John Cuthber

So, you asked someone who posted a question in the homework help section why they posted that question. I'm going to stick my neck out and suggest it's because it's a homework question, and they wanted help with it.

Because we help with homework, we don't do it for you.

I think the essential problem is this "You put it on your skin, let it sink in and wait until it mixes with the gunk". You are waiting for a solid to mix with another solid and that's going to take a long time.

I must be missing something here. Imagine that I get two clocks and the help of a friend. I synchronise the clocks when they are next to eachother. I take one of the clocks and walk to the bottom of the garden. My friend sets off a flash of light at exactly noon (by their clock). I see the flash at 1 second past noon (it's a long garden). I know that my garden is 3E8 metres long so I know that the speed of light is 3E8 m/s. I know that, in principle, there's an effect from time dilation when I move the clock, I have to compensate for it, but I don't know how big the effect is. So I repeat the experiment but this time, instead of walking, I run. I get a very slightly different result for c. I repeat the experiment again, but this time I go by bus. Again I get a slightly different result for c I do this at a number of velocities and I extrapolate the results to the value of c when my velocity (while carrying the clock) is zero. In that case, the effect of the movement on the clock is zero. That clock (which doesn't actually exist) gives me a measure of the true speed of light, measured in one direction. Incidentally, as far as I understood it, this was essentially the method used a while back to measure the speed of neutrinos at OPERA. They famously got a slightly wrong answer, but there's nothing wrong with the method in principle.

A fairly typical IQ test question would be: you have a jug that holds 7 pints and a jug that holds 3 pints and a tap. How do you measure out exactly 1 pint of water? It's a test of problem solving, not knowledge of facts. If people are doing better on the tests it's because they are better at critical thinking and problem solving. So, it seems your whole point is based on the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about. (The tests you see on-line are seldom proper IQ tests)

Well, your earlier reply was short, ambiguous, and not as helpful as it might have been. What relevance does a brilliant mathematician have to a thread full of dross?

OK Krash661, here's one of his ideas (They really don't count as "theorems" on account of the lack of evidence supporting them) "Black Holes are not holes, they are neither portals to other universes, it's counter intuitive to think that they are anything other than super solid objects." What might it be used for? Incidentally, nobody really said they were holes or portals, so it's the other bit that I'm asking you to explain the use of. What use is being made of the assertion that "it's counter intuitive to think that they are anything other than super solid objects."? Indeed, what use is being made of any of his ideas? It's also wrong to say that I don't know anything about them. I know that they are not consistent with observed reality (See SamBridge's comments above)

Yes, but it's rather difficult to see it as having anything to do with the topic. Ramanujan was a great mathematician, a genius in most people's opinion. Popcorn, on the other hand, is not.

"Should heading be eliminated from soccer?" Only after you have banned boxing. The point of football is to get the ball in the goal. The point of boxing is to brain damage your opponent. (They call it a knock-out)

LOL I'd like to think that this smiley is fairly clear.

If the kinetic energy is more than the gravitational binding energy the orbit isn't going to be an ellipse.

Yes, but that's neither what you said, nor what I asked for. You said "the cause" not a possible cause.

Well, in principle, it's an easy enough question to answer. Dig out the original IQ test from the depths of history and get a bunch of modern kids to sit the test See how their IQ's compare with those who did it all those years ago. Obviously, that might be a lot of work. On the other hand, unlike empty speculation, it will actually be science. Of course, the fact is that the Flynn effect was noticed because people did set the same test repeatedly and people got progressively better scores. It's an experimentally observed fact so, whatever the OP might feel, the Flynn effect is not an illusion, it's real. On the other hand, this "What if those tests are merely amplifications of generalizations that society has come to?" doesn't actually mean anything. The stuff about atoms and DNA is a red herring, because they refer to specific information and learning. the whole point of IQ tests was that (as far as they could) the did not require that sort of data. Knowing what an atom is won't help you in an IQ test, because they don't ask about atoms.

Most people don't use a computer as a fan. The semiconductors wouldn't work if you were right. They do work. You are wrong.

I'm even more certain that it's now too late to see the doctor.

Do you realise that what you posted there is nonsense?

As far as I understand it, the police have always had a list which includes the "unlisted" numbers.

Some resources have run out because they were over exploited. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_Pigeon There is no reason to suppose that it can't happen again. Gold is getting more expensive, partly because it's getting rare.

I can't see how it's a breach of the 4th amendment to look up whose number it is. The data is public domain. They are not searching or seizing anything that belongs to you. The authorities know- by what ever means, about some crooks. They can find the 'phone numbers of those crooks- by looking them up in the phone book. they can look at the records which belong to the phone companies and find out who those crooks are talking to.- they get the 'phone numbers . They can look up those numbers in a reverse directory and find out to whom the initial, known, crook is talking and they can also tell for how long, and at waht time. that data is of legitimate interest to the authorities for the performance of their job and, as far as I can see, it's perfectly legal. The only dodgy bit is getting the data from the phone companies and that has been declared legal. I rather doubt that criminals use of the phone is distinguishable from other people's use of it. Not least because most crooks are not 24/7 crooks. they also call their mates to go for a drink and they have to get a baby sitter or a doctor from time to time, just like the rest of us. I also think that many of the crooks are essentially running a small business and their use of the phone would look like any other small business. It may be possible to look at the stats and find some sort of clustering which correlates with criminality, but I'd expect any competent judge to explain to them that correlation isn't causation and not issue a warrant without supporting information.

Have you forgotten that I was the first to suggest hydrogen as a cause? I said "There are, on the other hand, sensible explanations of the tank failures you cite. A zinc coated tank will generate hydrogen which is known to be explosively flammable when mixed with air." about a week ago. The chemistry isn't obscure because of its age, it's obscure because the circumstances in which it happens to any significant extent are rare. "In essence, bad water with high nitrates and nitrities could behave (meaning explode, erupt, burns,..)" No it could not. It is far too dilute. Stop being silly.

It's not a matter of not trusting them (I don't, but that's not the issue). The issue is that, unless they actually find out who the people are, then they don't gain anything. It would be incompetent of them not to see who is talking to whom. The police were the first group that had ever heard of who were able to do a reverse directory search (i.e. find the person from the number, rather than the other way round), and that was in the 1970s. Why would they not do so now? They are permitted to, the have the ability to and it makes their work a lot easier because they only have to track the known crooks (and their friends) rather than the whole population. That's not the same as the "forbidden" issue of recording the actual content of the call. (Though governments do that routinely with email) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A5-2001-0264+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN

You are still ignoring the fact that you could get nitric oxide- if there were enough nitrate and there usually isn't. We know that there isn't because we would have heard about the poisonings. http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/diseases/methaemoglob/en/ That data is from the WHO a group paid for by the governments that you say are not dealing with the problem. "Someone tell me I am wrong, I will sleep better." I already have, repeatedly. the only effect was that you came up with more outlandish suggestions. Production of nitrogen isn't much of an issue either- it's also slightly soluble in water and most water couldn't (even if the reactions went to completion) produce much nitrogen because there's not much nitrite or ammonia. And, just to make this clear. There's no way that your fantasy of ammonium nitrite explosions can happen. You can't get nitric oxide and ammonia from the same water because they would react, and you also seem to be ignoring the fact that the stuff would be hygroscopic in the conditions concerned (i.e. 100% RH) so it would dissolve and run back into the rest of the tank forming such a dilute solution that nobody would care about it. Why are you still going on about this? Do you realise that normal people would think "the tank corrodes and so it fails" but you think "the tank corrodes and due to some obscure chemistry this creates an impossible set of conditions that creates an acid and a base at the same time by either oxidation or reduction of something which probably isn't actually there, but they don't react in solution, They bubble out into the gas phase- even though neither of them could be present at anything like their solubility limits- unless there's an international government conspiracy going on which would lead to an epidemic which we don't see.- and they create a salt which, for some reason doesn't just pick up water from the saturated water vapour that it's in and dissolve, but crystallises out and explodes- so the tank fails."? "Bottomline, if there is a water quality issue associated with nitrates and nitrites in the presence of select metals, reduction reaction can occur forming N2 gas. In fact, this is pretty much common knowledge as to quote from the last source:" And if there isn't (which we know to be the case) then the reaction won't happen. Alternatively, bottom line, the tanks corrode and fail.

I seem to be missing a couple of things. Why is DH assuming that we would only send one device? And it might be helpful to explain the problem with getting a missile to the comet; after all, if we wait the comet comes to us. It might be difficult to get one to the comet before it's too late but that's surely a matter of how early we could detect it.

"Could a fly change the trajectory of a bowling ball enough to change a strike into a gutter ball?" Yes, if the bowling ball was travelling from far enough away.

Hang on? "What the government knows is that 555-1234 called 555-5678 and talked for 14 minutes. (Multiplied by millions of calls each day) What it doesn't know is that John Smith called Jane Jones and talked for 14 minutes. " Do you not think that the government has a phone book? Of course they know who called whom (in most cases). If they don't know whose phone it is then there's no point collecting the data because someone calling their partners in crime looks pretty much like someone calling their friends.