John Cuthber

There's a lot of porn out there which shows that people actually enjoy watching people have fun (whatever the voyeur's motivation might be). So, you are plainly wrong.

You do know that it's common practice to boil lobsters alive, don't you?

I guess he means this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lychee_and_Dog_Meat_Festival

You are plainly wrong. Homosexuality is old enough to be mentioned in the Old Testament. So, it can't be caused by anything modern. Also your post is essentially a non sequitur. There is no reason for you to leap from the aspects concerned with sex to things about stress and diet.

In other words, "no".

OK, so, everyone else in the world is wrong.

Einstein was a physicist. You really don't want to believe that do you? You want to pretend that he was a historical linguist. "Einstein studied the Talmud and the Bible, by his own words, and did not dismiss the histories, but in fact, claimed the luminous figure of the Nazarene could not be the work of any phrase-monger, and that Christianity cannot be dismissed with any "bon mot". Bon mots won't do, unless you consider yourselves geniuses on a par to contradict him. " So, to contradict him, I don't need to claim any great genius- I just need to point out that today's academics looking at those same scriptures don't come to the same conclusions. You say "Possibly one of the best sources, if you can find a copy, is a book simply called "Atlantis" by Charles Berlitz. " Well, Berlitz talked nonsense. So if he is the best you can do in support of Atlantis...

If that is their idea of a "sales pitch" who the hell are they trying to recruit? Who responds positively to an offer to "Join the Masons and get a free luminous dick!"

SR doesn't even apply to that scenario. This bit " And when he returns, they will " makes it clear that an acceleration is involved. Since SR doesn't apply to that situation, how can it be disproven by it?

Do you understand that understanding a few words is not the same as talking? "I explained in my private-corp analogy that if the entire world is filled with unethical rules, in order to participate into some kind of community you have to bite the bullet and pretend to accept those rules. it's a kind of forced-consent that you never really consented to." Nonsense- you could start your own forum, or, at least, not join those whose rules you don't agree with. You seem to agree with torture sometimes, but not others. Do you plan to make up your mind some time?

It shows.

"I don't get how much more about ethics it can get. I'm saying China is evil because it does not stop-dog torture." Give it a rest: Nobody said otherwise. "My dog can talk." Cool, can you ask it what it thinks of Trump's haircut? "Also, rule-breaking is not always unethical. " True- if the rules are bad then breaking them is ethical. But, in that case, signing up to them was unethical. ​So the question is, which sort of hypocrite are you? "If someone tortures dogs they deserve to be tortured." When did two wrongs start making a right?

If historicity is, as such, a determinant of truth, Plato's Critias and Timaeus proves Atlantis existed, In that case the Hobbits exist. Cayce is genereally regarded as a self-serving fraud. Stating properties for Jesus in a thread about whether or not he exists is a logical fallacy called begging the question.

Are there any mammalian cellulases? Edit: Cross posted.

If that's true then the real world must be on a government salary. https://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2015/jul/08/pay-cap-public-servants-budget-2015 Why did you post something which is obviously wrong? Did you believe what Fox news told you or something?

Most of those things will improve the standard of living of those directly affected. Schools, for example, generally ensure tat people are better educated. They will be able to get better jobs. They will pay more tax. Rich people will often benefit directly from the tax and they will benefit indirectly by, for example, being able to rely on a better educated workforce. It's a matter of perspective. I don't have a problem with rich people benefiting. Sadly, all to often they are the only ones to benefit- and that is a problem

OK Here's the proof that you are wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

Just plain wrong, though I take your point about the timing of the edit.. I'm not a staff member. Any point on the plain gets mapped to a line. or, with the integral every point gets mapped to the same number. Since it's an infinity to one mapping, it's not invertible. If I say (k(x)= 0 can you tell me what x is?

Feel free to define one for me. The function has no inverse. If you want a simpler example, try k(x) =integral of ax .dx find the inverse where a=0 I know it's not one of the examples you specified. But you have edited your original post to change the goalposts so it's now impossible to tell. Why did you do that? Do you realise it looks like intellectual dishonesty? Just to clarify, what you said was not very specific "something that's clearly hard to work with like the gamma function or the exponential integral or the cosine integral or the error function or etc, " And the example I chose was hard to work with- impossibly so.

Just for kicks and giggles, I'm going to define a function f ( r ) such that f ( r ) is the area of a circle with radius r. And, I'm going to define it in terms of an integral The details are here http://www.analyzemath.com/calculus/Integrals/area_circle.html (other such sites are also available) It turns out that f ( r ) = pi r^2 Now, can I find an inverse for this function which is defined in terms of an integral (of course it's an integral- its the area of a curve) Well, yes I more or less can ( if we decide that either r in always >0 or that a negative radius is permitted as an alternative to a positive one) I can calculate the radius ( r ) of a circle, given the area (a) r=(a/pi) ^0.5 So, in this (trivial) case I can find an inverse fro a function that is defined in terms of an integral. (It's entirely possible that someone better at maths than I cam could find more exciting examples but this one will do) OK, That was easy, so I will now try something a bit more complex. I will define a function, g, of two variables x and y such that g(x,y) = x+y,x+y Sorry for my clumsy explanation- what I mean is the equivalent of multiplication by the matrix 1,1 1,1 That matrix has the not very rare property of having no inverse. Now imagine that I define a further function h(x,y) in such a way that it depends on an integral of g(x,y). It doesn't have to be anything clever. The integral of g(x,y) dy,dx over some range will do nicely. Now I contend that since the calculation of the intermediate i.e. g(x,y) is not invertible, the integral of that function also isn't invertible. So, in this case it is not possible to invert a function defined in terms of an integral. So, the answer to the question "Is there a way to invert a function defined by an integral?" is Sometimes You can if it's f(x), but you can't if it's h(x,y) Incidentally, the choice of a function in two variables makes Fiveworld's solution a lot more interesting- it would need a 2 D array, but not all 2 d arrays have an inverse. If you had thought about what he said- rather than discounting it rudely, you would have got to at least part of the answer. (It's possible that someone is going to point out that I'm playing fast and loose with the definition of "function" here by sticking arrays into it. OK, fair cop, but the OP started it by introducing integrals)

OK, would you use the same labels for space and the relatively huge pressure at the top of a mercury barometer? What I said at the outset was "Some of the mercury will be lost by evaporation" Your reply was "The vapor pressure of mercury is 10^-8 torr at 200K, which is close to Rb vapor pressure at room temperature. We have 1g ampoules of Rb in vacuum that have lasted a decade." You seemed to be arguing that evaporation would not take place: in the same way that it hadn't taken place in a sealed Rb ampule. Then there was Bender's comment that "The surface tension between mercury and air is about 7 times larger than between water and air." ​Which might change the boiling point, but the original assertion was that it would evaporate. For what it's worth the effect goes the "wrong" way to stop it boiling. "The vapor pressure at a convex curved surface is higher than that at a flat surface. " from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin_equation So, the little drops that form will be more likely to boil and/ or evaporate. And we had Moontanman's argument that it won't boil "With mercury surface tension is an important consideration. As i said from what I've been able to find so far mercury would have to be heated quite hot for it to boil in a vacuum. Something like 225C... " which (probably relies on the assumption of normal gravity. Notwithstanding all that; as I said before "Some of the mercury will be lost by evaporation" Let me know if anything changes.

I didn't say it was an arbitrary whim. You asked about "something that's clearly hard to work with like the gamma function or the exponential integral or the cosine integral or the error function or etc, " Imagine that someone could provide an explicit inverse for the error function, but could prove that no such function exists for the Gamma function. In that case the answer to your question "Is there a way to invert a function defined by an integral?" would be "sometimes"; there is sometimes a way to invert such a function. If you are unhappy with the idea that maths sometimes says " It's impossible to tell" then I have bad news for you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems You are correct- the other things you said - including the comments to fiveworlds- were off topic. Feel free to report yourself.

How often does anyone find out? As far as I can see you would need a haemophiliac father and a carrier mother. That's a fairly rare combination. Also, until fairly recently, there was a good chance that the "father" didn't survive until adulthood.

"How am I supposed to know what they define as ethical? " If you don't know what they think then you shouldn't decide that you hate them for thinking it, should you? Did you think that through? I'm also willing to bet that you were banned for failing to comply with the vegan forum's rules. Most sites tell you those rules when you join up, and they explain that use of the forum indicates that you agree to abide by those rules. How ethical would it be to sign up, then break the rules? Is that the sort of hypocrisy that you accuse humanity of? Well, perhaps you have a point, but you need a mirror.

"Why am I banned... ? " It doesn't look like you are. For example, you are still posting, and even starting new threads.