John Cuthber

Do you realise that you are not arguing with Imatfall, Swansont or me, but you are arguing with the laws of physics?

If I do a calculation of the mass of a unicorn (by adding the typical mass of a horse to the mass of a narwhal horn) is that evidence that the unicorn exists? At best the calculations are (some) evidence that the stuff might exist, not that it does, or that it will. Also, I was doing research on 2D materials in 1987. It wasn't especially new. The original work I cited was from 1919 if I remember correctly. Now, can anyone tell me any measured property of CsF3?

I can't post a picture of me, I'm a chatbot.

But the signal is carried back down the cable by an em field, so the effect is the same as just reflecting the light. It's still a "round trip" time, but you have relabelled the return part of the trip as "delay". An optical fibre works by bouncing light signal round inside it so it effectively has many mirrors.

When I worked in a bar (a long time ago) the apparent purpose of these items was to culture microorganisms on the workings which are almost impossible to keep clean. The given reason was to keep the juice stirred and cooled,

That would prevent rotation, but the whole thing would just wiggle back and to. It wouldn't develop thrust.

The sun is not a black body. Nor is the earth. However, because of rising CO2 levels the earth is more black that it was. But the earth's gravity has not changed. So we know this idea is still wrong.

It seems that we fundamentally disagree on the effect of putting something in the trash. Would you be offended if all your posts were sent to the trash? If so it's censorship. if not then I think you have a rather unusual outlook.

This seems a rather long thread considering that there's no actual evidence that the material exists (or ever will).

"If a thread is not unnecessarily offenssive but remains questionable a moderator could warn the patron and ask them to clean up their post to be less offenssive. If this person does not agree with the moderators decision they can choose to have their post moved to a section that is dedicated to questioning if people are being censored. This section should be completely viewable by the public and easily noticable. Also, once the moderator has given the warning and asked the OP to rewrite their post, it should be moved to the "questioning censorship" thread. If a post is completely removed I suggest moving it to a trash thread" So the options are to leave it, move it to a "questioned" pile or completely remove it. Don't you consider the latter two to be censorship?

If you are "building up a case" for the idea that a vegan diet is good, then you are not doing science, you are demonstrating bias. There's a picture on the web that purports to show the radiation from Fukushima. It shows a big scary green blob spreading across the ocean. On the other hand, it doesn't tell you what the scale means. Most of that blob is a lot less radioactive than my pee. So, in reply to "you might want to reconsider salmon. IDK how much radiation will be increased in salmon from it." I have considered it. I do know how much the increase in radiation will be. And I think I might have salmon for lunch tomorrow; there's no meaningful risk from it.

Well, there are kits on the market that let you measure most of those nutrients. I don't know what precision they offer, but it's reasonable to assume that they are adequate, or they wouldn't sell. For what it's worth, my guess would be that, if the results are good to +/- 10% relative then the effects of temperature, water level and sunlight will make more difference than the concentrations of nutrients. Also, with "colour change" tests 10% relative is about as good as it gets. If there was an easy, simple or cheap way to do it that information would be all over the web so... The simple answer to the question in the OP is that, for small numbers of sample, you can shake things by hand. Googling hydroponics will probably get you some information (oddly, a lot of the people doing that only seem to be interested in one crop, but the advice is probably applicable to other plants).

Sorry, it may be a language problem, but that simply does not make sense.

Good optical glass shouldn't glow under visible light. The additives used to increase refractive index etc also shouldn't- so the effect in the OP is due to impurities which just happen to be there in the glass.

OK, here's the specific example again. http://www.thestar.c...day_poster.html just so you can not pay attention to it (Sheesh!) How do you plan to address the problem that one person's idea of "sensible moderation" is another person's idea of "censorship"?

"Your question does not make sense" is a direct answer. Please stop posting threads which ask questions too poorly constructed to answer. And good luck finding someone who can reliably measure anything in soil to that accuracy. If you find someone who says they can, let me know and I will ask them some awkward questions. The first one is how to weigh out soil to that precision because it's always gaining or losing water? There's also the problem of the buoyancy correction since you don't know (in advance) the density of the soil. You can't use the "traditional" approach of weighing in vacuo because of the loss of volatiles. Seriously, when I said "probably unachievable" I meant it. It would also be interesting to know why you think that level of precision is important.

No. It is plainly not logically sensible. I can measure the gravitational attraction between two objects that are not black bodies. So, any explanation that explains gravity in terms of black bodies is wrong.

Which interpretation of 0.1% do you mean? The one that's probably unachievable, or the one that's meaningless? For example, more than 330 parts per million or 0.003% nitrogen is considered high http://www.ksre.ksu.edu/kswater/images/nitrogen.htm So all results would be reported as 0.0% Or do you hope to measure ti so that you can tell the difference between 0.003% and 0.003003%

Can't be right. Gravity also works with things that are not black bodies. It also doesn't make a lot of sense, but who cares. It's plainly wrong.

Pumpkins and carrots etc contain carotene. Polar bear livers contain vitamin A If the body is short of vitamin A it can make it from carotene. If, on the other hand, it has plenty, it doesn't bother. So, it doesn't ever make too much vitamin A. Too much vitamin A is toxic; too much carotene is much less of a problem. So, that's why polar bear livers are toxic, but pumpkins are not.

Are you blind?

The potassium level of bananas is a little higher than most other foods. However (unless you start off with a potassium deficiency) most of that potassium will be rapidly excreted in the urine so the net dose will be somewhere between negligible and non-existent. You are already much more radioactive than a banana There's about 0.5 grams of potassium in a bananaand, if this is to be believed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_the_human_body there's about 280 grams in a typical person.

Ignore the specific example. If you were a moderator, how would you address the fact that some people's idea of a joke or a valid point is other people's idea of an insult? You can't please both groups. How do you plan to address the problem that one person's idea of "sensible moderation" is another person's idea of "censorship"?

Well, the physical problems due to the surgery are generally relatively minor (and don't forget that the complications with birth can be severe). The other issue is one of the mother's mental health. the scientific research shows that such problems are rare. "Major medical bodies have found that induced abortions do not cause mental-health problems, and that the risk of mental-health problems is equal whether an unplanned pregnancy is carried to term or terminated via abortion." (from wiki) Unfortunately, it's a topic where plenty of people are prepared to lie about it. (ageni, from wiki) "Despite the weight of medical opinion on the subject, some pro-life advocacy groups have continued to allege a link between abortion and mental-health problems.[12] Some pro-life groups have used the term "post-abortion syndrome" to refer to negative psychological effects which they attribute to abortion. However, "post-abortion syndrome" is not recognized as an actual syndrome by any medical or psychological organization,[13] and physicians and pro-choice advocates have argued that the effort to popularize the idea of a "post-abortion syndrome" is a tactic used by pro-life advocates for political purposes." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_and_mental_health So, if you are planning to do any research in this field, be sure to check that any information you find on-line isn't a bunch of lies spread for political reasons.

If you try doing the experiment you will find that it doesn't work that way.