John Cuthber

According to your strange belief, unless the baby has read the Bible, he won't know which to be.

I don't care what you "usually" say. In this case, you said Bible. The word "Bible" means book so, notwithstanding your nonsensical claim, Bibles are actually all written down. It's clear to all of us that you are trying to back away from your original absurd claim- without admitting that you are wrong. We are not buying it. The burden of proof lies with the one making that assertion so you go first. "Not at all, I've always maintained that anyone can be content; I merely suggest that discontented people can be taught how to be content." You have. But your suggestion makes no sense for two reasons. Firstly that those who have not been taught are sometimes content., Second that, notwithstanding teaching, some are discontent. Again, it's clear to all of us that you are trying to back away from your original absurd claim- without admitting that you are wrong. We are not buying it.

It's late in the day . I will try to remember to look into it later.

It's difficult to get mathematically "good" random numbers. But Excel is good enough for it to be practically impossible for any human to spot patterns. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/828795/description-of-the-rand-function-in-excel "Tiny" deviations from true randomness are not easy to exploit- certainly not at the level of making a regular profit. I think you have fallen victim to the remarkable ability of humans to spot patterns. It's so good, we even spot patterns that are not there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_canal Do you have a record of the numbers drawn in the lottery? It's fairly easy to test for bias.

In what way is the draw biased?

The outcome of me googling the content of that "hint" is that I'm slightly hungry- but no closer to an answer. Presumably this (badly drawn) idea is too easy

Because you said it was taught by the Bible which has only been here "recently". Anyway, stop trying to shift the burden of proof. You said "I DO believe the bible to contains wisdom that seems to elude secularism." You made an assertion which is, at best, unsupported. Prove it. Similarly, you said "...it's a collection of stories and parables designed to teach other people how to be content; ..." Prove it.

If the lottery is rigged the gambler's fallacy usually makes things worse. Let's say I rig the lottery by simply not having a ball with 11 on it. Raider will say "look- number 11 hasn't been drawn for ages- it must be more likely to come up soon- so I will bet on it" He buys tickets with 11 on. I sit here, laugh, + take his money. It's possible to run a crooked lottery without getting caught, but it's not worth the effort. You can make a fortune from an honest one and you don't have to worry about the law catching up with you. Lots of people will slavishly give you their money in exchange for a dream. Some dream that they will win (and a vanishingly small number are right). Some dream that they have "beaten the system" and an even smaller number are right.

" I can still find the most probable right?" I doubt it. "If 99 hasn't been picked for the last 3000 times, it has a large chance of being picked " No. How would it "know" that it had been picked a lot? I rather suspect that the "success" of your "method" relies heavily on confirmation bias. Don't worry, the lottery companies love to have people like you lipreading stories that they system can be "gamed" in some way. You may take some comfort from the fact that your mistake is so common that it has its own name https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy How many "balls"- i.e. what's the range of numbers?

Not really Ask your doctor.

But I haven't disposed of Dr Science yet.As far as I know he wasn't killed. I haven't even killed his thread- it died of natural causes when everyone realised that they can post questions in their own thread.

Butan-1-ol is C4H9OH R Butan-2-ol is C4H9OH S Butan-2-ol is C4H9OH and also t-Butanol is C4H9OH But CH3(CH2)2CH2OH is Butan-1-ol

You offered me £50- you said I'd get it when the job was done.

"Are you suggesting the unconscious mind has an influence over the conscious one? why?" Yes I am. Because when my unconscious mind hears the alarm clock in the morning it wakes up my conscious mind. (Or, to put it another way, because it's damned obvious that it has an influence.) I presented evidence that a baby can be content without having been taught- on the basis that we know that discontented babies let us know about it. You have presented no evidence that it's a fallacy. However, we risk losing sight of your original daft assertion. "I DO believe the bible to contains wisdom that seems to elude secularism. ...it's a collection of stories and parables designed to teach other people how to be content; ..." The trouble with that is the implication that people were somehow unable to be content prior to the Bible's existence, and needed teaching. There have been humans for about 100,000 years and, according to our idea it's only in the last 4,000 or so (assuming you meant the OT- 2,000 if you meant the NT) that they have known how to be content. Do you really think that we didn't know how to be happy for the first 96% of humanity's existence?

Can you give me a hand getting an old fridge to the dump?

Anyone who realises that, were they discontent, they would wake up. Newborn babies can demonstrate contentment, without having been taught it. So it's not innate. I keep presenting evidence but you don't understand it. Plenty of others do- so what's your problem?

Who cares? By your own acknowledgement your hypothesis doesn't agree with the real world- so it's wrong. You can stop now.

Yet it did. When your theories disagree with reality, it is not because reality has made a mistake.

OK There's clearly something I don't understand; it may be physics. It may be what particular mistake you have made. Perhaps you could say something useful rather than "you don't understand". After all, if I had understood I'd not have asked. Also, are you claiming this didn't happen or that it's not time dilation? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment The clocks ran at different rates.

How does that relate to the title of the thread and the fact that time dilation is an experimentally observed fact?

All Cretans are liars.

It's a bit late for an April fool joke

There have been experiments, but isotope separation is hard, and the differences are small. They get used to check theories https://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1467.pdf But, as far as I know the only "practical" use outside of things with "nuclear" in the title is the use of mono-isotopic mercury in a very narrow band lamp. Now superseded by the uses of lasers anyway.

The discontent happens first, and is what wakes them. It doesn't matter that you are wrong about that- because you were already wrong about people needing to be taught contentment. From the HHGTTG quote I take it (since you aren't a girl from Herts) you are an ignorant earth man who doesn't have any idea how to sort things out.

I think the fundamental idea is that, if you have a big enough sample size, the effects of things like lifestyle differences will cancel out. That's part of the reason for (double) blind trials with a control group.