John Cuthber

To be fair, the title was changed.

Hello! Is anyone listening? They don't feed antibiotics to cattle because the cattle are ill (much). They use thembecause it makes the cattle grow faster and eat less. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_use_in_livestock#Drugs_and_growth_stimulation So, what they are doing is using large amounts of these drugs in sub-therapeutic doses in lots of animals wandering about on farms. That's pretty much a guaranteed way to produce resistance. Then the meat from those animals enters the human food chain. Does that seem sensible to anyone here?

The discussions you describe only started after the question had been answered.

Did you stop to think about "We will eat less meat" as a possible outcome? Also, you say "production will escalate more rapidly to compensate for the greater death rate before processing". Do you think the antibiotics are being used to stop the animals getting sick and dying? They aren't.

Why bother?

Does this help? http://www.google.com/patents/US1157830

Nonsense. Zero is perfectly well defined and it's also physically meaningful- it is the number of cows in my bedroom (among lots of other things). Since binary is part of mathematics what you have said is that the zero on maths isn't the same as the zero in maths- that's obviously nonsense too. if you try to construct a system of maths where both multiplication by zero and multiplication by 1 give the same answer, then you have constructed a system with a built in contradiction (since it implies that 1 is simultaneously equal to zero, and not equal to zero). That's not going to be any use. Can you show that you are not a victim of this phenomenon? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Jlindgaard, Just for a start, do you know that the theoretical "negatively ionised CO2" is a well- studied material? All that study- explicitly looking for it, not only failed to find it, but showed that it wouldn't exist. https://plasmapanel.grid.umich.edu/articles/ElectronAffinitiesCO2.pdf If there's an "affront to mainstream science" happening here it is because you have not had the good manners to learn that science, before attacking it (and those involved in it).

You didn't answer the question. What would you do to divide 5 apples by zero? If you have 15 apples and give 0 of them away to 0 people then you have done nothing; you certainly have not divided anything by anything. If you wanted to divide those ten apples among 5 people (ie calculate 15/5 you would give an apple to each person, then go back and give each person a secod appl, then go back and give them a third apple each. At that point you have run out of apples- that's how you know that you have finished doing the division. If you don't run out of apples, you don't stop. If you don't stop then you have not finished doing the division. So, as I said, how do you divide 5 apples among zero people? Here's a hint; you can't.

When would I have five apples? It can't be after I have give them away, but I haven't done the division until after I have given them away. So there's nothing for me to face up to is there? That's the point; the division is impossible.

Do you understand that you are expected to reply to the points and questions that people have raised? For example, how come I have books that refer to black body radiation that are from before 1970? Why do you say "Global Warming coincides nicely with ozone depletion and recovery." when global warming is carrying on, but ozone depletion has (nearly) stopped? How can you believe that "water vapor does not exist." when it's perfectly obvious that it does?

Not all sugars are aldehydes. For example, fructose is not an aldehyde.

What would you do to divide 5 apples by zero? If I wanted to divide 10 apples between 2 people I would give each person an aple, in urn, until I ran out of apples- they would have 5 each and I'd have none. If I divided them between zero people I would give away zero apples util I ran out. But I'd never run out would I ? So I could never do it. So I can't divide 5 apples by zero. Why don't you face up to that?

Caramelizing doesn't help much- vitamin c caramelises- but it isn't a sugar. The basic problem is that "sugar" covers a range of different substances and getting a test that includes them all, but excludes other chemicals would be impossible.

Wrong question. Before you ask "Why is a dead body so much heavier than a live one?" you need to ask " is a dead body so much heavier than a live one?" and, since the answer is no, there's no reason to consider the first question.

My point was this. If I tell you I am thinking of a number, and if you multiply that number by two you get six, then you can "undo" the multiplication and deduce that the number I'm thinking of is three. That's because there is only one number that gives 6 when you multiply it by 2. However, if I tell you I'm thinking of a number and, when you multiply it by zero, you get zero, you have no idea what number I'm thinking of because there are many numbers that, when multiplied by zero, give zero (in fact all of them do). An one to one function has an inverse, but a many to one function cannot have an inverse,because the inverse isn't a properly defined function. Saying this "Physicality allows for / by zero..." is just typing meaningless words. Multiplication by zero isn't the equivalent of "equivalent of no operation being performed." that's the equivalent of adding zero. "Physicality also suggest multiplication by 0 is not necessarily 0." Nonsense. If I take no apples from each of ten trees, how many apples do I take? the answer is zero, even if you don't like it.

For the same reason that, if I tell you my pet is a poodle, you know it is a dog, but if I tell you it's a dog, you don't know whether it's a poodle, a pug an Alsation or what. You are trying to undo a "many to one" function Many numbers, when multiplied by zero give a result of zero.

In fairness to the Pope (not something I say very often) they ditched the "anti evolution" idea a couple of decades ago http://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/25/world/pope-bolsters-church-s-support-for-scientific-view-of-evolution.html Albeit that the evidence had ditched it about 2 centuries ago.

Got any evidence for that?

Not really " as soon as...". light is about a million times more likely to be scattered elastically then inelastically. And the process only happens at all when it hits something..

Essentially any process involving photons is going to be energetic. Given long enough I suspect you would end up with black-body radiation at the temperature of the scattering gas. (the temperature after the gas has been warmed up a bit).

" light travels at approximately 299,792,000 miles per second" No, that's the speed in metres per second. "is this speed determined in space where very little to no resistance is or were these measurements take on earth where there is an atmosphere that the light has to travel through and if so what are the 2 measurements for these varying light situations?" Both have been measured it travels 1.000293 times slower in air. "as there already been a way to "harness" light and use it as a means of propulsion? " sort of. It's not been used much (if at all) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail "is there a way to potentially speed up light to make it travel faster and further that it already does?" It already has an infinite range (unless it hits something, so "further" isn't an option and, as far as we know, there's no way to make it faster. If I understand your last point correctly, it's related to the first (though I realise that's not obvious). Does this help? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction

Imagine some monochromatic light bouncing round inside a box made of perfect mirrors- nothing much happens. Now put some gas in the box. from time to time the photons are scattered inelastically and lose or gain energy. Eventually the photons will end up with a spread of energies. Since that's a spontaneous process and spontaneous processes are accompanied by a rise in entropy, I'd say that monochromatic light is (in a rather obscure sense) a lower entropy state than a broad spectrum.

I try to believe what the evidence says. That seems to tally better with science but even it gets things dubious at times.