John Cuthber

That's interesting, but it's not information that would be provided by the study which MonDie sought.

I can't be bothered to find the video but "Ain't nobody got time for that". It might be quicker to see if any of it is actually correct.

OK, sorry to dig up an old thread but what do people think about this? http://www.clarionledger.com/story/opinion/columnists/2014/06/25/coulter-growing-interest-soccer-sign-nations-moral-decay/11372137/

"They are reporting mast cell degranulation that releases histamine. If there was no allergic reaction detected in the animals, I assume the company would have been more than happy to report that." I suspect that injecting distilled water would induce some reaction. In fact there are papers that show this- albeit ones that sought to show something else.* If the polysorbate produces the same level of reaction do you lie and say there's no reaction? Or do you say that it's a low reaction? I wrote that filtering will remove insoluble stuff. Are you arguing about that? * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1375241/ The famous multicenter study, led by J. Benveniste and involving four other laboratories, reported that human basophils undergo ‘degranulation’ (metachromasia) not only at usual anti-IgE antibody doses (10−3 mg/ml) but also at extremely high dilutions (10^60 or 10^120 times lower than the concentrations usually leading to a molecular interaction)

In what way would it be plagiarised?

Why? What would it tell you?

Actually, the depth of the oceans does have an impact. The deeper they are, the more they will expand when they warm up. And, as Tim points out, they are very deep.

I don't have access to the full article. I have looked at excerpts from it like this one http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/youth-and-guns/ It says "We found that 17% of respondents admitted to making obscene or rude gestures in the past year,..." Now, it's possible that the rest of the article says something like " we asked 100 people. 17 said they made gestures. Of those 100 people 75 were gun owners. Of the gun owners, 14 made gestures. and, of course, 3 of the non gun owners did. So it's 14 out of 75 vs 3 out of 25 19% vs 12% That (entirely made up, but illustrative) data would show that gun owners are 58% more likely to make rude gestures, even though only 17% of the whole survey group made them.

"I said I was happy to discuss entropy, but I don't see how the above is relevant to reversibility" It relates to the nature of change: what is usually referred to as "time's arrow" You have a point about doing arithmetic with infinities. Lets' do the maths with "some very large bit of the universe" If that's big enough then only the parts that are near the "surface" can exchange with the outside. And, as the piece we consider gets bigger those parts will have less and less effect on the overall entropy.

Can we leave the gelatin discussion out of this please? It's just going to add confusion. What they say is "Low Allergic Reaction (Low Degranulation)".. I may be wrong but I still think that means below detection, which is a surrogate zero.

On the whole, I think that this clarifies it nicely "Since I stated that people who carry guns in public, possibly i should be more specific, if someone feels the need to walk around in public openly carrying a rifle or large gun when there is no threat and only to impress others then he has a mental disorder that needs to be addressed." And I agree with you.

I might do so too. Or I might campaign for better law enforcement. If I have to act as my own armed guard, what am I paying the police for? But re Moontanman's post, the problem is the over-generalisation. It means that the post essentially says "I took advice on gun ownership from someone who I consider to have mental health problems in respect of gun ownership."

The sherif chooses to carry a gun in public*. He doesn't have to so, at some level he must like to. What does that make him if this is true? "I think the people who like to carry a gun around in public have some mental issues that need to be addressed." And is that someone from whom you should take advice on the matter? * other jobs are presumably available.

You also seem to have missed the other questions I asked. Here they are again so you can answer them this time. OK, do you realise that shouting at clouds won't work and that it's silly to waste time discussing it further? Do you also see that, for example seeking to breed flying fish that make ozone is silly and it would be wasteful to spend more time discussing it? Do you see that any prolonged discussions of any method that will clearly never work is silly? Nobody is actually endorsing shouting at clouds, but you are repeatedly endorsing something just as futile- even after that fat has been pointed out (repeatedly) So, once again, why are you still going on about it?

Am I the only one who sees the irony in this? "I think the people who like to carry a gun around in public have some mental issues that need to be addressed." "I actually bought it because the local sheriff deputy said..."

How do you propose to explain the "entropy death" of the universe (which is a closed, isolated system because there's nowhere outside it to transfer energy or mass to or from)?

I think you gave up discussing it when, in response to me posting that S= k ln w and this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann%27s_entropy_formula you said "I regard the variable entropy as still undefined in this thread." But no doubt others will make up their own minds. And the point remains that the Clausius Entropy and the Boltzmann entropy are essentially the same thing, at least for an ideal gas.

Firstly; you might, others don't. secondly, you are contradicting yourself but why should I care? You are right there is an analogy between absolute entropy vs entropy changes on one hand and between absolute voltage vs potential difference on the other. And you can often convert from one to the other. Imagine an isolated metal sphere. I can calculate its capacitance (IIRC, it's proportional to the radius). I can also (in principle) count all the protons and all the electrons and thereby calculate its charge. Given the capacitance and the charge I can calculate it's potential. That's an absolute figure. I can do the same for a second sphere. I can calculate the potential difference between them. That's a potential difference calculated as the difference between two absolute values for potential.. I can, in principle, do the same with entropy.

"The mirror on the ground idea was simply to show a very simplistic way to add a tiny amount of Ozone and to refute an earlier notion that this topic was a waste of thought." And you keep banging on about it even after it has been shown not to work. UV-B is 315 to 280 nm And this http://www.macalester.edu/~kuwata/classes/2011-12/Chem%20222/O2%20Absorption%20Spectrum.pdf is the UV absorbtion spectrum of oxygen. As you can see, it doesn't absorb UV-B And, since the light isn't absorbed, it can't transfer energy to the oxygen. And, since the energy isn't transferred, it can't convert oxygen to the (higher energy) ozone. That's not my "opinion" as you keep seeking to pretend. It's thermodynamics (again). Incidentally, it's also irelavant, since ozone near ground level is poisonous (as I already pointed out, but you ignored) But I see we are finally making progress when you say "I am not even clear why you are saying "shouting at clouds". Who is endorsing shouting at a cloud? Is that supposed to be a Straw Man suggesting someone has said to do such a thing. I assumed "Shouting at the clouds" was possibly a cliche I was unaware of, but I cannot find the meaning if it is. Shouting at anything to get it to work sounds silly." OK, do you realise that shouting at clouds won't work and that it's silly to waste time discussing it further? Do you also see that, for example seeking to breed flying fish that make ozone is silly and it would be wasteful to spend more time discussing it? Do you see that any prolonged discussions of any method that will clearly never work is silly? OK, now you just need to realise that, since your proposals all break the first law of thermodynamics (whether you understand that or not), they are just as daft as shouting at clouds. So there's (still) no point in discussing them. Nobody is actually endorsing shouting at clouds, but you are repeatedly endorsing something just as futile- even after that fat has been pointed out (repeatedly) So, once again, why are you still going on about it? Incidentally, this assertion "You seem clear the only worthwhile effort you can envision is reducing cfc's." is plainly wrong too. If I thought that was the only game in town, I wouldn't have said "of things that might possibly work" Did you not understand the use of the plural there, or did you just nort read it? Re. "UV-B can and does cause Ozone and is well known to impact the Earth so any argument otherwise is wrong. Do I need to cite papers that show UV-B can be reflected and can create ozone?" Go on, I could use a laugh. Of course, if they are referring to the production of ozone by secondary reactions- the interaction of UV with organic pollutants for example, they are not going to work properly because the organic stuff is destroyed in the process- you can only use it once and, of course the ozone still isn't in the right place. That's before we address the issues of reflecting lots of sunlight into space and the effect that would have on the earth. So, even if it worked (it can't ) and it produced ozone in the right place(it won't) and if it didn't produce toxic by-products (and it would) then it's still not any more sensible than shouting. As you say "Several of the ideas I suggested were obviously not practical" Yep, and so there's no real point to discussing them- just like shouting at clouds.

That page indicates that it does not cause an allergic reaction. There's certainly no evidence f protein being present.

"So according to you any UV light reflected from a mirror on the ground would not make it back to the stratosphere to make regular ozone?" For the third time, no. Because the short wave UV you need to make ozone (typically <200 nm) doesn't reach the ground because it's absorbed by oxygen, ozone etc, on the way down. Why can't you grasp that? I note the nature article refers to work that's 20 years old. This is a very slow computer so I'm not able to check the date of the other page at the moment. It doesn't matter because increasing the greenhouse effect isn't a practical solution , it's a disaster.

Doh! Should I blame some sort of mystic influence for forgetting it the first time?

Not a lot to do with the topic, but here's a video explaining John Chang's stunts, without needing magic.

If I hang a spring from a stand so that the lower end dangles in free air then raise a metal plate under it until it just touches the bottom of the spring, how does it prevent it from contracting?

"There are desalination tools available, which remove the salt (NaCl) but keep most other elements in the water." How?