John Cuthber

Why is that a problem? Does your country have a shortage of selfish people? Either their money is currently in your country- in which case you can keep it there, or it is invested elsewhere in the world, and thus not doing your country any real good.

Probably the very low water content among other things.

The obvious way to do it is to play white against one and black against the other + copy the other player's move. However, I suspect that a Grandmaster might refuse to play under those conditions; a computer wouldn't.

I suspect I could only do that if the grandmasters were computer programs. I also think that the fact that Tom thought an on-line 20 question test was a reasonable measure of IQ tells you more about his intelligence than his score.

OK, the satellite has a mass of 70Kg- the same as me. What's the orbital radius and period (show your working) Also show what they would be for a blue whale with a mass of 140 tonnes (you may ignore the fact that blue whales boil in space). For additional credit, please how the orbital characteristics of the whale which is tied to a pallet of 170 tonnes of lead bricks.

It doesn't seem to matter how often I do that "test" my "IQ" seems to stick at 160. I don't really trust it for precision and / or accuracy.

My friend Carl plays chess at county level. For a living, he copies details from paper forms into a computer database. Good at chess <> high achiever <> high intelligence <>happy. IQ tests tell you if you can do IQ tests or not; nothing else. Incidentally, I'm really crap at chess. A competent 10 year old would probably beat me. I might do that IQ test later .

"To be honest I have always had a phobia of IQ tests even though I have a 1700 chess rating, decoded the Voynich to Middle English and recently came up with a Grand Unification Theory. To be honest I think I'm humble when I meet face to face with people, but online I believe I may come across as arrogant, but that is my own perception." Based on what you have posted here "decoded the Voynich to Middle English " No you haven't, and "came up with a Grand Unification Theory." No you haven't. " online I believe I may come across as arrogant," Yes, you do. " but that is my own perception." Not uniquely.

I look forward to you supplying some evidence for why you believe that. In the meantime, it looks like nonsense.

Just for the record, voting a post down doesn't address the issues raised in it, nor does it alter any factual points made. The stuff you cited in post 19 does not support your contention.

"This analogy does not apply to my opening statement in the first Title of my post. " Yes it does: you just don't understand it. "I'm merely stating that all the forces share angular momentum within each of their fields across time. " You are indeed, merely stating it. You are not supporting it with evidence - and, since it doesn't make sense, we can dismiss it. And the evidence suggests that Strange understands the concept of angular momentum better than you do. indeed, at the risk of damning Strange by too faint praise, the evidence suggests that next door's cat understands angular momentum better than you do; because you plainly don't and Felix might.

I think most of us would put some effort into not being associated with it because it is nonsense. There's nothing creditworthy to take credit for.

Why do you imagine that I'm the one who needs educating? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Clearly bollocks. "Love and sexual orientation are evidences that we have free will over our thoughts. " No, it demonstrates the opposite. Plenty of people fall in love with "unsuitable" partners.Think of Romeo and Juliet. They would, generally, prefer to fall for someone more attainable- but they don't have any choice in the matter. That's because it's down to chemistry in teh brain- rather than logic or common sense. And this "he mind/matter connection is not directed by genes, and thinking consciousness is nothing but a electrochemical soup is incorrect. You have to consider macroscopic quantum-like effects in the phenomenology of love, to understand how/why love is "quantum energy". " is word salad.

I'm waiting for the OP to answer this very neat summary of why he's wrong. Over to you, Tom,

http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibFormula.html#section1

The air will provide adequate screening from a source emitting 80 to 90nm UV from a UV safety point of view. The photolysis porducts of the air- ozone etc- would be a much bigger problem. The big problem you face is finding anything transparent to make the "bulb" from. You will be looking at things like differential pumping to get this to work. This is an extraordinary technical challenge and it's just not in the reach of an amateur experimenter. What are you actually trying to do?

"If I want to refer to someone who works at a computer store or a shoe store," ... "shop assistant."

So, no real evidence of an effect- just an anecdote.

Funny looking chloroform with just one chlorine.

How did you control for the placebo effect?

The problem is that each electron transferred takes an atom/ion of the alkali metal. So, for a given charge the mass of material needed is (broadly) proportional to the atomic weight. About 7 for Li, 23 for Na and 39 for K Batteries made using lithium are lightweight. Also ( though less critically) the voltage (and thus energy) is slightly higher for Li than the other alkali metals. Fundamentally, Lithium is really good at this. One aspect of good news- the recovery of lithium from spent cells should be pretty near 100% Also this might help- though I fel sorry for the wildlife https://www.technologyreview.com/s/538036/quest-to-mine-seawater-for-lithium-advances/

What you need is a lot of sodium peroxide, or a sink.

I have seen it on both my machines : Windows 10 and (yes, really) Windows 3.1

True, but not a lot to do with the OP.