John Cuthber

It is obvious that the original nothing has gone off to dance on the head of a pin.

That's good. Now have a go at fixing the other problem which I highlighted: And yet, at least in most people's opinion, it still is beautiful. So your assertion is nonsense. I know what a rainbow is, and how it works. But if someone tells me there's a rainbow outside, I'm very likely to go to the window and admire it, because it's pretty. Since rainbows are beautiful, it is clear that nothing has proved that they aren't. So, explaining rainbows doesn't prove what you said it does. So you are wrong. Is there any reason why I should read anything else you say?

Let's face it, when I said "If we expect 540 nm radiation", I was being ironic. We don't expect that. Partly because, if we did,we should expect it from any electron in a strong em field, and falling under gravity- for example, in a dropped sandwich. His claim is as plausible as if he said we ought to see a sandwich light up before it hits the floor.

I know that the model of an atom as "electrons orbiting a nucleus" is ... unhelpful, but the fundamental point is still there. The electrons of an atom must be doing something; we know that there are interesting effects like the colour of gold and the melting point of mercury- which arise from the relativistic effects of electrons. So there is some significant similarity between the electrons in an atom, and those in an accelerator. If we expect 540 nm radiation from the electrons in an accelerator interacting with gravity, why don't we expect some similar outcome from the electrons in a dropped sandwich? Ask the guy who pays the electricity bill for the synchrotron.

https://xkcd.com/285/ Ad yet, at least in most people's opinion, it still is beautiful. So your assertion is nonsense.

The trouble is that you don't get to choose either/ or. The neutrino detector emission is broad band, so your idea doesn't work. There are plenty of occasions where a narrow band detector is useful. But in many, perhaps most, of those, it's useful to be able to tune the detector. That's easy if the frequency selective element- perhaps something as simple as coloured glass- can be changed, but it's tricky if you have to change the whole detector. So, yes, if you were looking at something like LIGO where the bandwidth is narrow, that's great. But they aren't short of sensitivity (on that count) If they were, they could get a brighter laser. There will be applications, but it's never going to be as useful as a simple photocathode, nor as cheap.

Does your "position" a lab tech allow you to redistill IPA? It's likely that the manufacturer of the equipment put some time and thought into deciding what disinfectant to use. If their answer was isopropanol then its unlikely that you will come up with a better option.

The state of the art is that photocathode quantum efficiencies are typically about 10% to 30% (Lower figures for IR sensors, higher ones at visible and UV wavelengths). https://www.rp-photonics.com/photocathodes.html So there's a limit to how much better you can get. You certainly won't do better than a 10 fold improvement. On the other hand, by selecting a resonant wavelength, you must de-select the other wavelengths. And since, for many applications, it's better to have a flat frequency response tan a peaked one, I'm not sure this idea is going anywhere.

Except that you cut out the bit that shows that there is an effect on children born to older mothers which is not chromosomal. And the "meaningful" bit of your sentence was the bit that elicited this response If I was in your position, I'd stop digging.

My actual post, part of which you have snipped out of the whole, thereby altering its meaning, included this And that's probably not chromosomal.

I wish I had been drinking milk. Whisky really stings. That depends on perspective. For example, Down Syndrome is more likely in the children of older mothers. Most people would say it's a health issue. It is absurd to ignore it . But there's also an increase in cardiovascular problems in children of older mothers. It may or may not be chromosomal but it's certainly an issue. https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1113/JP275472

LOL Apart from island states, almost all national borders are arbitrary.

No, it is not.

There can only be something like 21 million bitcoins. Of those nearly all (about 18 million) have been "minted". So the idea that people will continue to spend additional resources after they are all made just shows a total failure to understand the way things work. Not much point continuing until the OP learns what he's talking about.

Was there any part of that which you thought I didn't already know? Yes and no. While we usually consider CaO to be "ionic", if you look at the electron distribution (by Xray diffraction) you see that, on average, not all of the 2 electrons are on the oxygen. If you choose an easier ion to oxidise- for example iodide and a metal that's harder to oxidise (or easier to reduce) like lead or silver you get an "ionic" solid, but (unlike the iodide, or silver, ions) it's yellow. That's because the energy from a blue photon is high enough to kick an electron from the anion back onto the cation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge-transfer_band The TiO2 which is used as a pigment in most white paint is similar- the electron can be moved from the oxide ion back to the titanium ion, but only by light in the extreme blue end of the spectrum, and that's not normally noticeable.

OK. In summary; saying that the world (as we know it) ends in 10 years* is believed by some Democrats (Though, apparently not the Party leader), but that isn't Dem policy. And saying that science is wrong/ bad is a thing** some Republicans (Including the Party leader) believe and it is Rep policy. * a statement that may well be true ** a statement that is not true Do you see the difference? That's essentially why Nature supported one party, rather than the other.

So, your point was that the cliffs are mainly made from a highly soluble thing that doesn't dissolve.

Really? I have seen people make the prediction that, if we do not change things, "the world as we know it" will end in 2031. That's not without a scientific basis, though the experimental uncertainty is large. Assuming you didn't make up your claim and there really is "plenty of evidence of Democrats claiming the world will end in 12 (10 now?) years." then lets see it. And, more importantly, if you can find them, can you show that (1) it's anti science and (2) it's Democrat policy to say so. Whereas the GOP is on record for trying to extinguish critical thinking skills in schools and that plainly is an anti science policy. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html So, if a bunch of people vote for a party that seeks to cut science budgets, opposes the teaching of thinking and is led by a man who talks about HCQ as a panacea, but also suggests injecting bleach, why shouldn't I say they seem to be anti-science? Because if you didn't agree with The One, you got sacked.

OK let's start with the fact that a link to a video of a man saying something is not "anecdotal". Are you aware that Trump is also a republican? So there's at least two. But that's hardly the point. I really don't need to go through the record of every Registered Republican and find specific evidence for each individual. It is clear that many of the Trump voters must be similarly anti-science or they wouldn't support the man who suggested injecting bleach and said that the pandemic would vanish when Spring arrived. Are you seeking to defend his position?

The White Cliffs of Dover indicate that the solubility isn't just down to the Ca++ ion. The Ca++ ions in water are surrounded by a bunch of water molecules which are more or less firmly attached.

Yes, it would be cheap, simple, low tech and accessible. But it would not work. The potassium oxide vapourises at temperatures high enough for potassium carbonate to decompose. On the other hand, you can use a simple charcoal fire furnace to make quicklime. And then you can add water to make the calcium hydroxide needed for causticisation. The by-product is calcium carbonate and you can reuse that by putting it in the furnace again. Much as I would like to claim credit for this rather clever system, it isn't my invention. The process was used for centuries. No Arguably, it should be replaced with "Slaked lime". Quicklime is calcium oxide and the material used to make caustic in solution is slaked lime..

It's hard to see how you can get that poor a grasp of science without being actively biased against it. No. Do you understand the idea of quoting an (additional) example to illustrate a point? It's the figure Republican House Representatives; you would like to think that's the clever ones. It's important to recognise that, for most Americans, cuts to public services make their lives worse, so the Republican parity has to rely on deceit in order to get elected. Part of that process is the undermining of objective truth, and one big part of that is the role of science,. Credit for what?

Do you understand the distinction between " we can not imagine" something and " we recognise the physical impossibility (or impracticability) of something? Your idea seems to be a less practical version of this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrodialysis

The body does expend energy in maintaining pH differences- pumping hydrogen ions into the gut makes it acid and takes energy. But I don't think it's a big part of the energy budget.

It depends... For example, it's probably safer to abstain while driving down the motorway.