John Cuthber

Acid rain is less of an issue because they fitted scrubbers to remove SO2 from the flue gases in power stations and reduced the sulphur content of fuels. Not dumping lots of acid into the air reduced the acidity of the rain. Gosh! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flue-gas_desulfurization

Yes, just the other day someone at work was burned at the stake for not accepting the dogma; and I have been under house arrest for heresy for 6 months now (I'm not sure I dare mention what it was that I believed and that I only believed it because it's what the evidence showed). Still, I'm better off than the last guy- he died while they were torturing him. In the meantime the boss still refuses to look through the telescope because he knows that he couldn't see the moons of Jupiter because they are not there- the dogma says do.

I think it's fair to point out that the natural defences of the eye (the iris, squinting and blinking) do a very good job of protecting it against the sun. Sunglasses may make sunny days more comfortable, but they eye is pretty safe without them. We evolved to cope with a lifetime of sunshine (and we probably did it somewhere sunnier than most of us now live). Most of the sun's energy is visible light, rather than UV, so acute UV injury from sunlight is unlikely unless you are wearing cheap sunglasses. The UV will cause some degradation of the eye- just as it does with the skin. I suspect that your eyes are not what they once were, simply because you are a bit older. It might be helpful to distinguish between the effect of too much energy being dissipated at the back of the eye - which heats it and damages it- and this sort of damage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-energy_visible_light

So, do you go for the active voice which is generally clearer or the house style passive voice which generally isn't as clear? The difference is, as much as anything, the use of personal pronouns. If the content isn't up to scratch the paper will probably be rejected anyway. All doubt can be removed by submitting it here. http://www.universalrejection.org/

There are men now. Long ago there were not. There must have been a first one. (For whatever choice of definition of "man" you make) By calling ourselves "man" we have set an arbitrary point.

Is the point of the exercise to learn to sue Chemdraw (or some such) or to learn how to name chemicals?

Since you say "My favorite bacteria can thus continue to eat the milk and spit out waste products" the product would smell of those waste products. Feel free to invent any you like, but don't pretend it has anything to do with science.

Should have.

What is the point of a vote? They exist, or they don't. The vote will not change the fact, nor will it inform you of the bond order.

It depends on the "house style" of the journal. Scientists used to write papers in the passive voice ie" An experiment was done to find..." but, increasingly they now write "We did an experiment to find..." Personally, I usually find the latter more readable.

There must have been a first man, for any given definition of "man". He died long ago. Most of his body will have decomposed; there may be a few bits of bone left. The material from which he was made (carbon, nitrogen, etc) will, by now be dispersed throughout the world. Some of "Adam" is going to be buried in Iraq. Other bits will be in my glass of fruit juice.* Whether or not he was initially buried in Iraq is a very different question. * based on the sort of calculation given here http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/archives/001392.html

Choose your government I guess. The kilogram (and there is only one) is in France. I know someone who knows someone who has seen it. It is looked after by the French on behalf of an international organisation http://www.bipm.org/ So, no single government is in charge of it. It was based on the metre which required an international collaboration to realise it. That happened even though the countries concerned were at war. It surpasses governments, even though they fund it. I gave up on this thread because nobody responded to my request for a definition of "fair" posted on the 8th of Feb.

Yes, at least until the coke cooled down

I suspect that we can see "new" stars forming far away, but I don't know enough about space to be certain of this. If we can then the theory is a bit odd. Also I think Olber's paradox would mess things up unless you accept that the Universe has only been around for a finite time.

I don't think there's anything wrong with starting a paper by saying "This report considers what would happen if..." It might be better to start "We observed that... and this led us to believe that ... . This report considers the outcome of that line of thinking" It's difficult to say without knowing what you are writing about, for what audience etc.

Oh yes we did! I guess you guys don't do pantomime http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantomime#Pantomime_traditions_and_conventions have a look at the bit about audience participation. (It's behind you!)

For all practical purposes, the probability of Dean existing is 1 i.e. 100 %. We are pretty much certain he's real.

"I HAVE CREATED A PERFECT VACUUM" Oh no you haven't.

Never having had lice I don't associate the term with itching so I don't need to "try now not to scratch the multiple itches that have just populated your head ". Are you trying to tell us something?

It's not my field but I believe that the original bang made hydrogen, deuterium, helium and a little lithium. This material went on to form the first stars. "After dark ages, why we can not see many black holes? " The hint is in the name. "The condition is , my guessing, very good to make many black holes." What would your second guess be?

And, since you do have experience it would have been better to state it rather than provoke a nanny reply. We are clever, but we are not psychic and, as Dragonstar says, we get far too many people who are more likely to get a Darwin award than a Nobel prize. To avoid having to deal with their next- of-kin's lawyers we tend to tell people to walk before they can run. If you don't mention you're a professional sprinter, you should expect to get the same advice. It was your first post; how were we meant to know?

I have no ethical problems using my personal neurocomputer and I even rent it out to my employers.

Last time I checked, one of the defining characteristics of a gas was that it filled the whole of the container it was placed in. If you were to carefully add CO2 from the bottom of the greenhouse then you would get some layering for a while, but convection currents and diffusion would soon mix it up. With a lot of CO2 in the air, the farmer will have problems regardless of the presence of any micro-organisms. He needs oxygen.

phytotoxic means toxic to plants. SO2 will dissolve in water to form H2SO3 which is readily oxidised by ozone, hydroxyl radicals or even oxygen to H2SO4.

Ask Turing. Anyway, I understand that the USPO will accept patents for a perpetual motion machine, but only if you set one going in their office and come back a year later. Even then, they need further evidence (or a decent quartz watch would pass muster).