gives just 127 hits for "relaxation time" "radioisotope tracers".

You aren't. https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/180595/1/GetPDFServlet%3Ffiletype%3Dpdf%26id%3DRSINAK000081000010106107000001%26idtype%3Dcvips%26doi%3D10.1063%252F1.3499254%26prog%3Dnormal I'm a little surprised that they didn't use some sort of velocity selecting filter

The fact that a bike is very little use without a road is to do with physics. How ancient is ancient? If you go back far enough there were no roads. That's not actually funny.

Why the quote marks? I didn't say 100% left and 0% right was correct. However, what we have at the moment is a weird world where in the interest of "balance" people who talk obvious nonsense are allowed as much air time as those whose view is actually backed by evidence. The problem with extremists is not their views per se, it's that those views get accepted in spite of being invalid because they are put forward without criticism.

If there's a strong overlap between what people see as "race" and actual genetic differences in susceptibility, it "fuels the fire" by making it look as if race has a meaning in science even though no such meaning is real. There are other well-documented traits that are associated with groups which are regarded as "races". e.g. "There is a mutant form of aldehyde dehydrogenase, termed ALDH2*2, ... This mutation is common in Japan, ..." from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldehyde_dehydrogenase But, closer analysis shows that the correlation is statistically valid, but meaningless since "Japanese" isn't normally thought of as a race (even by those who consider the idea to be meaningful).

In which case, perhaps the correct balance is 100% Left:0% Right. If that's what the evidence says , then that's the correct answer. (It may not be popular).

Not really. A candle flame is a weak plasma- at about 1400C Most of the plasmas in laboratories throughout the world are contained in thin walled glass tubes coated on the inside with mixtures of rare earth silicates etc. These devices are called... Fluorescent light bulbs Y0u may also find this interesting http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/720/1/012038/pdf

OK, that's not unreasonable. We can even be scientific about it- we have the historical data. Just find some sort of measure of the progress of society- for example the improved equitable sharing of wealth and resources- and look for which political views were in force when that happened.. Look at what party was in charge when there was sustained long term growth in the economy which wasn't subsequently shown to be a "bubble". You might want to look at what political decisions moved humanity forward (regardless of the party that made those decisions) and look to see if those were ideologically "Right" or "Left" wing ideas. And then you can work out where the correct balance between Right and Left might be.

I think that Liberal is not a subset of Conservative (since they have pretty nearly opposite meanings). Essentially, I can't see what the diagram is trying to say. Famously, Trump started with " a small loan of a million dollars" from his father. I'm not sure when, but lets assume it was his 21st birthday about 1967. If he had invested it in the stock market then by 1990 he would have had roughly 2 million. (based on this) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average If he had invested in real estate he'd have had about 7 million (based on this data) http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ynrQyoAUzgM/UKvzBPEFGMI/AAAAAAAABg4/yLQ6jXe0q3w/s1600/U.S.+Housing+Price+Index+Since+1900.jpg Instead, he was so "smart" he had converted it into nothing- he was bankrupt. Let's hope he does better with the US economy.

Even if you have a very very narrow band of emission- eg from a laser- it will look white if it's bright enough- because the sensors are not narrow band.

No, and again, that's a vital aspect of the reason science is different from religion. Science accepts that it knows very little - and tries to do something about it. Religion believes that it has all the answers.

In science, you accept the facts even if they don't agree with your beliefs. In religion, you accept your beliefs even if they on't agree with the facts. Science can't be a religion.

Th grammar is OK; the truth... not so OK. He's still busy making it grate.

So, your first post on this site is a request for info on how to make a controlled drug. What sort of response were you expecting?

OK, so you complain that oxidation in hot air only gives a surface coating of oxide (clever people will realise that bending the copper makes this flake off, so you can repeat the process- but that's another story). Reheating the flakes ensure they are fully oxidised. Then you assume that people have powdered copper available If they do then heating it in air will provide copper oxide- without needing to mess about with bleach and also without adding any other elements.

No. I don't. If a stone falls further before it lands on someone's head then it will do moredamage. To do that damage it needs energy- the energy needed to break bone etc. If the additional energy doesn't come from gravity, where does it come from? The only thing acting an a stone in free fall is gravity. It is the only possible source of the additional energy. And I therefore conclude that you are hopelessly wrong. Let us know if anything changes.

No. I stopped as soon as I saw that you plainly don't make sense. Not according to the definition of work (as far as Physics is concerned). I'm sure others have asked this What experimental proof do you have that the current version of physics is wrong? What evidence do you have that your version works better? If you don't have clear answers to those questions you might as well stop wasting bandwidth.

I do know why it did this. Quicklime is famous for expanding when it absorbs water. One thing you could consider doing is converting it back to quicklime.