John Cuthber

Doesn't take much thinking about.

Not in any conventional use of the word.

"sulphur vapour" gives about 11000 hits on google. What data are you looking for?

You didn't cite anything. There is a world of difference between what you first said " Wind generates 140% of Denmark electricity demand." and what you actually meant Denmark's power consumption once fell so low that it was producing 40% more wind-power than the electricity grid needed. "If US will build just a few more nuclear, hydro and wind power plants it would be sufficient to transfer most of transport to electricity." Until that happens hybrid cars don't help much.

That's nonsense. Why did you post it? Did you not understand that my point was that it never does become correct. So your suggestion that " if a person regularly makes a mistake then that "mistake" ceases to be one." is simply wrong. And, since it's your "central theme "you should accept that you are just wrong.

I presume the bit about Denmark is a typo; the figure is 40% not 140 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark At the moment fossil fuels generate about 70% of the US electrical power. And what I said was "for the moment a lot of it is fossil fuel." Why are you arguing? OK, so I should have put "etc" after solar power but... My point remains; if you run cars on electricity derived from fossil fuels then the change from cars running directly on those fuels isn't great.

Good question; is there a delete button? Every serious attempt has ended in failure. People stopped taking the idea seriously after a while. Since we know how TV works, there's nothing hard to believe about it. Also, practically all of us have seen it. So, yes, telepathy- which has never been observed- is more difficult to believe than TV which all of us have seen. Was that a serious question?

Just about every time I use the word "probably" I mistype it as "probabaly" . How often must I do this before it stops being an error?

At a quick glance the first video seems to prove that commercial disk magnets don't have their magnetic axis perfectly aligned with their geometric axis so, moving them on a plane parallel with their faces produces a non zero change in the magnetic field in that plane. No evidence of anything but imperfect manufacturing in a product where such perfection would be an unnecessary expense.

An analogy for what? It can't be analogous to skin because, as you say, an exoskeleton can be customised, skin can't- we are (pretty much) born with it

By that "logic" there's no reason not believe that the big bang was caused by unicorn farts. But, it's not a credo that will get you very far. Where you said "The leap is in the fact science has no place is attempting to unfold what could be deemed as supernatural (such as the big bang etc)" Well, you are wrong on two counts; the big bang is natural; not supernatural. Science is entitled to try to understand it, even if it never succeeds. Since I quoted your text when I replied to it, how come you didn't realise that's what I was referring to?

Are you sure about that? What about the fuel used at the power station? If that was all solar or wave power you would have a better point but, for the moment a lot of it is fossil fuel.

For countries that import oil, there's still a lot to be said for alternative energy sources unless they want their standard of living to be at the whim of the exporters.

It's a bit irritating, but mainly puzzling. Why would anyone do it- unless they were trolling?

"Since the birth of time, the worlds been casting an eager lookout in the direction of the coming of the antichrist." Why would anyone have looked for an Antichrist before there was a Christ. This thread is silly. "He's here. " Where? Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Corbyn or here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump or perhaps here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Francis or maybe here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Cooper

OK, for a start the idea that we have 5 senses is very old; and wrong. http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/07/humans-have-a-lot-more-than-five-senses/ It's also unrealistic to think we could have eurons that respond to every wavelength of EM radiation. At the long wavelength end of the spectrum we are warm and we emit lots of long wave IR. The neurons would never stop firing. At the short wavelength end there's a problem where the photon energy is big enough to significantly damage a cell. But there's a more important issue. Why speculate on the nature of ESP when there is no reason whatsoever to believe it is real. It's like asking how unicorns fly backwards.

"I can rule out the mundane reasons you claim it to be. " Then do so. "Yet I know you will still rule this all out." No we won't; we are scientists. However if you just pretend to have ruled them out then yes, you are right we will spot that. So, until you actually do rule them out you are wasting time posting here. And there's no point in science speculating on "what would happen..." when there's no chance that it will.

To be fair, a lot of people do seem to judge others by their skin, as much as by their clothes. It's dumb;but it's not rare.

Deceiving one's self is not normally called fraud.

I also want to point out something. What you have their is observer bias, rather than evidence.

"What is responsible for the rippling water freezing last?" Partly the fact that whatever water freezes first, stops rippling. Party it's because whatever is causing the rippling (most likely the wind) is supplying energy to the system and will slightly raise the temperature.

I don't. What are you trying to do?

What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter if you count pollen grains, sugar molecules, ions or whatever.. Once you have diluted stuff down to the point where you have (statistically) one 1 in a million chance that there's even 1 left, it doesn't matter if it was an ion or not. It's just water; exactly the same as it came out of the tap.. It's not" science" really. It's common sense. The only thing science ads is saying that you can't have half a molecule (or, half an ion).

"The solute in a homeopathic drug is not molecular because it’s been ionized" Plenty of ions are molecules "and there are tests that prove it. But, as I said, it isn't relevant. "All of the extreme controversy over whether or not the homeopathic remedy is placebo or verum, whether or not these materials are medically effective, and all of these phony money offers to “prove homeopathy”, conveniently avoid this simple, demonstrable fact" Because it's irrelevant. "a fact that separates homeopathy from fiction: the solute in highly diluted solutions used as homeopathic drugs is ionized" Many (or most) drugs are ionised. "and can be physically detected by conventional chemical analysis." No. It can't be detected in these "preparations" because it's simply not threer. They started off with not much,and then by repeated dilution, they threw it away. "Students and professors of electrochemistry should be well aware of this elementary principle of molecular dissociation, that as the solute presumably decreases and thins out, its molar conductivity increases to an asymptote and evidence of the solute persists in the solvent despite an apparent infinite number of dilutions." My word! something that's actually true- but irrelevant. "Why or how the solute persists in infinite dilution is not clear," Oh yes it is; the maths was worked out about a hundred years ago. "ut strange as it may seem to the zenophobic, it does so, no matter how dilute it is in serial dilutions." No, once you throw it away,it's just not there to have a defined degree of ionisation. It's like saying that if you have ten oranges and one of them is peeled you can say that 10% are peeled. Butiif you have no oranges, what is the ratio of peeled to unpeeled ones? Sorry, but at this point I'm bored There is practically nothing in that article that is meaningful or correct. It is all utter bollocks.

I already considered that when I first put the case that they needed to explain why it was recent or rare. I didn't realise I needed to keep repeating myself. Of course, the antiquity of the claims tends to speak against this "excuse" The context is that the discussion is on a science website. A paper is always a good thing in science. However, the point isn't the lack of a published peer reviewed paper. The problem is that there's no real evidence at all.