John Cuthber

How do you explain the fact that a moving clock runs at a different rate?

I didn't produce the same crackpottery twice in the same thread, even after having had it explained to me why it was cracked. And, as you say " its how we learn from our mistakes and move on that counts." Well; you didn't learn did you? You carried on regardless. So the million dollar question here is Did you actually go and learn about dimensional analysis? If not; don't try to lecture me on the importance of learning.

It has been shown that there are an infinite number of primes. You don't need an infinite set of rules to know how many primes there are. In a vaguely similar way, we can explain an essentially infinite set of observations with a small set of rules. Practically the whole of everyday engineering with Newton's laws and a bit of help from the likes of Clausius and Hooke. A good physics text book will giver you a pretty good explanation of most things in the universe. There is no reason not to suppose that, if we could do the maths, we could explain love. It's a set of chemicals in the brain. the purpose its pretty obvious and the details are fiddly, but there's no reason why we won't come to understand them. So, you are comparing two infinite sets- the things we can explain and the things we seek to explain. They are not yet the same set, but perhaps another half a dozen [absolute guess there] rules would do it. Also re "You do not necessarily pick up a religion to explain ignorance, you pick it up to prove reality." If you are seeking to prove (in either sense of the word) reality, you should put religion back down again. It never proved anything. Anyway, what religion might be able to prove is not on topic.

You seem to have overlooked the fact that an awful lot of stuff can be explained with a very few facts and laws. There's also the fact that, even now, no individual knows more than a tiny fraction of all science. There is a finite capacity to any one brain, but a much larger capacity to an array of brains and there's no reason to suppose you need an infinite amount of "science" to explain everything.

Few enough that it has been done. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/mans-new-best-friend-a-forgotten-russian-experiment-in-fox-domestication/ The report says "over 40 generations".

This "Can Science explain everything in the universe without a God?" is an interesting question. It's perfectly possible that there is a God (I doubt it, but I can't claim to know for certain- that sort of certainty in spite of a lack of information is the realm of religion) And, if there is a God, then science will need to "explain everything in the universe with a God". If that happens then science won't mind a bit.

I guess it isn't their kids who are dead.

He shoots and scores!

That's a reasonable idea. Now let's wait for someone to use the "slippery slope" logical fallacy to explain why it's confiscation and thus a breach of the constitution.

Since it showed up in the GC test, it is not "gone broken down/oxidized to an ineffective pesticide, etc ". The point of organic food is not that the pesticides are gone by the time you eat them; it's that they were never used in the first place and thus they did not harm the environment. Even if that viewpoint is invalid (and it's certainly debatable), saying something was grown organically when actually they used a banned pesticide is dishonest. Selling it as "organic" is fraud. If it was present then, a bit of googling tells me that one of the major degradation products is cis, trans -3- (2,2-dichloroethenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylic acid If you ask the analyst they can probably look for that for you, but what's the point? If there's permethrin there...

(1) OK, in the UK police do not routinely carry guns. (2) The important word there is "history". (3) so, there was something to which they were additions, and that's what they amended. OK So. Which of these is not a fact? Amendments were made. They have given rise to problems. Times have changed. One of the amendments has been revoked.

I know, but if they test for permethrin, I presume it's not permitted. Pyrethrin probably is permitted (so's nicotine which is more toxic to people than to most insects.)

I'm guessing. If I say that I run an organic farm, but I use synthetic pesticides like permethrin then I'm a liar even if the the pesticide has degraded by the time someone analyses it. Also, light and air will destroy it, but they might not get to all of it. Some might be absorbed into the plant where it is protected.

Both descriptions are correct. I doubt the GC would misidentify a degradation product as permethrin. It's the sort of thing they should have checked when they set up the method. Incidentally, the GC will need to measure both forms (cis and trans) and add them together

If I was to ask "To what was it an amendment?" you might think that the distinction makes a difference so I won't ask. The "proto-constitution" was amended. that amendment was made. It gave rise... and so on. "That's why I keep pointing that out. You have to amend the Constitution, not dismiss it as "outdated" or "mistaken" or whatever, to legislate in contradiction to it. " that's not an "either / or" thing. You amend the constitution because it's "outdated or mistaken or whatever". And, for the third time; I am not redoing prohibition ( the 18 th amendment). I am proposing redoing something like the 21st amendment. You seem to have got hung up on the nomenclature here. The UK gas gun control; but there are guns here; they have not been "prohibited". You really are being absurd. I say I want to revoke one of the amendments and to do that would need an amendment. There is a precedent for this It is the 21st amendment. That was the legislation that got rid of prohibition. I want to "copy" that legislation that got rid of prohibition. And your response is "You want to bring in prohibition." No. I don't. What I want to do is essentially the process that got rid of prohibition. Are you beginning to get the hang of that?

Which of these is not a fact? Amendments were made. They have given rise to problems. Times have changed. One of the amendments has been revoked. Or were you kind of... not exactly telling the truth? Re. "Many of the people who insisted on writing the Bill of Rights into the Constitution - not as a later Amendment, but as part of the originally ratified document, and as a condition of its ratification - had family members with direct experience of disarmament leading to subjugation by the minions of a central government." Are you asserting that gun ownership among the lowest social classes in Ireland was high at that time? If there were not armed to start with then it's a different issue. Or are you saying something broadly irrelevant? And, re. " nobody in this country ever wants to redo Prohibition. " I'm not suggesting redoing prohibition; quite the reverse I hope that in due course people will come to realise the 2nd amendment was as big a disaster as the 18th.

And then religion just makes s*** up. Specifically, it makes stuff up in accordance with an old book. So, only stuff consistent with the the old book is permitted. Their minds are closed to anything outside the old book. Now, that's all very well, but I have to accept that technically, it has nothing to do with the topic. It does give evidence of closed mindedness among a group who are not atheists, but that doesn't tell you anything about atheists per se. Do you have anything to say about whether or not atheism makes people closed minded?

The phrase "within family memory" means nothing. My family, and yours go back to mitochondrial Eve. So, what you actually mean is "a very long time ago; but I don't want to admit that". 1791 if I recall correctly, so that's about 9 generations ago. The post was about the fact that gun control is not confiscation- it's just that the pro gun lobby keeps pretending that it is. The relevant quote is "The fear that ANY limit on gun ownership would automatically, via the slippery slope, mean confiscation, is just as ludicrous." to which you replied "Quit putting it on the agenda, and maybe over time people will quit fearing it." Nobody had put confiscation on the table; it's just the gun nuts were pretending that it was. So it is you that has "presented the gun control advocate's world view as one in which gun control and gun confiscation are equivalent, substitute for each other. " Perhaps if people stopped doing that we could make progress. I didn't insist on anything. I just pointed out some historical facts: Amendments were made. They have given rise to problems. Times have changed. One of the amendments has been revoked. And I pointed out an ongoing fact: The other might be revoked in the future. do you realis that, in making false or twisted claims like those you don't help your cause or the debate?

"The problem that strong central governments disarm their peasantry to prevent defiance against misrule. That an unarmed people is subject to slavery at any time. The fact that modern Americans often regard that as an unrealistic fear may be the single greatest benefit of the 2nd Amendment. Modern South Americans, modern Africans, modern Indonesians, do not enjoy that luxurious peace of mind. " Modern Europeans don't regard it as a realistic fear either so you can't say it's due to the 2nd amendment (which, of course, we don't have.) OK, do you realise that I'm sitting here being a counter example, and that it only takes one counter example to refute an assertion? The Europeans prove that you don't need the equivalent of a second amendment. So you can stop trying to use that myth as a reason for promoting guns. It is, of course, largely due to democracy. We simply aren't stupid enough to vote in a government that would enslave us. " Quit putting it on the agenda, and maybe over time people will quit fearing it. " If we don't put gun control on the agenda how do we stop the children dying? Or is it that you think your myth is more important than their lives?

After 5 pages i think it may be time to conclude that the answer to the question posed in the thread's title is simply "no" and close the thread. (someone might want to edit it so the title says "closed minded" rather than "close minded"; it refers to a state where the mind is not open rather than one that is near)

Triangular rings are a bit uncommon in chemistry, but sometimes very useful https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_strain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoxide

One possibility is that he doesn't want to get electrocuted. However, if I were seeking to use solar power to heat water, I wouldn't turn it into electricity and back, because there would be losses at both stages. Searching the web for DIY solar heater gets a stack of ideas.

The oxygn-phosphorus bond is so strong that it is relatively rare to see phosphorus bonded to anything else in nature. There are a few examples like this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fosfomycin where phosphorus is bonded directly to a carbon.

You are right about one thing Prohibition was a disaster. Now, let's do a quick comparison. The original constitution did not include a ban on alcohol, and it did not include a right to own guns. Society and circumstances changed. Amendments were made to the constitution which seemed like a good idea at the time. One banned alcohol and the other granted a right to gun ownership. Society and times changed and they realised that the banning of alcohol caused more problems than it solved. So they withdrew the alcohol ban. Now, just as soon as the population realise that the right to own guns also causes more problems than it causes, they will withdraw that amendment too. The question is why are we still waiting? What "problem" has the 2nd amendment solved that is more important than the lives of all those kids? Perhaps, in a hundred years' time, kids at school will learn that both of the amendments were a disaster- but it took longer to get rid of one of them.

"Using dry ice will make one of them solid?" Or not, dpending on the weather etc. Any impurities present will lower the melting point. The sublimation temperature of CO2 is affected by atmospheric pressure. ​So, you can use the melting point, but you might need something rather colder than dry ice. Also, the measured BPt of the material will depend on pressure. N2Microbes, What altitude are you at?