John Cuthber

Your "logic" consists of thinking that words mean the same that they did over 100 years ago, calling professors pseudoscientists and not being able to count the races that you think exist. We can refute it. We did.

That you think that the definitions of words have not changed since his time. Who are you to say it's pseudoscience?

Have you actually read Darwin's stuff? If you have, you will notice that many words have changed their definitions and use since then. Particularly in the realms of biology. Fine, He's a Marxist. And according to wiki " From 1973 to 1998, he held an endowed chair in zoology and biology at Harvard University, and since 2003 has been a research professor there." So, in response to being warned about casting slurs on people, you just described a Harvard research professor as a "pseudoscientist". Wouldn't it be easier if you just left the site?

If that were how "people" defined it, you would have a point. But it's how only you define it. Actually, they define it like this " noun noun: race; plural noun: races each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics. " But, it's far from clear that there are "major divisions" within mankind. BTW, do you remember being reminded about slurs against groups of people? Presumably not or you wouldn't have opened this thread with this "Marxist pseudoscientists have advanced a number of fallacious or arbitrary arguments to attempt to invalidate the idea. " Would you prefer to withdraw it, or to try to demonstrate that it's true?

If your car goes wrong, is stops moving, and that's not a problem. If your flying car stops then it drops out of the sky...

Well, since we are all human (if you go back far enough) we share all our ancestors and are thus the same race. IQ is a poor surrogate for intelligence, well known to be culturally biassed. So, how do you propose to do science on the basis of essentially "made up stuff". Face it; race is not a scientifically valid term, (except, possibly, in psychology) and thus it is not a valid field for discussion on a scientific web site.

It's not a theory in the scientific sense. On a good day, and with a following wind, it might just count as an hypothesis.

A thread that talks about "race" and "intelligence" without starting of by scientifically defining both words (or referencing a definition) is unscientific. The observation that, for example, skin colour is correlated with success in answering the questions of an IQ test is not the same as scientific evidence that race is related to intelligence.

This is "homework help",rather than doing your homework for you. What do you think happens, and why? What does acetylcholinesterase do? What does an enzyme inhibitor do?

"I see im going nowhere, i will have to study everthing by myself" Yes, you are going nowhere and you should study. I suggests that you study as part of a group, rather than by yourself, but studying on your own would also work. "I realy dont care about the UFO part. I only want to know if is possible" You have been told several times that it is not possible. If that is all you care about, why carry on asking? "i know that is Gyroscopes, and the thing it does is basicly turn a heavy thing more ligth." No, they do not. "Please dont joke around because I may not be the best writer but im serius about this." We are usually very good at accepting English that is not very good- we understand that not everyone here speaks English as their first language. As long as we can understan, the language does not matter very much. But what you are saying is just wrong.

The whole basis of the thread- it's title- refers (unclearly) to the conservation laws. How can you say that the mathematical proof of those laws is not your theme? The point is that the conservation laws can be proven mathematically and that's the opposite of what you say. You are wrong. Explaining that is not a "sidetrack", it's a requirement of the forum rules.

Hair is dead. I never bother with gel.

Thank you for further clarifying your lack of understanding. Pick a number. Specifically, pick a number that you think might be the "right answer". Imagine you set the pressure regulator at that pressure. And then imagine that I have connected the output from the regulator to a length of copper pipe -well able to hold that pressure. But, since I'm awkward that way. I have folded the end of the pipe over and soldered it closed. No gas can possibly flow through it because it is sealed shut. Please explain how you can have a flow rate of 15 litres per minute in these circumstances. OK so now I drill a very small hole in the pipe. That lets a little gas through. What pressure does it take to drive 15 litres per minute through a "very small hole"? Obviously, the answer depends on how big "very small" is. Do you now understand why you were wrong? phdinfunk essentially you need to know the "resistance" of the system- the size of the "very small hole". Without that it is equivalent to asking "what voltage do I need to get a current of 15 milliamps?" If I was a bit more nearly sober I could answer the question for the case of " a 2 mm hole" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choked_flow

"why is plastic surgery frowned upon?" I wasn't aware that it was: but vanity is frowned on.

Your understanding is wrong. Also, if the OP understands electronics then Studiot's explanation will probably help greatly.

It depends on the solvent (or lack of one).

That's pretty much the opposite of what I said. What I said was "More people get killed by anti drug legislation than by drugs." and that's what I meant. People die of overdoses because the drugs are not subject to legal control of their quality. People die in gang fights because the gangs deal in drugs because there's a lot of money in drug dealing because you have to bribe or otherwise evade the law. And so on. If the anti-drug legislation were not there much of the direct reason for the deaths would go away.

Very roughly, at pH 13 assuming it is all NaOH you must have a solution that's about 0.1 M and to neutralise it you would need about a tenth of it's volume of the HCl (which is roughly ten times more concentrated). That means about 30 litres. A better approach might sometimes be to ask how much NaOH you added in the first place. Each gram of NaOH will need 25 ml of 1M HCl to neutralise it. In any event, beware that the mixture will get a bit warm, and more importantly, that it will probabaly fizz and foam. (because the NaOH will have picked up CO2 from the air to make Na2CO3 and when you add acid that will decompose and give the CO2 back again.) Try it with 300 ml and 30 ml of acid + see how far that gets you. Also, remember that it is nothing like linear. The pH vs added acid will look something like the Titration curves for strong acid v strong base here http://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/acidbaseeqia/phcurves.html It drops like a rock, just about where you want to control it.

More people get killed by anti drug legislation than by drugs. Were you not aware of that?

Why bother? Rain water was never anything but near saturated with oxygen. You plan to run ozone through it- which will decompose to oxygen. How much air do you think you can add?

Because blowing air- which has bacteria laden dust in it- through the water will increase the bug count?

Enough time and enough ozone will destroy any organics. If I was collecting rain water for drinking I'd be more concerned about microbiology than chemistry.

Water will do. It needs to be hot and under pressure. But that's the way they grow quartz crystals for watches and such.

He did say it's a system, though i have to say not many uses spring to mind.

Since, even though I have explained why it's so important, you won't tell us what your approach t is, I presume that it's even more embarrassing than what I suggested. Incidentally, how did you rule out tidal effects?