John Cuthber

If you think that weight is what creates pressure, then you have not understood the words. Yes. It does No it is not. It can not be an a priori thing because we have proved that it does not exist.

An experiment rather like this is actually done as a means to measure things like air pollution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavity_ring-down_spectroscopy The effect you are looking for is not observed.

The production of ammonia (and other amines) is exothermic. You would get more heat in your rocket by burning hydrogen than by reacting it with nitrogen, letting the heat produced by that dissipate (in the ammonia factory) , and then burning the ammonia in the rocket. Not really. You can drill a hole in the ground and get alkanes. (admittedly, you can piss in a pot and get ammonia) Until the Haber Bosch process came on stream, it was difficult and expensive to make ammonia- a state of affairs that hampered food production. The production of ammonia uses about 1 or 2 % of the human race's energy consumption. That energy is generally obtained by burning alkanes. The hydrogen for the industrial production of ammonia is derived, on the whole, from alkanes. If you look at this chart of energy densities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#/media/File:Energy_density.svg you will see why they use hydrogen- it's all the way over to the right The alkane fuels (LPG, petrol, diesel etc ) are all pretty much lined up at about 45 MJ/Kg and ammonia and hydrazine- the only amines on the chart- are well over to the left. You could make kerosene denser by adding sand to it, but that wouldn't make it a better rocket fuel.

I am a chemist; but not a rocket scientist. Can you explain why a molecule like PMDETA would be a good fuel? It's got a lot of nitrogen in it which is "carried along for the ride". It's loosely equivalent to adding water to the fuel. It adds weight, but not energy. There may be times when that's a good thing, but rocketry isn't one of them.

If you did this once a year then you could "safely" multiply by 365. It's a non problem. Drinking water the rest of the year will make more difference to the total dose.

Are you really trying to say that they changed the Bill of Rights and nobody noticed? Are you still expecting to betaken seriously?

Why would I bother? "Heresy" is only an issue if you think that your beliefs are more important than reality. Nor to us. Why don't you stop?

Just another example but... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earnshaw's_theorem says that you can't have something stable and levitated in space by a magnetic field. And it should be correct. But, QM gives you a way round it. So things like this are macroscopic quantum observations which you can set up for yourself.

Well, if it could be made better it wasn't perfect, was it? Do you recognise that your idea is logically impossible? In reality, China pretty much brought in martial law to stop the virus. No, they didn't. They were led by a man who said they didn't need to because the virus would disappear in Spring. Do you understand that saying things which are clearly wrong does not help to convince anyone that you are right about anything?

It's not a "charge"; it's an observation. What would your second guess be?

Joigus may be many things, but I don't think "fool" is on the list. On the other hand you condemn him for saying which is a paraphrase of Jeremiah 5:21 ‘Hear this now, O foolish people, Without understanding, Who have eyes and see not, And who have ears and hear not:

That seems to cover all bases. But it's meaningless. You seem good at that.

And when it doesn't...? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_fractionation

The correct answer is clay- a form of earth. Thanks for a nice clear example of your Bible being wrong. One example is enough. Please don't bother to provide any more.

What experiment? The "4 humours" don't really exist. Snot is not a character trait. Melancholic does not really exist so, that's impossible. No experiment needed (or, indeed, possible).

You failed to answer the question.

No It isn't. Nobody seriously uses those classifications any more. Your doctor s unlikely to categorise you as sanguine, choleric, melancholic or phlegmatic. If they used it, you might have a point, but they don't.

What do you think bricks are made from? Science and the law both reject hearsay; for the same reasons.

And, from time to time, the "laws" get overturned as Relativity did with Newtonian physics. Which is why science has the sense to say that (outside of maths) nothing gets proved. It may be that we simply haven't done a clever enough experiment yet. The law has similar understanding, whence the phrase "beyond reasonable doubt".

Ruins this joke https://imgflip.com/i/wa6ee More importantly it ruins what is seen as part of the "unique selling point" of Christianity. Their prophet was special- conceived through God. (Yes, you and I know it's not remotely unique, but the early Christians put a lot of effort into suppressing that sort of knowledge in order to seem "special") Archaeology is science, but the dead sea scrolls are hearsay. Science can't even tell us that Mary was real. The scrolls tell you what was said, but not what was true. She might have been a virgin; we don't know. But , if she was, you would have thought they would have mentioned it in the scrolls.

On a good day, "straight down" is the direction in which something in free fall accelerates, but it's seldom the direction in which it moves.

Simplicity, I think. And that's pretty much the same as price.

Then it would still be wrong to say "It's the difference between a tithe and a tax; a tithe you give happily..."

I think the Arecibo one was spherical too. It' might be something to do with the lack of steering. With a sphere it points in all directions- you just need to move the receiver. But a paraboloid has a single axis that you have to line up with the target.