John Cuthber

It would freeze, but it might burst the safe. Water expands when it turns to ice. You don't need air for water to freeze- comes are often described as "dirty snowballs".

Are most climate scientists alarmists? No The problem is the rate of change of CO2 and thus of climate.

Since 390 nm is (practically) invisible the extent to which a dye absorbs it has nothing to do with the color of the dye. The extent to which teh dye fades also depends on the nature of the dye. It would take a while to fade cinnabar (OK that's a pigment, not a dye) which darkens with exposure to light. The answer to the OP's question si also "it depends on the dye". It should be.

I'm fairly sure that caffeine citrate is not a salt. I think it's a hydrogen bonded molecular complex.

The mortality rate for flu is about 0.1%. The mortality rate for 19 NCov is about 2% It's about 20 times more likely to kill you. In the UK about 600 people a year die from flu- in spite of the fact that many people are vaccinated and that we have antivirals that help treat it. So, it's not unreasonable to imagine that, if there's a serious outbreak in the UK, it's more likely that you will catch it and, if you catch it, it's more likely to kill you. That's grounds for making a bit of fuss.

It worked. It worked under Bill Clinton, and it was just starting to work under Obama- which is how Trump managed to capitalise on the results of policies he didn't enact.

So, if you actually look at the evidence, does JC McS's claim hold water?

If I'm reading the figures right, the last time the US national debt fell was under Clinton. It's now as high as it's ever been (after a few years under Trump) and rising about as fast as it ever did, but without the excuse of the 2007/08 world wide recession. It seems to have started climbing steeply under Reagan. It carried on under Bush(I) and leveled out, then fell under Clinton. The current deficit is about a trillion dollars. https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/1-trillion-deficits-return-despite-trump-s-campaign-promises-n1116951

https://xkcd.com/285/ Practically nobody here said anything like that. Those that did got taken to the cleaners because, scientifically, eugenics is dumb.

Saddam hussein won the vote in Iraq, but it wasn't a democratic system. The "German Democratic Republic" wasn't actually a democracy. If the system gives what's plainly the wrong answer, it's not actually a democratic system, is it?

I'd be a bit more concerned about the fact that the chemical reaction is actually endothermic. There are, of course, much better experiments. However any experiment is enough to show that this claim is simply false.

Quite possibly, though I don't know how well sealed they are. If it did, what difference would it make?

That's a surprise to the majority of US voters who didn't vote for their current president.

It's not hard to find an experiment

OK, if you think that three dots making a triangle is significant then you haven't thought it through. Let me know when they make a square.

I thought this was everybody's favourite statistical mechanics story... An exam question "Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or Endothermic (absorbs heat)?" "First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate that souls are moving into Hell and the rate they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand as souls are added. This gives two possibilities: If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose. Of course, if Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over. So which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa Banyan during my Freshman year, "...that it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you." and take into account the fact that I still have not succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then, #2 cannot be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and will not freeze." Obviously, I pinched that from the web. :-)

And dishonesty was always a requirement of the political right.

Sorry, I thought the idea and constructive suggestion, though implicit, were obvious enough. Don't waste your time on this. If the organisers say it has to be made from materials with consistent densities (even though the real thing wasn't) then they are setting you up to fail. I have no qualms about criticising them.

Define "cheating" If this is true then whoever set the conditions is cheating

In some cases, that will require someone to read the book to them- preferably on faux news. Not much of a risk. Essentially, the Republicans have taken the stance that they are dishonest, but nobody cares. It's working just fine so far.

Nobody in their right mind thinks this virus is from a lab. No. You seem to have misunderstood. This is a a science web page not a conspiracy theory one. By whom is this said? Do you have any credible support for that?

So preoccupied with it that they built Stonehenge. we know this because... they built Stonehenge. It may not have been "only" a calendar. People don't build small cathedrals.

You probably made silica gel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silica_gel#Preparation Borax isn't usually thought of as an acid, but it's more acidic than sodium silicate.

Which figure?

I was particularly struck by the posts about losing UK sovereignty. Here's the UK's sovereign (before, during and after the UK's membership of the EU). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II Here's the man who sent his cronies to lie to her https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Johnson The problem's not so much that they think others are stupid, as that they are stupid themselves, but think everyone else is wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect. Yes, they "see" that, but it's clearly illusory. (and that's before we get to the issue of brexiteers who apparently think that China, India and Africa must be part of the EU, because they think that brexit will affect immigration in a manner that tallies with their racist viewpoint)