John Cuthber

Why do you assume (1) that life has a meaning and (2) that your view on the matter has any significance?

Not always; it depends if the failure kills you, maims someone, or gets you arrested.

Not really.

Mr Trump makes it just too easy to show how daft the Republicans are. In his latest outburst he confirms that he wants to torture people for political gain. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/02/06/donald-trump-waterboarding-debate/79951320/ It's long been known that torture isn't a valid way to get information https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22830471-200-torture-doesnt-work-says-science-why-are-we-still-doing-it/ but that doesn't stop him. So, since the torture isn't to stop terrorism or crime, it can only be to boost his poll ratings.

So far, you have sent 3 PMs Only one had an answer in, and that was very wrong so it's just as well you didn't post it here. I'd offer to help Itoero but I really think that people who don't understand the basics shouldn't play with explosives.

If you like, but perhaps you should explain to the OP why the question isn't as simple as it looks. You might also want to say why the number of moles matters much.

Since you have asked that question, I presume you can answer it. How many moles do you think it is? I have to admit I don't know. If you also don't know, why did you ask?

why do you want to miss out the fun of being an undergraduate student?

Tar, do you actually red what you write before you post it. Things like this suggest that you don't. OK, the first sentence (But the tea party was a reaction to Obama.) makes sense but I couldn't even parse the rest f it, never mind understand it. Since you are trying to put across a viewpoint with which it seems many people disagree, you are doing yourself no favours by being so unclear.

An example of fireflies being able to deliberately synchronise because their reaction times are much faster than the flashing rate. It's got nothing to do with the issue. A more practical way to look at this would be to have something like an electric organ driving two loudspeakers with identical signals. If you do that then yes, you can observe "dead spots" where the signals cancel out.

If we - or birds- have a magnetic sense then using it isn't "extra sensory" perception. so it's pretty much irrelevant to the thread.

" the compound still 'sticks' to the glass for a good while."Is interesting... I look forward to comparable data from others. Just for completeness, could you repeat the experiment with a time delay of- perhaps an hour- to address the idea where some volatile compound is involved?

Is there any actual evidenced reason why this thread should continue? It's been made clear that EE won't do an experiment that might prove him wrong...

And your evidence is... Seriously, did you think you would be able to say that on a science web site without being taken to the cleaners?

If some model says " their dielectric permittivity start to approach infinity." then you know it's wrong.

Great! An actual experiment Now, can I ask you to just leave the mask until tomorrow and see if whatever does the trick evaporates? If it doesn't then we have eliminated all the volatile chemicals as possible explanations.

Actually, the brain is horribly inefficient- it barely uses any more energy while you are thinking about something than when you are asleep. Nice try at avoiding actually doing the experiment though.

OK, so think about something else- try to remember your seventeen times table or something.

Well, Now I have a dilemma. I have been told that letting people solve problems for themselves is good. And, I have had a solution demanded of me So I don't know whether or not I should say that, were I researching surfactant properties of saliva, I'd look at mucopolysaccharides. What do people think?

Grow plants and make charcoal.

Since you are the most likely cause of air currents (see my earlier post which you seem to have ignored) it is no surprise that you don't see the wheel move when you are far from it. Could you address the other points I made please?

Oops! I apologise for the confusion. Studiot has posted a clip that describes the atmosphere - up to about 80KM as being made from 4 layers. And also posted a link http://wordpress.mrreid.org/2014/08/01/the-composition-of-earths-atmosphere-with-elevation/ which shows the composition being consistent up to about 100Km. "Up to around 100?km the composition is fairly “normal”, in that it’s what we surface-dwellers would expect: mostly molecular nitrogen (N2 rather than N) and molecular oxygen (O2) with a small amount (0.93%) of argon and traces of some other gases (carbon dioxide, neon, etc.)." And I said that " all those 4 layers have essentially the same concentration of N2, O2, Ar, and CO2. (The water vapour concn is very much more variable)" (the fact that the graphic actually shows more than 4 layers is likely to cause confusion; the troposphere, ozone layer, stratosphere and mesosphere all have pretty much the same concentrations of CO2) And yet I'm told "This was made in response to my showing the GCSE classification into four layers where they classify the top layer as 'mainly charged particles' Yet you are adament that this layer has the same composition as the others." Well, what I'm adamant about is that all the air they depict in those lowest 4 layers- and that's the great majority of the world's air- has pretty much the same composition. It certainly doesn't settle out to any observable degree because of air currents and, even if those currents were somehow abolished, the "stratification" would be very small.

OK I will call you on that. What false statement(s) have I made? I might be guilty of a bit of hyperbole about mashed potatoes etc - but my point was still valid in that your suggested course of action was deeply flawed. And, come to thin of it I have certainly ignored some of the things you have said- but a point by point refutation takes more time than I think it's worth. Am I allowed to mention that in the PM you sent, you said that I had called another poster here a liar (strictly, you said a "lair", but I'm assuming that was a typo) even though I had already shown that wasn't the case? And why are you still digging?

"The atmosphere Layers in the atmosphere The atmosphere is the layer of gas around the Earth. The atmosphere can be divided into four parts:" Or not. But, even if you do, all those 4 layers have essentially the same concentration of N2, O2, Ar, and CO2. (The water vapour concn is very much more variable) And it remains the case that you were claiming the atmosphere settles into layers with the dense gases enriched at the bottom, because of gravity. Well, if it did that to any meaningful degree we would all suffocate. We don't; therefore it doesn't. Why are you still digging?

How did you independently verify this "My breathing is steady, and I control it well so not to move the wheel with it, " " there are no air currents in my apartment," Yes there are. If nothing else your body heat will set up thermal currents. Since you have made it clear that you don't even understand where air currents come from, it's clear that you won't have avoided them. So any "work" you have done is void.