John Cuthber

It can be fairly difficult, even today , to find out if someone's death was accidental, homicide or suicide.

Covering the whole table in HF is getting into teh realms of a serious health hazard.

Wasted resources.

I keep restating the evidence; you keep pretending it does not exist (and the other posts are supporting me, but not you). Who's the troll? For the record, babies have a very well documented system for informing anyone and everyone when they are not content- and it doesn't involve sleeping (anyone sleeping- that is). So, the real world knows that contentment isn't learned. So it isn't learned from the Bible. So you were wrong when you said "It's also because I've already answered your question, in post #18; the bible is designed to teach contentment,". Why not just admit it? Babies do not wait to be asked before informing you of their discontent.

You won't find studies on whether passing urine is innate either- for the same reason.

Not that it helps much to know it, you are probably right. Does the rust remover say it contains hydrogen fluoride/ hydrofluoric acid?

You don't need to teach someone to sleep. I cited evidence. A sleeping baby is content, but nobody taught it to be so. And you ignored that evidence + posted bollocks in return. Until you can explain who taught the baby (and how) there's no way you can maintain the pretence that contentment is taught. Also, unless someone can explain how they think the bible says you should stone people to death because you are content with their behaviour, that idea's not going to fly either. Most people are content when sleeping then they/we wake up and start to think/cry (teaching required).

To get simple harmonic motion the restoring force has to be proportional to the displacement. That's probably true (or near enough) for the spring. But the force between two conductors is not proportional to the distance between them. So the motion will not be simple harmonic. Also, if you are talking about this sort of thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Electric_Bell then the motion is not SHM, it changes direction suddenly when the ball hits the bell.

1 how much air do you want to ionise? 2 there is no difference between air ionised in a lab or by nature. (How would it "remember" how it was ionised?") A thunderbolt is ionised, natural, and likely to kill you.

You might be, but the rest of us are posting in a thread about suitable chemistry for a beginner. Incidentally, the Romans knew that asbestos was bad for people. We relatively recently discovered that sulphuric acid - which you suggested earlier- is a carcinogen.

I'd sooner hold the conversation here. It means that others might also benefit. It means that, when I make a mistake, others can correct it. You don't need to "prove" anything: legally- if you are dumb enough to lie- you take the consequences.

That rather depends on the metal: ever seen a "mercury in glass" thermometer? A lot of laboratory work shows that you are wrong.

I would not say anything that will rapidly burn holes in people and would only help make other chemicals if you also has the appropriate equipment which a beginner will lack.

It seems that you have failed to account for the eye having a very large dynamic range, Even without help from the pupil, it can cover a large range of lighting conditions. The pupil then (generally) helps a bit more. Expt 2 shows how clever your brain is.

It is a matter of semantics: does the tap control the flow of water, or is it the person who opens and closes the tap who controls it. Neither the person nor the tap controls the flow without the action of the other.

Interesting point. I think that reflex actions normally only get as far as the spinal column before being re-routed back. But I don't see how that could happen with the eye. The point may be moot, some (admittedly unorthodox) viewpoints hold that the eye is part of the brain.

How hot was the glass when it was made?

Not all computers use numbers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer

The govt could counter-sue on the basis that making healthcare unduly expensive kills a lot of people and thus amounts to corporate manslaughter. At the least, that's a convincing argument to get voter support for change.

I don't know many hop heads, but based on a sample of one (Tkadm30) it seems that they have limited social skills in that they are unable to follow local etiquette, For example, by cherry picking data, failing to make his question clear, and ignoring previous information. Those actions are impolite on a science web page.

As I have pointed out before, the idea that smoking dope fine tunes anything is the sort of think you only believe while smoking. Seriously, a few billion year's worth of evolution worked to make your brain pretty damned good, and you still think you can improve it by getting stoned?

It's very hard to tell what Trump wants (rather than what he says).

Eating salty stuff makes you thirsty That makes you drink more That makes you wee more. Why is this news?

Yes; they call it "disenfranchising".

I'm sure they said that about ACA. People can be re-educated,