John Cuthber

Fire is not a "thing" it is a process.

This probably sounds like a stupid question but; who are you? The right answer for a teacher isn't the same as that for a pupil, and in either case it would depend on the age of the class.

Ask Paracelsus.

The Law of Leviticus was (and remains, according to what Matthew said about Christ's words) the law of God. What did you think it was? The law of the local metropolitan council? I read it; it makes no sense. Why have a big long record of A begat B and so on, but miss some out? If any of them is worth remembering, then they all are. However this also leads to another interestignproblem. If reading the list of begettings gives you the wrong answer, how do you know that reading the rest of (the whole or any part of) the Bible doesn't also lead to the wrong answer for essentially the same reason? Or were you just "cherrypicking"?

Rock dissolves in water, rather better than most people expect. If you remove the water, you are left with the rock. If the sandy stuff reacts with vinegar to produce bubbles of gas, that would suggest that it's mainly limestone- but other rocks are also options.

Yuu may not have heard; but that's down to your lack of research, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumblebee#Misconception_about_flight Well, you say it's lunacy to claim that bees can't fly- and you are right. Then you make the essentially similar claim that dinosaurs couldn't walk. What should I deduce from that? The issue was, of course nothing to do with bees- the problem was with the engineering model. They recognised this. Do you?

This " also i still doubt that in a engineering point of view the dinosaurs could walk today in our planet with the current conditions." reminds me of the claim that aeronautical engineering says that bumble bees can't fly.

In particular, why do you want to fry England with a technique that will fail if it is cloudy.

I did For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. It seems to me that he was citing Christ as saying things were not changing

None. It is perfectly possible to do electrolysis without nitric oxide or nitric acid. It might help if you said what you are actually trying to do.

Relatively speaking an elephant's legs are thin. https://www.flickr.com/photos/74554875@N03/6979367643

Really big bones https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/93e7ed406f1c970dfb3597714282f2cb5464f974/0_0_1632_2447/master/1632.jpg?w=620&q=20&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&dpr=2&s=2d089a1aed0450dbeef89701ae9a2557

reading this might inform Tracey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_winds Ditto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force and loc cit.

Let's face it; nobody had to invent a conflict- there is one. This pretty much sums it up

Do you know how much energy and money it takes to put something in space?

Unfortunately, that seems to be some bollocks you made up, rather than anything to do with, for example, Einstein. Would you like to try citing some sort of evidence? The current contender for "shortest half life ever recorded" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_hydrogen#Hydrogen-7 was set long after Eintein's death. So it can't be relevant- can it?

No he didn't describe photosynthesis. And, while he missed out the fact that the Earth's rotation is a major factor, he did answer your question. Probably, but this one is quite funny- perhaps we should keep it as a pet for a while. We can always flush it if we get bored of playing.

LOL It's another of those "you are horrid and you smell of wee" replies I sometime get. It's so funny I'm almost tempted to vote it up. "You have no understanding of this field of science and should not have answered at all." Get yourself a mirror. "Your supposedly a chemist expert and probably never even heard of the Solvay conference" Which one? There were quite a lot. Many of them focused on physics- so I'd hardly be expected to know about them as a Chemist- and yet I seem to know more than you do. "...or let alone know what Einstein's E-isotope is" There may be a reason for that. Nobody seems to know what it is. Would you like to explain? "In1905, a team of construction workers in the small village of Shoreham, New York labored to erect a truly extraordinary structure. Over a period of several years the men had managed to assemble the framework and wiring for the 187-foot-tall Wardenclyffe Tower, in spite of severe budget shortfalls and a few engineering snags. The project was overseen by its designer, the eccentric-yet-ingenious inventor Nikola Tesla (10 July 1856 – 7 January 1943). Atop his tower was perched a fifty-five ton dome of conductive metals, and beneath it stretched an iron root system that penetrated more than 300 feet into the Earth’s crust. “In this system that I have invented, it is necessary for the machine to get a grip of the earth,” he explained, “otherwise it cannot shake the earth. It has to have a grip… so that the whole of this globe can quiver." Copying something irrelevant from another web page doesn't make you look clever. But thanks for citing the source- most ranters don't bother. It's noteworthy that Tesla's ideas about that were wrong. It would never have worked. As has been pointed out, you can use the Earth as a ground electrode- but it's hellishly "lossy". If you actually knew any science (rather than knowing crtl x and ctrl v) you would realise that. "almost any source of energy can be turned into electrical energy" Yes, but there has to be a source of energy and, in general, mud isn't a very good one. "go back to memorizing the periodic table " I never bothered- one can always look it up. It seems you forgot to read the rest of my post- which gave the information to back it up. Pointing out that you are flat out wrong is providing information.At least I presume you forgot to read it; the alternative is that you read it, then lied about it. What you should have done was provide evidence. Let me know when something changes. "the guy from warsand, poland how is suppressing matter in it's purest forms not being clear" You just broke my irony meter.

Word salad.

" I know that objects can be moved with radio technology" Nope. Or, at least, not in any practical sense. "f a radio tower that drew it's source of energy from the earth or a geologically strategic point could this have serious consequences. " Radio transmission towers draw energy from the electricity supply. They pay for that, just the same way you pay your electricity bill. This " if the earth at a certain coordinate is suppressed of all energy " doesn't make sense. "could this be used to our advantages such as moving from one place to another?" No.

Is the guy in the OP following the instructions from his sat nav?

There is some physics etc to be discussed. For example, the tiny people would find it very difficult to keep warm because of their much greater ratio of surface area to mass. They would (like small mammals) have to keep eating almost all the time in order to get enough energy. yet in the book there are suggestions of meals etc more or less like ours. That's not possible. There are other effects of small size that would make a real difference to how these Lilliputian people lived. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allometry Their Brobdingnagian counterparts wouldn't be any better off. If they got out of bed their leg bones would snap under the weight.

The heat capacity of the metals typically used in spoons is a lot lower than that of the water that makes up most of the coffee. Convection currents will agitate the coffee until it is cold. But viscosity will stop the coffee rotating fairly shortly after you stop stirring- so that effect is also small. I don't stir my coffee so vigorously that I get bubbles in it. It's unclear whether (if I did) the incorporated air would speed up the cooling process through enhanced evaporation, or slow it down due to insulation. In principle, if you stir the cold coffee long enough and hard enough, you will heat it back up again.

Who says this, and do they know what they are talking about?

"What's wrong with my P = NP proof?" The first thing that's wrong is that we can't see it. That puts it in breach of the rules you signed up to when you joined They say "and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. " Please post a copy of the proof- or at least some sort of summary, here where we can discuss it.