John Cuthber

"The context demands that a distinction be made between what is written in America and what is written in Britain." Yes, they are distinct, "American English" and "English". You don't need to say that English is English from England (and is rather different from Welsh- or Scots- English) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_English https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_English "We can happily refer to American English, but in this context we can't sensibly compare "American English" with "English"." Why not? Anywhere other than England, you say which version it is, where the dialect isn't stated it's "English English" but there's no need to write it twice. As I pointed out "British English" is a myth. I think it was brought about by word processor dictionary writers. "The tautology is justified as a necessary clarification." I rather suspect that about the only thing a tautology can't be is "necessary". Label all the dialects by their locales and leave "English" as the word for English.

Strawman. The word "British" is redundant, or it should be. English is the language of the English, and you find us in Britain.

"Are American English or Irish English or Indian English also tautologies?" No, but they may be contradictions in terms. "How would you suggest distinguishing the different dialects of English?" Properly: many of them have names, Scouse, Geordie, Cockney etc. The others can be described in terms of the locality in which they are used. It's just that English English doesn't make a lot of sense.

Of course, if everyone actually believed in freedom of speech, his security costs wouldn't be an issue. Perhaps the costs should be met by the protesters.

Since his security costs are a consequence of what he says, and he doesn't have to say that, shouldn't he pay for his own security?

That seems to clarify just about every case except the one he wants to know about. A spot of googling shows that both variants are common. As long as you are consistent you can show that you are following the lead of some august body. Incidentally, "British English" is a tautology.

Find out who will be judging your thesis; get a copy of one of their publications, copy that style.

If God really does exist than how can things exist in two or more places at once in the quantum level?

Well, that's just fine, but where do you draw the line? Obviously those who are very young, very old or who have chronic health problems are going to be the ones who visit doctors most often, are they the ones who can actually pay the highest premiums? If doctors are prescribing antibiotics for viral infections, then that's a problem of education (on both sides) rather than the payment system.

You are muddling several things together there. The amount of light reflected by gases is usually so small you can ignore it. As was calculate earlier the reflection by the Earth's atmosphere is only something like 20 parts in a billion. E=hf is true for a single photon. But it's not the point. A photon will only be absorbed if it's the "right" energy to promote the molecule to an excited state with a higher energy- for IR that's usually a case of setting the molecule vibrating. So for carbon dioxide at wavelengths where it's absorbed light won't be reflected, it gets absorbed and the energy gets redistributed among the gas molecules and the gas gets warmer. For wavelengths where the gas doesn't absorb, the IR will just pass straight through. Very little of it would be reflected.(some of it will be scattered- again that's a small effect) Generally, reflection takes place at interfaces between things- like the surface of a piece of glass. The atmosphere doesn't have a "surface"- it fades gradually as you get higher, so there's very little reflection.

"Controlled plasma" and "simple" are almost mutually exclusive. A flame is already a weak plasma.

Possible, yes: practical, no. You would need to be able to supply enough cold gas for long enough to get the charred material to cool down. If the building was sealed- like a bank vault- it would be much easier, but still difficult.

It usually can. What are you struggling with? Complaining that the definitions are not absolutely concrete is like complaining that you can't use English because it's full of words like "stone" that have more than 1 meaning. Well, if you know what you are talking about the meaning is usually clear from the context, and if it's not, you can ask for clarification.

And, if you get the system set up right you can do that and get healthcare for roughly half the price. So, you get to help others, and you save money. What's not to like?

Just because you don't understand them, doesn't mean the definitions are loose or ambiguous. Reality , and consequently science, are under no obligation to match your intuition. It's quite complicated; you actually need to study it.

That was, essentially, my point. It may not matter. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/21/kim-jong-un-trump-north-korea-threats

How much does it cost to get a shipping container to the US? How much does it matter if a nuke goes off while the ship is in harbour and hasn't been unloaded- never mind checked?

What other materials are present?

In general, no.

But the water of crystallisation in a salt is generally a fixed proportion. So, for example, each molecule of copper sulphate crystallises from water carrying 5 molecules of water with it. Similarly, sodium carbonate takes 10 molecules of water. So this idea just doesn't make sense. It's much simpler to expail. You recrystallise something, but , when the solution has cooled, not all the stuff crystallises out- some is still left in solution. The more you recrystallise, the more you lose.

Diffraction is wavelength dependent. Gravitational lensing is not. The observed ring-shaped images of the distant star are not coloured. So there's only one option; here's a hint- it's not diffraction. I don't need to set up a gravitational lensing experiment in the lab. I can set up a diffraction experiment, show that the outcome doesn't look like the images we see of stars and conclude that- whatever it is that's making those images- it's not diffraction.

Well, since it seems unlikely that "abnormally honest" is going to answer the question I will have a go. If you have a small source of light obscured behind an opaque circular object, you get this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arago_spot The important thing is that it's surrounded by fringes whose spacing depends on wavelength. Now, in the case in point, the centre dot is obscured by light from the intervening object. But the rings round it ought to be coloured- and they are not.

Is it just me who thinks that is about as likely as turkeys voting for Christmas? It's not obvious to me why capital gains tax should have a different rate than other income tax.

Who said that? When? He may have better luck than I did trying to get you to answer one

That's two different questions. It's instructive to read what Watson said about it. ""To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief,""