John Cuthber

Yes. It's called "air travel".

I think we might as well treat the OP's "message" as spam.

When you get cold enough for spin energy to be significant, most things (including nitrogen) have already frozen solid. So you don't get the same effects that you see with hydrogen and deuterium (and, I guess, tritium if you have any).

To be fair, that's a population size bias.

And you picked "beige" from all of them.

Did they look at the right time, i.e. before they knew there was an outbreak? Did they look in the right place, i.e. at every (susceptible) animal there? One odd case in some animal that passed the bug to a store-holder before becoming someone's cooked dinner would be all it took. Obviously, you can't rule out a lab mistake as the "source" but you have to ask how the virus got into the lab. It must have been in the environment somewhere. How easy is it to rule out the idea that, rather than coming from the lab, it came from the tyre of the car that carried the sample to the lab? Lab escapes happen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_Kingdom_foot-and-mouth_outbreak And they knew they were dealing with a dangerous (Cat 3, I think) organism. The only way in which you can "blame China" is if you can be sure that they deliberately made a lethal human pathogen in what is- as you say- pretty much a school laboratory.

It depends on how hot you get them and for how long. it does not depend on whether you heat them in a microwave or not.

Which would be the appropriate control measures for a bat virus, and vastly more than those in a wet market.

Water is black to UV with a wavelength below about 200 nM. But so is air, so it doesn't usually matter.

"How do Atomic Nuclei 'know' what the Temperature is?" They don't. They get batted about by the laws of physics and we interpret the way in which they behave as meaning that they have a temperature.

That's pretty close to the same thing. Here in the UK, at least in principle, "just compensation" is decided by a jury of your peers.

And if I did point out why he's wrong and you ignore that simple fact, it shows that you are not here to do science. And here's where I point it out. More importantly; I'm not attacking his credentials as a physicist. I am pointing out that he has no credentials as a physicist. His video is no more "valid" than a high street butcher telling you that physics is wrong. The difference is that the butcher does a useful job. At 11 min 22 sec or so he says that he doesn't understand the measurements. At 12:57 he says G has varied in recent years. How is he defining "recent"? But the point is moot. The "measured" values change- it's called experimental error. That's not the same as saying the actual values change, is it?

You do realise that most of the people here telling you that you are wrong work for a living, don't you?

How many are in jail as a result of this tolerance and non-intervention? The big problem is not drugs, nor addiction. The big problem is that drug use is illegal. Where? If there's somewhere you reside, it's your home. Homeless people do not have a residence. Did you think this topic through before you posted?

It explains why telling me about Sheldrakes nonsense is a waste of your time and mine. I thought I already had. There may be more than one reason for that.

Did it occur to you that I might be able to give a competent talk on the determination of G? Are you aware that physics and psychology are not the same thing and that Sheldrake might claim some expertise, but only in one of those areas? I know what confirmation bias is. It's trawling through google results until you find a video where someone says what you want to hear, and posting it as evidence- even though the video is by a discredited scientist working in a totally different field.

That goes both ways and you should think about the fact that you are outnumbered by actual scientists here. You should also have had a look at his methods. He measured the change in position with a telescope. So he wasn't walking across the room. That's because he was clever enough to think about these things. It's a little beside the point. There have been plenty of measurements since his day. Would that be this guy? Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author and parapsychology researcher. He proposed the concept of morphic resonance, a conjecture which lacks mainstream acceptance and has been criticized as pseudoscience.

I'm going to steal that.

A circle (or sphere) is not, in general, the right shape to focus parallel light to a point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_aberration

I know what it means. It means deduce or conclude. I don't think you know how to use the word. Now, please well us what you think the word "on" means in this context. Did you mean "from"? "Notice here we didn't need to infer on superimposed arguments." And then tell us what you think the phrase as a whole means. Basically what you have written is bad English. It's not the only bit either. Have you not noticed that several people are pointing out the inadequacy of your communications?

I think you just proved my point. You actually think this is meaningful. What do you claim that "infer on" means?

The problem with this thread is not physics. The problem is that you seem to think that sentences like this are meaningful.

That's begging the question. The other person may well consider God to be a fact.

Yes it does. And it's the same definition of "God" for both definitions of atheist. If you don't say what God is, how do you know if he's on the list or not? He might be there, but labelled as Allah.

No The conclusion is "it depends what you mean by atheist". There are two perfectly plausible definitions, and they give different outcomes.