John Cuthber

Perhaps "proud" was the wrong word, but it seems that many Americans are very defensive of their overpriced, under-performing system. Is there a reason for that?

When I was at school (and aged about 11 or 12) I annoyed the hell out of the metalwork teacher by taking things out of the acid bath with my bare hands. The bath was used to clean oxide scale off copper that had been annealed. I knew that 10% sulphuric acid won't damage typical intact skin as long as you wash it off fairly quickly.

Unless it was boiling hot, 1M sulphuric acid wouldn't cause a burn to intact skin. (well, it might eventually, but you would wash it off when it started to sting.

Everyone wants less tax. We also want better provision of things like roads and hurricane relief. Some of us realise we can't have both. I'm an outsider from across the pond and there's something I always wonder about. Perhaps you can explain it. Why are you so proud of a healthcare system that costs twice as much, but gives worse outcomes?

My mum was an English teacher and her view was that you should use a Z- because you don't get to use them very often. The free version of the Oxford English dictionary says "magnetize" https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/magnetize

You would agree with me if you knew what you were talking about; specifically if you understood the difference between refraction and diffraction. Both generally cause dispersion. Only one of then needs more than 1 medium through which the light is transmitted No pretty colours means no refraction or diffraction. But gravitational lensing is independent of wavelength. from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens Well, the double slit image using white light looks like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#/media/File:Double_slit_interference.png lots of pretty colours. So, we know that the image attributed to gravitational lensing can't be due to anything like the double slit experiment. You can stop now.

"A wave makes no sense without a medium. " The universe isn't obliged to follow your ideas of what "makes sense". "Is there evidence of that? I know they can emit gamma rays, but I couldn't find anything on google about absorption of them." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mössbauer_spectroscopy ""the typical frequencies of molecular vibrations range from less than 10^13 to approximately 10^14 Hz," so that's visible and IR with the transition occurring in the UV band." 10^14 Hz is rather high f or a vibrational transition. Visible light has frequencies that are higher than the vibrations of CO2. That's why the light goes through it.

Meanwhile, back in the world of science. Diffraction is wavelength dependent, so, if they were diffraction patterns they would be coloured. They aren't nice pretty rainbows, so they aren't diffraction patterns.

It's rational to point out that your assertions are wrong I guess you appreciate those comments. It's a pity you don't address them.

Biodiversity is good. Eugenics removes biodiversity. Eugenics is not good. The science is very clear and simple. It's not a moral issue, because it's scientifically bad- so there's no need to consider the morality. You have missed the point that what looks to one person like a "problem" that eugenics could "solve" is a often variability which might be useful in the future. Since we have no idea what issues humanity will face in the future, we don't know what genes we will need to overcome them.

Science does not have mixed views on eugenics. Biodiversity is good.

Well, if they use their hand to brush off the fly, it's a non-issue. If they use fly spray- and unfortunately, you are allergic and it kills you- that's just bad luck. There's no culpability. But the law recognises the concept of "recklessness" Using a hammer (which he happened to have in his hand because he was putting up a picture) to remove the fly... would be reckless. Using a gunshot would lead to a court deciding whether or not they believed that the "intent" was to act in your best interest by removing the fly, or if the intent was actually murder. I believe that, in some notable cases (of snake oil salesmen and religious nutters) the events are somewhere between the hammer and the gun- the only question is what crime should we prosecute for.

It's hard to say. There's some information here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatomic_carbon But, as far as I can see, there's no reason why a single molecule of the stuff floating in space shouldn't last practically forever.

To do that it would need to pack all the electrons into the space between the two atoms but electrons repel one-another. On the other hand, in the vapour phase at least some of the carbon atoms go round in pairs. It's not clear that they have a "quadruple bond" between them. With bigger atoms (where the electrons are not so tightly packed) you can get quadruple bonds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadruple_bond

"The long term effect could be a change in sexual partner preference" Given how many people are on a diet at any given time , we would have noticed if their preferences changed. "Fasting is used to treat chronic diseases in alternative medicine" If a "treatment" in alternative medicine worked, it wouldn't be "alternative"; it would be medicine. It seems that, on the misguided basis that homosexuality is a "problem", you are putting forward a "solution" which is knpown not to work. Did you not realise that this was a science website? And the experiment was pointless. "At the time of Pottenger's Study the amino acid taurine had been discovered but had not yet been identified as an essential amino acid for cats. " from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_M._Pottenger,_Jr.

Did it occur to you that we may have been misled by the title you gave the thread? If you want to redefine physics, go ahead. But don't be shocked if people think you were aiming for a discussion on what you can deduce without assumptions. Also, given that you failed to deduce anything without making assumptions, don't be too shocked if people think you are not very clever. You can now add "the assumption that physics exists" to the list.

That's probably the only interesting / meaningful bit of this thread.

I propose that it's difficult because it's like imagining someone more pregnant than the duchess of Cornwall. You are seeking to qualify an absolute. However that may simply mean that your definition doesn't tally with mine (or that of medical science- which know about these things)

I thought this was a science site.

Yes and no. It needs polishing. People's hands do that automatically (except on door handles that are used seldom enough that most of the bugs would die anyway). Copper salts are used as bactericides and preservatives. Fatty acid salts of copper are used as fungicides. It's not unreasonable to imagine that the salts made from the sweat left behind would work. http://www.fertilome.com/ProductFiles/41719 Copper Soap Fungicide 32oz Label.pdf And there's also the fact that a study on door handles showed they killed bugs. The report doesn't say they polished them specially.

"Unconscious" is a state of consciousness in the same way that "bald" is a state of hair colour.

I'm not happy with a definition of "consciousness" that doesn't distinguish a man who is unconscious from one who isn't. If the definition is that "it reacts to its surroundings", can you tell me anything that did anything without consciousness? And if not, what use is the word?

What's the timescale for the underlined bit?

Do you know that they gave up an awful lot of them? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Arms_Limitation_Talks

The ones whose ancestors didn't look like leaves and got eaten so they didn't leave descendent which, accordingly, aren't there. No need for awareness on the insect's side. Just predators that eat insects they can see.