John Cuthber

It makes a lot more sense to ask the dictionary than to ask anyone here.

Rather than having a debate about "what is a language", perhaps you could have a meta-argument about which dictionary to look it up in. You might want to do that in a different thread.

There is evidence of sentience in at least one of the great apes. Specifically, we write about sentience on line.

The OP is true- for a definition of clairvoyance that isn't what most people mean by it. It's useless, for exactly the same reason. ​It's like calling the prediction that water will come out of the tap when I open it "clairvoyance". Others would call it "obvious" or at least "experience".

" A variety of opinions exist as to whether those stamped mainstream are correct, and those with any validity would harbour their alternatives. Certain hypotheses are deemed mainstream, and atheism is one, " That depends who you ask. "those with any validity would harbour their alternatives. " That doesn't seem to mean anything. "and an entourage has attempted at all costs to prop these up without the alternative of revision. " Who is the entourage? It certainly isn't the scientists who keep testing the hypotheses. "They have become sacred cows, " Again: says who? "to progress, science must deem any hypothesis good, " OK I hypothesise that you are a talking cat-like creature from another planet. Does that really help science progress? Or should we stick to hypotheses for which there is some sort of evidence?

The correct answer to the question of the OP is either yes, no or sometimes. None of your posts has included any actual answer to the problem- just pointless grumbling about fiveworld's incomplete answer. You might want to read the part of your post which I have quoted above, and then look in the mirror.

You don't seem to be reading the same page. It says "Humanism is a progressive lifestance that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead meaningful, ethical lives..." Now, since the mistreatment of animals (or indeed people) is unethical, it's clearly contrary to the tenets of humanism. So you hate humanists even though they are the one group whose defining characteristics include a requirement to treat animals ethically. I don't think you have though this through.

Who gives a damn about the people who wrote dictionaries? The definition I gave was what the humanists think https://humanism.org.uk/ https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/definition-of-humanism/

Stop adding to them.

Sorry to tell you , but that theory has been put forward before (no great surprise) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis And it was proven to be wrong. It is not "bullying" you to point out that you are wrong.

What definition of "humanist" are you using? Typical definitions say things like this "Roughly speaking, the word humanist has come to mean someone who: trusts to the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and is therefore an atheist or agnostic) makes their ethical decisions based on reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings and other sentient animals believes that, in the absence of an afterlife and any discernible purpose to the universe, human beings can act to give their own lives meaning by seeking happiness in this life and helping others to do the same." Which parts do you object to?

I'm currently watching a computer screen. I imagine many people are.

That's something like 1 km/sec. Consider a spot on the rim. After about a thousandth of a second it has gone round the wheel and is now travelling at about 1 km/s in the opposite direction. That's a change in velocity of about 2 km/s in a time of about 0.001 sec which is an acceleration of something like 2 million m/s/s The forces on it would be about 200000 time its weight and the wheel would explode. (You can do the calculation correctly if you like- the outcome is the same.)

Confirming Fe(III) is relatively easy. I presume you don't have a chemistry laboratory. Scrape some of the yellowish stuff off the crystals. Put it in a little vinegar to dissolve it. Make some very strong tea: essentially soak a teabag with hot water and squeeze out the extract. Mix a few drops of the tea with the vinegar extract. Iron will give a black colour/ precipitate.

King James didn't create it. Who are you to deem it to be of any significance? Most Christians wouldn't say it was definitive (many would say it was wrong).

Reduction to sulphur in the presence of air is very unlikely. Based on the colour, I would guess that there are traces of iron present (from the copper sulphate or from the tap water). The colour of that yellowish stuff is about right for basic iron(III) sulphate.

Why do you suppose that might be the case? How did they have a notion of "pure" before they started washing? There are cases of animals washing themselves and their food but these are not normally regarded as evidence of some sort of spirituality.

I did. So you are wrong. That makes about as much sense as saying that the Chinese president doesn't exists because "习近平" doesn't exist in English.

The top, as I know and you should know, will contain mercury vapour at about 0.002 mmHg pressure. That's (exactly) enough pressure to stop the mercury boiling. It's also a very high pressure compared to some systems that both of us have worked with; I'm a little surprised to see you describe it as a vacuum. Also, here on earth if you heat a beaker with some mercury in it the pressure at the bottom of the beaker is significantly more than at the top. That will influence the behaviour significantly. The stuff at the top will evaporate quickly before the stuff at the bottom reaches its boiling point. However- in space where gravity doesn't create a meaningful hydrostatic pressure, that doesn't happen. The surface tension may be enough to stop it boiling (at least for small droplets- the effect depends on the radius of curvature of the surface and is zero for a flat surface.) That still will not stop it evaporating, and there will in spite of all the arguments, still be a a loss of mercury by evaporation.

You can't have tried searching for "vacuum distilled mercury" which shows that you can boil it in a vacuum. I wonder how you would think it could fail to boil in a vacuum. Things boil if their vapour pressure exceeds the local "atmospheric" pressure. In any event, there is going to be some evaporation loss. This sort of thing https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/91215/how-does-blood-saliva-boil-in-outer-space

Why are you sure of that? I didn't understand your post; nor did at least a couple of other people.

From time to time we see threads about "What would happen to someone exposed to the vacuum of space?" and there's a discussion about whether or not they would explode because of the vacuum etc. Imagine that there's a life form somewhere with blood made of mercury, and that they were having the same discussion. They may well come to a similar conclusion. Exposed body fluids would boil. In principle, any liquid exposed to a good enough vacuum will boil. That's true of room-temperature mercury in space. So, the answer to the question "So, how fast will it evaporate?" is an interesting one, but if there's something to nucleate boiling- perhaps the vortexes produced by squirting it, the answer might be "quite fast". There's certainly nothing to stop it doing so. Also, when it cools to about -39 C the temperature will stop dropping for a short while because heat needs to be removed in order to freeze the material. That's about 2.3 KJ/mol So, for the 1 degree change near the mp the heat it needs to lose is about 12 J/g It will take roughly 100 times as long to cool through -39C as to cool by a degree near room temp

At 200K mercury is a solid so that's clearly not a sensible temperature to consider it being squirted about. The vapour pressure at room temperature (which is the temperature I'd choose for my space ship) it's about 10^-3 torr. In the vacuum of spcae heat los from the mercury can only take place by radiation or evaporation. Something shiny like mercury is a poor radiator(it's far from being a "black body". So, evaporative cooling will take place. Just out of idle curiosity, the Rb in that sealed ampule- if you raised the temperature until the vapour pressure was, say, half an atmosphere, how much would you "lose" and where would it go? Once the headspace was full of vapour, how long would it last, and why would 10 years be relevant to that timescale?

"voluntary" is the important word there. Babies don't volunteer.

Not really. The UV from the sun was always there; the holes are new. Mankind's careless dumping of CFCs into the atmosphere causes destruction of ozone If you eliminated mankind the holes would eventually repair themselves. This solution may not be popular.