John Cuthber

Or it might be impossible because telekinesis doesn't exist.

The current data I have is per capita. It's about 1.13 guns per head. If you assume (absurdly) that all males are adults and each male has a gun that that's pretty much 0.5 guns per capits. The only thing that family size can do is make that disparity bigger. In particular, children (male or female) who don't have guns will drop the per capita count from 0.5 downward. How far down depends on family size but broadly speaking , biologically, each adult pair produces an pair of new adults eventually. So there are about 2 kids for each pair of parents. So the group of 4 people including 1 adult male is biologically reasonable (assuming that all children live to become adults). That takes the figure to about 1 gun per 4 people. The sad truth is that not all kids grow up. So, there must be more than 2 children for each pair of adults which pushes the figure even further from the current value. To pick a figure from the air, lets assume there were 4 kids in a typical family; that takes the figure to 1 gun for 6 people. Now can you show me a plausible demographic distribution where the number of guns (per capita or in absolute numbers) was anything other than a lot lower than it is now? And no, it's not the word "awash" that troubles me. It's the tacit implication in this "btw: This country was awash in guns long before there was a "gun lobby". Just saying. " that there were always lots of guns. Even if this "There were large and populated regions in this country in which almost every household had a firearm, at all times in the history of this country. " is true (and it's been disputed), it misses the point that there are now a whole lot more guns (in terms of numbers, and per capita) and those guns have vastly more fire-power than ever before. The problem isn't the same as it was "back then", and there's no sense pretending that it was (especially if that pretence ignores basic biology). ​(another interesting point would be the availability of ammunition- rather than guns. It's not just relevant to the historic discussion. If no more bullets were sold in the US then the gun crime rates would fall.)

How would you react if I were to suggest that one thing you need to do is learn to use capital letters and apostrophes? The rest of the plan looks pretty much viable. If you want chartered status then the first thing you need is to be an engineer- i.e. a bachelor's degree. However (I'm assuming that the system is similar to that for chemists) I don't think it's the highest rank. https://www.imeche.org/membership/membership-registration/How-to-apply/fellow

Perhaps you would prefer to talk to a dozen hamsters. It's complicated. Size is obviously a factor, so's complexity, so's maternal nutrition etc.

It's traditional to give some indication of the magnification ( a scale bar is useful in cases like this where the size of the image will depend on whether I'm looking at it on my 'phone or my 50 inch plasma. It's alo helpful to say what preparation you made to get the picture; is it stained, for example? (Ok so I don't have a smart 'phone or a plasma screen- but the point is still valid). For what it is worth, it looks a bit like the rods +cones in this picture http://www.yorku.ca/eye/realreti.htm It's also not clear from a quick bit of googling if sheep have the same photoreceptors as people.

Did you see the bit where I pointed out that families were bigger. That's because there were lots of kids around. Kids are not adult males. So each family had (to be cliche about it) an adult male, an adult female and some children. That's one adult male per household and one gun per household. Even allowing that there might have been a grown-up son and possibly grandpa in some families you still have to face the reality that there were proportionately more children so there were proportionately fewer adult males . Fundamentally, do you understand that, even if every male had a gun (including the babies), that's roughly 0.5 guns per capita, but in the US at the moment there are something like 1.13 guns per capita. There are now more than twice as any guns. If the country isn't "awash" with more than 1 gun each, then it wasn't awash with half that many. I'm not the one arguing this point with the NRA; you, tacitly, are.

Or this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Here's my last ditch attempt to get you back to reality. If G does not exist, what does the Cavendish experiment (and lots of similar tests) measure? Re."5 If someone did a great thing, sooner or later, he will show off. he will share photos on internet and wait for praise. but we haven't seen it. " They did. You may not have seen it; the rest of us have.

No, mainly it means they are bigger. Had you not spotted that?

I will wait a year.

Well, all we have to do is wait. Either Bjarne's prediction will be right, or it will be wrong. In the mean time there's nothing much to discuss. Perhaps you would like to do a similar calculation for the GPS satellites whose positions are very well known and tracked, and then explain why your predicted effect isn't seen.

You are being absurd. You ignore the fact that there are videos of people making the crop circles and you say they are made by aliens. do you understand why that makes you look foolish? We measure G from an experiment like Cavendish's That's an independent measurement of G. It would give exactly the same result on the moon. And from that (and the local acceleration due to gravity) we calculate the mass of the earth. Then, from that mass we calculate the density. It's nor circular logic at all. It depends on experiments which you could do on a different planet and still get the same result. Why are you trying to pretend that it is circular reasoning? The earlier link got scrambled. Here's the ref www.bipm.org/utils/en/pdf/PhysRevLett.111.101102.pdf

Perhaps you should dedicate another 6 years to studying so you can decide what you actually mean. And there are videos of "what we can do" made by the people how make crop circles. Also, whatever Mr Cavendish did, the work carries on with better equipment etc. file:///C:/Users/John/Downloads/PhysRevLett.111.101102.pdf it has been verified to great precision.

Well, I'd call it a society with well under a quarter as many guns as the US today. The figure for the US today is 1.13 guns per capita. from here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country Now, today's "typical" family has 2.2 children and slightly less than a couple of adults on average- call it 4 So that's about 4.5 guns per household. In times-gone-by the family size would have been much bigger, but there would still typically have been just 1 (expensive) gun per household. So the "per capita" figure would have been lower still. If you ask the NRA today they probably won't say that the US is "awash" with guns. So if, according to the gun lobby, if it isn't awash today, it can't have been awash when there were 4 or 5 times fewer guns.

What mistakes? And crop circles are made by people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_circle#How_they_are_made

No, we don't agree on that. Antimatter is interesting stuff, but you can't use it to find out next week's lottery numbers; it doesn't go back in time. I was just pointing out that, even if we did, there would still be only one universe.

Here are some matters of record. In the UK we have laws that prohibit public drunkenness. However it seems the drinks sales' records show the laws are not obeyed. In the US there were laws requiring people to have guns. And it seems the probate records show that the laws were not obeyed.

If we pretend, for the minute, that negative space time has a meaning then it's part of the Universe. You postulate (without evidence, btw) that the big bang created two helves to the universe, one where the electrons have positive charge and time goes backwards. Well, OK, perhaps it does (though there are logical problems with the idea) But since the bang made the universe, the "left handed" bit of it is still part of the universe -It's just not the bit we are in.

OK what is the "right" calculation? Or, if you prefer, what's the group that becomes safer if they buy a gun and how big is that group? You are right; they don't do the calculation- because they are already being told what the "right" answer is- buy the gun lobby. Yes, it's a long standing problem. Explain to me how the gun lobby is helping.

If they do the calculation for "Is my gun more likely to kill a member of my family than an intruder?" and get any answer other then "Yes" then they are not doing the calculation "differently" they are doing it wrongly. Who keeps telling them that wrong is right? Oh gosh!- that's the gun lobby again.

If the "typical" American thinks that a gun makes them safer, it's because they have been lied to. Which lobby is responsible for that dishonesty?

I don't. Does anyone else?

OK, let's start with this- since it's accepted by all parties " A 49MHz photon is 3.2e-26 joules." And I hope nobody will get upset when I convert it to units I'm more "comfortable with 1.997e-7 ev Call it 0.2 µeV Now, at room temperature the typical thermal energy is about 0.025 eV So thermal energies will be something like 125000 times bigger than the energy you are looking for. So, as is (I accept, very loosely) equivalent, you are only going to me able to see the RF photons if you chill the system down to about 300/25000 kelvin (I'm assuming room temp is about 300K How do you chill the equipment down to 0.0024K in order to stop the signal being swamped by the noise from everything- including you, your mythical oscilloscope and thermal emission from the antenna? (Obviously, if you want a good s/n ratio, need to get things colder still,but we are already down at about a thousandth of the temperature of deep space and the CMBR- that figures because it's of the order of GHz and you are talking about signals that are MHz) However, lets run on with this flight of fantasy. Imagine that some time as our distant descendants head towards the heat death of the universe they are still alive and sentient (but running very slowly, in order not to trash the laws of physics). Imagine they actually do the experiment in their cold, quiet, dying world. is there any reason at all to expect that the result will differ from the sort of outcome we (in our 300K world) get with single photon experiment using 1.3 eV visible photons? Unless someone can show why there would be, I'm not buying this thread. Incidentally, thermal noise on 50 ohms at 20C with a 49MHz b/w is about 6µV Good luck measuring reliably below that. I'm not saying it's impossible- Just that you probably only think you are doing it right

That's remarkable. You seem to put yourself forwards as the "voice of reason" and then say that something of the order of hundreds of dead children, and thousands of injured children don't constitute evidence of "greatly risking the regular citizenry". I assume you accept that the children are not generally criminals. No doubt you will now choose to blame me for the refusal of "gun nuts" to look at idea of controls.

Well, in this thread we had Waitforufo opposing Obama's decision to actually enforce the gun control legislation that already existed.