John Cuthber

All of them; at least indirectly.

There was a talk I went to about mindfulness. They cited studies that showed all sorts of benefits. At the end I asked what the reference interventions had been in those studies. They were rather embarrassed and said there weren't any. This whole area is full of bad studies, partly because it's difficult to make good studies, and partly because bad ones sell more books. In what other field could someone seriously post on a science forum that they believe something because it was said to have worked for two people (presumably, having met neither of those people)?

They did once- but that was a sign of the times. http://www.shmoop.com/history-labor-unions/race.html They don't now. It's a bit like you pretending that the Democrats have not changed since the civil war You berate Hilary for being a liar and a crook, yet you seem to overlook the fact that Trump is also a liar and a crook. That's enough hypocrisy to write yo off as unworthy of discussion. If you won't vote for her because she's crooked (so it's claimed- there's no actual evidence though is here) then you shouldn't vote for Trump should you? And Sanders is still not a socialist- no matter how many times you say it.

I don't see how there could be a valid experimental design. How do you rule out the placebo effect?

there are essentially two ways we measure mass. either we hang it on some sort of spring- which we calibrate against the gravitational attraction of 9in the end) a lump of metal kept in France. And the other way we do it is to measure charge to mass ratios in various sorts of accelerators. But you can only do the "hang it on a balance" type of measurement on something which is uncharged, and you can only od the "mass spectrometer" thing on something which is charged. So you can never strictly reconcile the two measurements. In the case of the oil drop experiment, the assumption is made (quite reasonably) that the change in mass of the oil drop when it picks up an electron (or more likely an ionised atom or molecule of air) is very small. The mass of the electron isn't included in that calculation because it's entirely negligible compared to that of even the smallest oil drops.

And we know the mass of the earth from how much it attracts thing- we gate a value for the gravitational constant G by experiments like Cavendish's. But if the electron doesn't have a gravitational mass then our measurement of G will be exactly wrong enough to calcel ot the "error" you say we would see.

It's difficult to know what neutrons are up to since they fall apart and aren't affected by electromagnetic fields.

I'm not sure they do recognise that the "Wall" is silly; they believe what Fox News tells them. It's true that if they used their "average intelligence" they could work out that it's absurd. But they are not taught to think (anything but if the GOP can arrange it. https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=gop%20critical%20thinking And I really don't think they understand economics well enough to realise that, even though he is rude about Mexicans, he's not on their side. If they really understood, they wouldn't vote Republican

I can't see a way round the problem. If you have enough charge that you have a meaningful excess (or deficit) of electrons to weigh, then you have a relatively huge electrostatic effect. An electron, on a table in the lab is subject (we presume) to a gravitational pull of about 10^-31 N And it's electrostatically attracted to the Earth (assumed to be conducting , a metre away, and near enough flat to make the maths easy) by a force of about 0.6x10^-28 N And it's attracted to just about everything else (for example, the experimenter) by a comparable force And that's assuming you can "stop" a single electron in the middle of a vacuum chamber a metre or so across (you would probably need to go with something like the middle of a 100 metre vacuum chamber to get the charge effects significantly smaller than the gravitational ones.) Even with a (much heavier) proton, you still have a huge problem because gravity is such a small force.

People who say things like "Personally, I could hardly imagine a law obeident person who would very want to hide law obeident data behind an unbreakable encryption. " and "if you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide" should be deprived of clothes and made to live their life in full view of the public until they realise they were wrong. (and that's before I get started on spelling "obedient" correctly)

Disturbed or deliberately mislead.

Actually, light sources on earth often exhibit a Doppler effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_broadening

Progressive is a good word for it; he's a step in the correct direction. But he's not actually Left. The US seems to have a few interesting "issues" 1 socialism isn't a bad thing. Without some element of helping each other, you die out as a species.* 2 there are no Left wing politicians in the US. There are "a bit Right", "a lot Right" and "bat-shit crazy Right" politicians. 3 Your media are stacked up with the third of those groups. 4 You think it's a good idea to export these views. * it's interesting to note that the US probably hands out more in social spending per capita than just about any other county but, rather than conventionally allocating it to some sort of "paying out social security payments" department they hand it to the department of defence who hand it out via the military industrial complex which essentially uses it to buy bombs and planes, then employs people to fly them round then scraps them. Seriously, that's the real reason why your military expenditure is higher than the sum of the next dozen or so other countries. There isn't a plausible military reason for that. It kind-of works, but it's hugely bad for the environment and it does mean that your biggest beneficiaries from social welfare spending are the heads of large businesses. You seem not to have noticed that your taxpayers are giving a lot of money to people who are already very rich, rather than those actually in need of help.

Why all the pointless pictures? It took me a while to find your actual question in all that clutter. "not moving respect to what ?" WRT the observer. And don't tell us to do our homework The idea doesn't make sense. If you are asking us for help then it's because you know more than you do. So you know that we have already done our homework. You are the one who needs to learn.

The highest reported incidence of atheism in Europe seems to be France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism (I was a bit surprised by that) The lowest reported incidence of "I believe there is a God" is the Czech republic. So, if you are looking fr somewhere that might ban the God-botherers I'd suggest France. But, in the mean time, the place where the smallest fraction of the population think there's a God about whom you should think, it's the Czech republic. In general the USA looks to be a bad place for being an atheist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_the_United_States#Tables But,overall, if you really want "freedom" it seems you have to go to China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_China My personal preference is to stay in the UK and try to convert those who knock on my door and ask me if I have thought about God. My dad's policy is a bit different. He invites them in, offers them tea, coffee or fruit juice (not all of them drink stimulants like caffeine). Then he listens patiently and, at the end they usually comment that it's unusual for someone to be so considerate. He then explains that, since he's old and alone, he doesn't have much else to do and he knows that while they are talking to him, they are not bothering anyone with more important things to do.

It's actually an interesting question. Imagine, for example, that the electron has inertial mass, but not gravitational mass. How would you know? All determinations of the gravitational constant G are made using macroscopic lumps of uncharged matter. So every electron is accompanied by several thousand times its mass of nucleons. It's not clear how we could tell if all the "G" we measure is due to the heavy bits. We can measure the inertial mass of electrons (etc) with a mass spectrometer- but that's got nothing to do with the determination of their tendency to "fall" under gravity.

"Physics ( fact Y) micheslon morley = DOPPLER) " No, not really, a MM interferometer still works when it's not moving. Instead of posting lots of pictures, please explain what question you want an answer to.

But, by the standards of everyone else in the world, Sanders is barely socialist. Obama and (H) Clinton are not socialists. They are to the right of Reagan. So, where's the " socialist chanting" coming from? (And that's before we address the fact that Trump simply can't "make Mexico pay") "Socialist" does not mean "slightly to the Left of galloping insanity".

Really? Can you cite some sort of evidence for that?

"If someone could tell me what it is soluble in i would really enjoy that." I doubt that.

No they do not. http://www.boconline.co.uk/en/sheq/safety-data-sheets/index.html

You seem to think that we already understand what you are asking. We do not. Please start from the beginning. Tell us what you want to know.

How does the proposed code differ from this (which is proven to be uncrackable)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad

It's my understanding that people in rural France eat dandelions as a salad vegetable. It's also my belief that (in spite of the word "dandelion" being derived from the French for "Lion's tooth") they call the plant "pis en lit" which means piss in bed. So it's possible that some young child somewhere in France is sat at the dinner table and is offered some salad and offers a reply in an exchange that translates as "More bed-wetting dear?" " No thanks, I'm trying to give it up" I understand that you can dry and roast the roots then grind the result to give something from which you can make pretend "coffee". They did this during WWII when the real thing was in short supply A friend of mine tried it. Apparently the result is revoltingly bitter. Meanwhile, back at the topic, I suspect the mass of gasoline per acre needed would be a lot bigger than the mass of , for example, glyphosate. So, even if gasoline were less toxic on a weight for weigh basis (which I doubt) it would still be more toxic on a field for field basis. If you have the patience to carefully apply a few drops of gas to each plant, just ri the top off instead. If you repeat this every few days they die eventually. Of course, digging them up is quicker in the long run.

So is beer.