John Cuthber

Proof? No, but I used paint which is free and lets you do it really badly.

Or there may have been a layer of unicorn droppings. The thing is that I can assert that the unicorn manure layer is right with just as much evidence as Granpa has put forward for his idea.

"All planets from 1 Jupiter Mass to 60 Jupiter masses have the same radius. " Got any evidence for that?

Why not let our diplomats get on with what they are good at, and leave chess to the people who are good chess players. Why choose chess? Why not teach them sumo wrestling; it makes just as much sense?

It's a fairly thin wire so corona discharge would remove most static slowly and safely. Also, the capacitance is fairly small( again, because it's thin) There's no good reason to imagine that it would be that goos a conductor. Also, again, since it's thin there's not much area for it to loose heat from so loss to space would be small.

I'm a little surprised that the solution (assuming that's an optimum) isn't symmetrical.

"While at the bottom of the water the ball is made to displace an additional volume bringing down its density to 900kgm-3" How?

Not a very strong stimulant (in terms of wakefulness) and tolerance develops quite fast.

I think you may be asking in as good a place as any, but it's a very hard question.

No, Imagine it was a premiership side playing a schools' under 16 side. The odds would be nothing like 50:50. In any realistic football game the odds might be pretty close to 50%, but one side is almost certain to be "favourite"

It "explains " them in terms of some sort of "dimensions"- which are not explained. It's as much use as saying "light works the way it does because of the thingyness of the whatsit.". You don't end up with a better understanding, Sensei: Good idea about explaining what a theory is. These people have done it much better than I could https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Actually I was talking about the much simpler classical one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations#Vacuum_equations.2C_electromagnetic_waves_and_speed_of_light It allows you to calculate the speed of light from electrical measurements without actually measuring light. That indicates that it has some fundamental"reality" to it (because, if you do the calculation and make the measurements you get the same answer either way) can your idea do anything like that? What advantage(s) can you find for your idea? Does it make verifiable predictions? Does it explain things that were not explained by other theories? If it can't do that sort of thing, what use is it? As I said; you do not have a theory- you have a guess.

No it isn't. You can obviously miss out any one link between two holes and still have all of them connected. I'm fairly sure I can do it with 4.828 units

"Is motorbike riding more dangerous than driving on a car?" God knows, but if you mean in (rather than on) then the answer is simple. The insurance companies think so.

Electrolysis of washing soda (sodium carbonate) solution should give hydrogen and oxygen at the electrodes. It is likely that if the electrodes are copper the positive one will be corroded (by the oxygen). You could always try it and find out.

We already have a very good theory for electromagnetism. Why is this new hypothesis (its is not a theory) better? Please show us ho you would use it to calculate the speed of light. If it can't do that then it's not as good as the current theory based on Maxwells's work.

Because Europe is our biggest trading partner most manufacturers will still have to comply with REACH. However we will have given up our seat at the table so we will no longer be in a position to influence decisions, for example, to ask ECHA to think again about TiO2. You may remember that the Brexiteers thought we were "taking back" power from Brussels.

The classification related to the evidence that it may be a carcinogen; perhaps it is. If it causes cancer then saying so is just telling the truth. Why do you see that as a problem? It does not relate to any sensible controls on the material- far less banning it. Obviously, if it's not a carcinogen (and there'es an interesting question about what variety they checked) then it's a bad idea to list it as one. If there's insufficient evidence (Personally I think that's the case) then there's a separate category for that. Why are you getting so upset about a proposal (which may well fail anyway) to put TiO2 in the same carcinogen category as sunshine, sand, beer the pill?

Well, that can be dismissed without further consideration since it's an unsupported opinion. At best it shows that she made a mistake. That's not news. Is there any sensible reason to believe that there was ever a president who didn't make mistakes?

Would that change the fact that you have not cited any evidence?

The presence of that phrase in lists like this one leads me to wonder why you are asking. http://www.legislation.gov.hk/blis_ind.nsf/CurAllEngDoc/89FF224D99D1F97748257FCA0007601F?OpenDocument

No, I'm an Oxford educated civil servant. Why did you think that was important? Unlike Hillary I don't have a bunch of security adviser helping me- so I have to remember the stuff myself.

Did you see my post?

I have been a civil servant for nigh 30 years and I'm not sure what the classification markings are. Here's the guidance https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/251480/Government-Security-Classifications-April-2014.pdf And it tells you that "HMG information assets may be classified into three types:" And then it tells you that these THREE classifications are (among others) Unclassified Protect Official Official sensitive, Secret UK secret Top Secret TOP SECRET – UK / US EYES ONLY I presume that the US equivalent is comparable. A document that falls within this sort of classification may also be classified under the EU's requirements TRÈS SECRET UE/EU TOP SECRET SECRET UE/EU SECRET CONFIDENTIEL UE/EU CONFIDENTIAL: RESTREINT UE/EU RESTRICTED: and also those of NATO. COSMIC TOP SECRET (CTS), NATO SECRET (NS), NATO CONFIDENTIAL (NC), and NATO RESTRICTED where the distinctions between the categories do not align between the various organisations (the words are the same, but the definitions aren't quite). And, of course, from time to time, they change. So can you blame anyone for not knowing what security classification a document might be?

We are, in general, the genetic result of a race between millions of sperm. We are already pretty nearly a random choice. So, as I said, it's a nice idea: but it's not a requirement that our children are genetically related to us and our partners. plenty of people adopt.