John Cuthber

How hard did you look? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_velocity#Physics

It may be more practical to drop a collection of molecules at the same time, say a million million million million of them.

Not strictly, but the change in concentration(s) with altitude would be tiny. You are, in effect, comparing the kinetic energy of the molecule to it's potential energy. If you "dropped" a molecule from 1 metre in a vacuum, how fast would it hit the floor? Compare that to the speed of typical air molecules- about the speed of sound, and you see why gravity isn't going to affect them much.

It looks a lot like marketing hype to me.

Wind and convection currents mix the gases (diffusion would do it too- but more slowly)

They took our jobs while simultaneously claiming unemployment benefit!

It might be simply to keep the Al in solution as sodium aluminate.

Well, Hillary tells the truth 59.5 % of the time or more. Trunp mainly lies. Never mind Hillary for the minute. Why does Trump seem to need to lie so much? Could it be that, if he told the truth- that his policies (as far as they exist) would only benefit the rich and powerful- very few people would support him.

Harry's belief was slightly dumber than that.He accepted that some people are 6 feet and a tenth of an inch, or even a hundredth or whatever. But not exactly 6 feet.

"Do you know anyone with crazy beliefs?" Yes- at least to the extent that I know Sunshaker.

Why are you making it unnecessarily (two ns and only one c by the way) simple? For example your assertion that "The milk will cool the mixture by a fixed number of degrees, whatever temperature you add it in at." Implies that the heat capacity of the milk is not temperature dependent- that's not correct. https://syeilendrapramuditya.wordpress.com/2011/08/20/water-thermodynamic-properties/ ​Anyway, the big effect - loss of heat from the walls- is balanced by having more hot wall to lose heat from. Re. "Please note also that this is a standard high school physics experiment." Shocking as you might find this, I was once a high school student- so I know that. Why did you post it?

Except that it's actually complicated. For a start, Newtons law of cooling also says that the hate of loss of heat is proportional to the hot area. And if you put more milk in the cup, you increase the depth of tea- and thus the heated area available for heat loss. But, of course the cup above the liquid level would have been heated to some extent anyway- by conduction- but now it's being heated from a heat source at a lower temperature. Of course, because the cup is quite warm you will get convection effects too. Giving a larger surface - by having a deeper liquid level in the cup- will increase the "chimney" effect ant thus improve cooling. And of course, some of the heat is lost via the base of the cup- that's probably more nearly constant and depends on the thermal properties- specifically the thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity of the table (or whatever). If the tea was really hot (it won't be, but just to make the general point) the losses by radiation would be significant- and in that case the temperature of the liquid surface and the nature of that surface would matter. A whiter surface is a poorer radiator of heat (it has to be because it's a poorer absorber- that's Kirchoff's law Not this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_circuit_laws this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_law_of_thermal_radiation ) And then there's the fact that the fat in the milk will rise to the top and reduce evaporative losses- which might or might not be significant - depending on things like the relative humidity, the ambient temperature, the shape of the cup, local wind-speed and so on. Of course, if the milk is frothy- and it will usually have some effect on surface tension- it might act as an insulating blanket on the top of the tea and keep it warmer. Like I said- it's probably easier to get two cups, a thermometer and a stopwatch.

A newspaper is suggesting the voters should choose the late Ronald Reagan, rather than Trump. http://www.inquisitr.com/3169220/ronald-reagan-endorsed-over-donald-trump-san-diego-newspaper-urges-voters-to-write-in-dead-president-rather-than-vote-for-trump/ I tend to agree.

My Great uncle Harry used to believe that Jesus Christ was the only man who was exactly 6 feet tall. There are a number of issues with that belief. (How did anyone who is over 6" get there without being 6" in passing on the way?) My father used to laugh about Harry's foolishness. On the other hand my father gets up early on Sunday to go to church...

That's less than 2% of the lion population so "within experimental error" I'm near enough to being right. Also, sadly, I suspect that in 10 years I might be absolutely right. It doesn't matter, Deacon's post illustrates the point. In any event, I think it's possibly more right than your suggestion that "If somebody would be slightly more intelligent than average, and desperate to get a job, would investigate what criminal activities/sins made boss/manager/director of company where he/she wants to apply for a job, and "suggest" he/she would be good employee (somebody could call it "blackmailing")." Which is illegal- for good reasons. It's also more right than this "If somebody would be a lot more intelligent that them, would not bother about job, money or anything material.." Because, no matter how intelligent you are, you still need to get food housing and clothing. And it's more right than almost everything else you posted there because the stuff about someone looking for a job has- and lets be clear about this Nothing To Do With The Topic

Where that happens- and as Swansont pointed out, it is very rare- it's got nothing to do with bail. Why did you bring it up? (That's a rhetorical question- answering it in this thread would be off topic).

Humanity- through its own vanity has bred lots of different types of dogs. Imagine that, by some misfortune almost all of them were killed- perhaps some virulent disease or, given human stupidity- perhaps more likely- a government decree). Imagine that the only ones left were a bunch of Chihuahuas and a bunch of great Danes. Without help, those two groups can't interbreed. (Jokes about stepladders notwithstanding) And the definition of species (in most cases) involves groups that can't interbreed (and produce viable offspring). Well, even without the loss of all the other sizes of dogs in between, we still have two groups that can't interbreed. So, mankind has already brought about the creation of two separate species. Yet BJ Jones says it's impossible. To me , the only conclusion is that he's just not paying attention to the facts. Worse than that (in the context of a scientific site) he refuses to study the facts. Instead he says things like "I'm sorry but reading this is like spending long hours in a mortuary. I'm given to study. But give life, not death. This is why so many kids dread school. The system makes learning more of a system than a place to learn. And our professionals are dead men walking." Well, I asked it before, and I'm asking again: Mr Jones: why are you even here? You refuse to learn and you are not permitted to preach. You won't debate. Why have you not left yet?

You seem to have invented some strange concept you call "faith evidence". What does it mean? Is it faith- believing something even if nothing shows that it's true, or does it mean evidence- showing that something is true? The two concepts are more or less opposites. At one level you are right- scripture is hardly anecdotal. It isn't even that good. An anecdote is something along the lines of "I saw a burning bush". If someone said that in court it would be accepted as evidence (at least that they believed they saw it- they might be mistaken) One stage further removed "I heard John say that he saw a burning bush" is (if repeated in court) evidence that John said that- but it isn't evidence that it's true- John might have been winding me up. He might have been speaking allegorically or I might have misheard, or misunderstood him. It's not evidence that a bush burned. Legally it's described as hearsay and it is not admissible as evidence. With scripture, we don't know who saw the bush, we don't know to whom they described it, we don't know who wrote it down and we do know that all of the people who might have been involved in the process had a strong incentive to lie about it. It's a matter of Fred said that Jack said that John said that he saw a burning bush. Well, that's not evidence- it's a game of Chinese whispers. There is no other field (apart from religion) where such a statement would be taken seriously. Anywhere else it would be laughed at. So, as you say, scripture isn't anecdotal. It is useless as evidence. However I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that you think the scripture is somehow better than anecdote. Well that's nonsense- why would it be? Yet you think it is- probably because a man told you that it was- and you believed him because he was seen as some sort of authority figure. Well, to quote your own words back at you "That's prejudice. " I mean really it is- you trust an old book because you will not recognise it as just an old book.

It's complicated. Do you have two cups, a thermometer and a watch? It might be easiest to do the experiment

The lion is found wild on only one continent, that's not the case with the others. I think that provides an explanation for choosing any of them. So, it's a stupid question. What did you expect? It's part of an IQ test.

Our big brains are easy to mislead- they assume causality for observations. So, if you see the pet dog behaving oddly and later a storm arrives you assume that the dog predicted the storm. However that's a very dubious assumption. So, it looks like I'm one of the scientists who doubt that dogs do this. It seems that Velocity boy thinks it's my job to do the experiment to prove that dogs can't predict storms. Well, science holds that it's the other way round. The people claiming that dogs have this talent need to do the experiment to prove it. Until they do, it's not science. It is, of course, quite likely that a dog might hear a storm before we did. It might also smell chemicals drawn out of the ground by the drop in air pressure.

I love all the joke reasons why the answer is "elephant". Everyone knows that only the dog is an "artificial" species.

You have not answered them If you don't have time to find out, by experiment, what actually happens in the world then you will continue to not know what happens. Your choice, but don't come here and pretend to be all knowing. Even if your logic is correct (Which I doubt), you start from the wrong axioms and thus your conclusions are flawed. And religious divisions have caused a lot more wars than scientific ones have- so which group does the evidence show to be divisive? (hint- it's not science)

I am willing to bet that there is at least an order of magnitude more bandwidth devoted to porn than to claiming that it causes erectile dysfunction. My guess would be 4 orders of magnitude. So, it is not " all over the internet" So, (and you have been told this many times before) ... Before you ask us to explain something. check that the thing is actually true.

Are you aware that one of the fundamental aspect of autism is a deep hatred of change? If so, you must realise that your suggestions "Try something different" are offensive. If not, why are you commenting repeatedly on something about which you clearly know so little? On an unrelated note you might want to learn the difference between "teach" and "learn"- the irony of that failure- given your nickname- is particularly ironic.