John Cuthber

There is more to it than the homogenisation. Roasting to 1100 C drives out a lot of impurities and to some extent, allows the recrystallisation of the carbon. Much of the carbon present will be in the form of tiny crystals of graphite.

The explanation of the fact that the unit has a capital and minuscule letter wasn't aimed at anyone in particular. And, as far as I know, it is correct; it's N m rather than n m or N M because there was a Mr Newton, but there wasn't a Mr Metre.

I think that one of the important aspects of a game is that it doesn't really set out to achieve anything much except enjoyment. (Rather like art).

Also, It's a capital N because it's from Newton's name and a lower case m because the metre isn't named after someone. (Conveniently, that stops it getting muddled up with the nanometre, though the space is also a hint.)

It is certainly simpler in principle and probably easier to implement. But it rather implies that progress doesn't happen after 6 months. Someone might come along 7 months later with a really good answer.

It's true that [math]\mathbb{N} \subset \mathbb{Z} \subset \mathbb{Q} \subset \mathbb{R}[/math]. It's just that what Xerxes wrote doesn't parse in English.

Indeed, we shouldn't go putting people down by, for example, accusing them of labelling their opponents when they put forward a question. This "Is liberalism a mild form of insanity?" is a valid question, no matter who asked it, nor what their motivation was. We should discuss that issue-well, it seems we already did. Pending any evidence to the contrary, I think we can say that it has been answered, and the answer is "no".

Please provide a list of questions we can't ask. Incidentally, to me the term "Republican" means a particular sort of loony (based on my experience of those so named). So, from my point of view, as you put it, By 'labelling' the other side of the argument as mad or insane or Republican , you are just trying to lower the value of that argument without having to do the 'heavy lifting' of proving that argument to be invalid.

That does not make sense. The point is that any integer is a rational number Since the OP has no indication of a decimal point, it's an integer- albeit, an infinitely big one. So, it is rational. I can prove that any integer is rational because it's the ratio of twice the integer to 2. Pointing out that you are wrong isn't patronising. For what it's worth, I already said that "No non-terminating decimal without a repeating pattern can possibly be rational" However, someone made the perfectly reasonable point that they don't see it that way, and they would like proof. Can you offer any such proof? ​[Edit Sorry, my mistake there; they said that they couldn't be sure the list of primes didn't repeat itself, and asked for proof. John seems to have offered that proof}

Two things. You can't easily distinguish an overhanging cliff from a near vertical one. Who cares? Both are stupid options as a path. re the Xrays http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2051337.m570.l1313.TR1.TRC0.A0.H0.Xxray+marker&_nkw=xray+marker&_sacat=12576 Problem solved.

Imagine that Fermat posed a question here in 1637 about the generality of the existence of valid solutions to the equation X^n = Y^n +Z^n where X,Y,Z, and n are integers If Andrew Wiles answered it here would "Answering their question" really "has no sense, as they will never read it."? Or is it possible that, even after a while their reply might have been useful, if not to the original poster, but to others? ​Though I grant you the people who resurrect a thread just to say "I don't know" are a pain in the butt and your suggestion isn't a bad one, but I'd modify it. ​I think it is probably sufficient to tell the person posting that they are replying to an old thread. Speaking of old threads, are you in a position to reply to this one? http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87510-sulfuric-acid-in-ppm/?p=850748

The weather.

That would be valid if someone had said " Liberalism is a form of insanity". But they didn't. They did not actually label anyone. They asked if the label was applicable. The question has been answered. Based on the evidence (or rather, the lack of evidence), we can reject the idea that liberalism is a form of insanity. So, unless someone actually has evidence supporting the idea that liberals are all nuts, this should be the end of the thread.

No, we don't start by assuming it's rational. We start by assuming it's an integer What do you think is the definition of a rational number? Do you think it is that a rational number is the ratio of two integers? Do you think that 2.357,,,,,, is an integer? Do you think that 2 times 2.357,,,,,, is an integer?

From time to time, the moon has had moons. Some of the Apollo missions for example.

Perhaps we should just go with these wise words

23571113... is a rational number because it's the ratio of two numbers, an example of two such numbers is twice 23571113... and two 2 X 23571113... 2 =23571113... Consideration of that makes it clear that any integer is rational On the other hand 0.23571113... is not rational. All rational fractions, when expressed as a decimal, terminate like 1/4 =0.25 or recur like 1/3 = .333333... Similarly, 2.3571113... is irrational

Well, you need to check the definitions of a couple of words in the first line there. In the second one, perhaps you can help me. Can you please force tell me how to force this equation onto nature? n= 0 where n is the number of people dying in poverty today. Or were you trying to say that we use maths to model the world, and the models are generally imperfect? Because that's true, but dull. And it's nothing like what you said.

Bleach will destroy morphine.

Oops! typo 13.534 rather than 15.534

Would you like me to list lost of successful companies so you can claim they are all "the exception"?

In particular, please explain how they succeeded while others failed- even though the government regulation and law were the same for both of them.

Reality and science don't really care what you imagine. Reality carries on regardless and science only takes an interest in the evidence. The evidence makes it quite clear that the heart has no real effect on emotion.

An excellent point. There's also the other side of the same idea. People with "damaged" hearts have the same emotions as the rest of us. This is not always true of those with damaged brains.Also there are drugs that are known to act within the brain that affect emotion- alcohol is probably the most widely known- but have no direct effect on the heart. The whole thread is just silly. None of it ties in with well known facts.

Setting aside the fact that I don't use my real name here- so my surname is not Cuthber. "What is more famous in the world then god?"! Well, apparently the Beatles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_popular_than_Jesus "Everybody knows that "bull shit" is "holy shit"" No it isn't. You made that up. And the same goes for the rest of it. You mentioned Apophenia. "the experience of seeing patterns or connections in random or meaningless data" You don't seem to realise that you are displaying it.