John Cuthber

It depends on your point of view. I once used some Mo foil as an impromptu crucible for something but overheated it. the MO3 that was produced formed rather beautiful crystals round the edges of the furnace where it condensed. You are right: this isn't in philosophy; it's chemistry. So, the fact that iron gave rise to the industrial revolution (or whatever) isn't relevant. It's also barely science, so what's it doing here?

"The greatest COINCIDENCE of all time, seems to be happening RIGHT NOW in front of us" When else could they be happening and us be aware of them?

Do you know what a log scale means? There is roughly ten thousand times as much hydrogen as iron and about ten times as much iron as nickel (the next commonest heavier element than iron)

looks like the end of that aspect of the debate then. OK so what if Feldin Santana had decided to hold out for a million dollars but nobody had felt inclined to pay that much. If the deceased's family hadn't been able to raise the cash, the policeman would have got away with it.. Your idea seems to be that such an outcome is acceptable. And I don't understand why you assume that he didn't understand that the video had value. To me, it seems reasonable to assume that he did realise that but that he knows right from wrong and holding up justice while he negotiated a price would be wrong.

Are you saying that the police are entitled to shoot people unless those people can afford to pay whatever fee the cameraman thinks is appropriate? I'd still like you to stump up some evidence for this claim.

They were interesting enough that someone synthesised and documented them. How do you define "interesting"?

Well, thanks for admitting that you are trolling. If you cite something you don't actually believe in support of your point of view then you must know that POV is otherwise unsupportable. "If you look in Deuteronomy (the Book of Laws) in the Bible, you will find that a man is only enslaved, or owned, for seven years, and then can win his freedom.". Re the long pointless discussion on diputability. I disagree with your interpretation. And, having done so, I have proved that everything posted so far is not indisputable. (one or other of us has disputed it) You have forgotten to take account of the fact that truth doesn't affect disputability. I'd argue that the lawyer's assertion of death was irrelevant (since that's the job of the coroner's court) And also that it may well be a case of mistaken identity.- they may have misidentified the body. In doing so I'd almost certainly not convince the jury that the person was alive, but I'd show that the prosecutor was careless with his use of words- and I'd bring that fact up at the end.

Nope http://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/annular-solar-eclipse.html By whom? On what basis?

There are something like 100 million different chemical compounds known, and they are all uniquely identifiable. It's going to be a long list.

OK, let's start with what you believe.. You say "Or to ask the question from the other pov: why would anyone presume that level of dilution on that scale in the open ocean was harmless? " Tacitly, you believe that we are making that presumption. And the answer is that it's not a presumption. We know how radioactive the sea is and we know that the change is very small- far less than the natural variation. You believe that "A lot of the radioactive stuff put out by Fukushima has vanished. " Which isn't credible; we may not know where it is, but it certainly has not vanished; it's still there. You think things like this " Why are you assuming the extra radiation is in the form of potassium isotopes?" even though I made it clear that I didn't think that. Ditto for "Why are you assuming the concentration is even throughout the plume? " You think that bioaccumulation is the important thing "even with the prospect of oceanic bioaccumulation?" ​when, in fact it's differential bioaccumulation that matters. You don't know what an assumption is "So it is, in fact, an assumption. You have some reasons ("actual facts") for making it" If it's based on facts it's not an assumption; it's a deduction. One of the more bizarre things you believe is that central park is in the ocean; the only posts that used Sv were about land based exposure yet you said ". (are millisieverts, which are cslibrated for particular biological setups, good units to use in measuring oceanic ecosystem radiation exposure, for example)". you believed that this "Strange, on 16 Mar 2015 - 12:24 PM, said: Well said. Moontanman, on 16 Mar 2015 - 2:06 PM, said: Thanks for that. I was wondering where to go on my holidays." was a dismissal of risk. My comment about a holiday venue isn't a dismissal of risk, it's an assessment that the risk, though present, is small. I'd be much more likely to be killed by something else than by a week or two there. And so on, at length Then you say " it is clearly impossible to get people like that to read what I post and respond to its actual content," Well, we clearly did. We read what you said, and we commented on it. And I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence that it's us who are showing ignorance here. What have we said that is wrong?

Both my antivirus software and my common sense stop me trusting that site. can you provide a link to any actual evidence?

Since copper and nickel are fairly similar the eutectic mixture will contain very little nickel. It won't show up on a diagram that includes the whole 0 to 100 % range of Ni. the fact remains that the addition of a small quantity of nickel to copper will lower the mp.

I'd still like you to stump up some evidence for this claim.

Frank, Do you realise that you haven't put forward any sensible mechanism for creating any EMP and you haven't put forward a mechanism for it to cause the sort of damage seen (even if it was produced)? The "honeycomb" pattern they talk about has a scale of roughly a tenth or a hundredth of a millimetre. Em radiation with that wavelength simply doesn't penetrate human tissue.

I'm still waiting for you to show the evidence that we were ignorant of something. And I don't plan to drop the tactic of asking people to support their assertions.

Probably. But it's possible that evaporative cooling would chill the water faster than the poor conductivity and poor heat capacity of air would heat it. It depends on the humidity etc.

I guess that LANL report explained what creates the EMP from a nuke. The gamma rays scatter the electrons leading to a charge separation. In a chemical explosion there are no gammas and thus no emp.

So, you can't actually cite a specific instance then? BTW, you don't get to make libellous statements then say "How about you give up on this tactic, and address the concerns of the thread." when they ask you to substantiate them.

It could be he's one of the green ink brigade, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt for now. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/green-ink_brigade

OK, you claim I'm ignorant. Is that just bias on your part, or do you have evidence? What errors have I made to show that I lack understanding and/ or knowledge? On the other hand, your list of straw men shows that you don't seem to understand what I have written, but let's gloss over that for the moment. Show me the evidence of my foolishness.

(1) that's pretty much a matter of reading the word,rather than arguing. (2) That's exactly why no good lawyer should say that anything is indisputable. (3) indeed, so why are you arguing about it? (4 )No it doesn't. (5) you are saying the choice is between death and slavery, which is a dichotomy. I'm saying that those are not the only two choices so it's a false dichotomy. It is plainly evil to put someone in a position where those are their only two options. You could choose not to do the evil thing- but only if you don't follow the evil book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sewer_gas

So, having been told that the use of non standard fonts is a distraction, what do you do? You choose a non standard font. Why?

Why do you think large fonts help? Also, the problem is that your posts are not clear so people struggle to understand them. It's impossible to say if something you don't understand is a breach of the laws of physics. On the other hand, those laws are mathematically proven to be correct. Why do you think anyone is going to struggle through your post just to look for a mistake which they know must be there?