John Cuthber

You have missed the point twice. The spot on the retina is as small as it's going to get because it's diffraction limited. Making the object smaller will not make any difference to the size of the image. Also, stars are brighter than the torch. and, as I pointed out earlier, there are plenty of photons getting here- that's why you can see the stars at night. The stars are bright enough and they will form an image at the retina that looks exactly the same size and shape as the image of a torch-lit pinhole. BTW, you have not yet answered my question. Where do the other photons go?

I though Leviticus said that about people who eat shellfish too. The bible also says "thou shalt not kill" so it contradicts itself. I'm mildly puzzled by "Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them." Without their heads, just how worried about their fingertips will thy be? Whatever, I'm pretty sure that the Koran also says that you shouldn't kill unbelievers- you tell then about the word of the prophet and, if they don't pay attention that's their problem. As you might have realised, I'm an atheist so my viewpoint on the death penalty is that it's only applicable if you can be certain that they person concerned is guilty- because it's not something you can reverse. (I realise that compensating someone who was wrongly imprisoned doesn't really amount to justice). Since only the God (that I don't believe in) can be entirely sure that a man is guilty, you shouldn't have a death penalty. It's probably telling that practically no civilised nation still has the death penalty.

with twelve buffers.

Sodium boils IIRC at about red heat but, in a vacuum (and that's the circumstances where you would usually get sodium vapour) it will generate significant vapour at a lower temperature. A bit of web searching suggests the sodium lamps run at about 250C. That's far too cold to excite the atoms to emit visible light, so it's far too cold to promote sodium atoms to the excited state that emits the yellow "sodium light". Certainly the lamps run cool enough that , if it were not for the electric discharge inside them, they wouldn't glow visible at all.

There aren't many natural fluoro-organics and they are all biologically produced anyway so they would be evidence for life. It's just there's a lot more methane so it would be much easier to spot. If our aliens did spot the CFCs they could be pretty sure they were made by technology but they might not be sure about intelligence.

I'm fairly sure that it's neutral sodium atoms that give that yellow colour.

"And how likely do you think you are to be able to walk up to a police station carrying a battered suitcase with drugs and money falling out of it, without being noticed and questioned? Especially if this was rather far from a police station, odds are pretty good that they might not believe you were turning it in." Almost certain. as has been pointed out before, people carry suitcases. I have even heard of crooks stealing someone's suitcases along with their stereo etc because carrying luggage does not attract attention. Also, since from time to time I carry explosives batteries and timers onto commercial aircraft (perfectly legitimately I should point out), I'm quite good at answering questions about what I'm carrying and why. If I saw a police car or officer I would flag it down and ask for a lift to the station. On the way I would tell them about the chase I had seen. They can check on that for themselves so they would know I was telling the truth. "In case you didn't know, there are the occasional bad people in police stations. By its very nature, the policeman job is extremely attractive to criminals." In case you didn't know I already addressed that - I said "If you have police you can't trust then the whole system goes to pot and there's no reason to hand things in to them." "Well they can get you for drug possession," No they can't. There are exceptions to the general rule that if you have drugs it's possession. One of the obvious ones is that the police are allowed to confiscate drugs without themselves getting done. Handing in drugs to a police station is another exception. If all else fails of course, I can open up this site and show them this thread.

They might be able to see that our atmosphere (which is big so they might see it easily) contains significant quantities of both methane and oxygen. Those two compounds should react, so the only way they can both be there is if something odd is happening. They might deduce that there's probably life here. To see any evidence of us, and in particular our intelligence, would be much harder

I believe sodium vapour is blue. It absorbs exactly the same yellow light that a sodium lamp emits.

Just as soon as they show me some evidence, I'm prepared to learn about it. But you are right about this just degenerating into a slanging match. Nice cartoon BTW.

The "Biological Theory of Ionization " looks like total quackery to me.

"To say someone is ignorant is not insulting, to say they are stupid is how ever insulting. Ignorance can be cured, stupidity implies something that cannot be changed due to a real defect in the person or that the person refuses to learn." From my point of view, as a staunch atheist, the believers refuse to learn that there is no God. Am I allowed to describe that as stupid?

Stop sniffing the solvents; it has started to affect your spelling.

So much for "the land of the free". If you have police you can't trust then the whole system goes to pot and there's no reason to hand things in to them. I wonder if they realise this. Of course, I could hand it in without giving my name- that loses me any chance of getting a reward or I could try these people http://www.crimestoppers-uk.org/giving-information.html

The important bit from the link you posted was "Merseyside Police dropped the case". Just because some over zealous copper F***ed up isn't grounds to dump the whole system. Anyway,as I said, you would definitely be liable for arrest if you didn't hand it in and the coppers wouldn't then drop the charges. I'm also puzzled about the idea that someone goes into a police station ans says. "Hi, I'd not like to say who I am, but I'd like to know who handed in the money I threw out of a car. You should remember it- it was in a suitcase with a bunch of drugs and a gun. No, I'd rather not leave my details- but could you just let me know his name and address? Thanks." How is the car driver going to track me? Is he really going to wait 6 months then stake out every police station in the area while waiting for someone who he has never seen to come out with a bag of money (not the original case, I'm not that dumb)? I am prepared to take that risk. My opinion of the police might not be high but I know they understand the importance of anonymity. They don't publicise lists saying "Mr J blogs, 23 the high st. Sometown handed in a bag of cash, dope and weaponry. Would the owners please form an orderly queue." "And what if the police suspect there was something else in the suitcase that I took?" Like what? If I'm handing in the money what would I have kept? They would need some sort of evidence to get a warrant; there isn't any so they couldn't get one.

"Interesting. That's a UK law that seems to have no counterpart elsewhere. But I fail to see how that would encourage you to turn the whole suitcase in to the police and risk arrest." Theft is taking someone else's property without their consent and with the intention of permanently depriving them of it. The definition is pretty much the same in all countries. If you take the case you have done exactly that, unless you can show that your intention was not to keep it. Its' definitely not yours. They did not consent you you taking it- they may have left it because they were tired of carrying it or they may have left it for someone (in particular) to pick up. The police chase may have been a coincidence. Handing it to the police proves that you don't plan to keep it. By keeping it I would risk arrest for theft. I'm not risking arrest by handing it in. They can't arrest me for finding a suitcase. What would the charge be? On that account you cant use this as a defence "I'm not sure 'reasonable attempt' is defined that way exactly. If I run up to the street level, after hearing the owner's car speed away, and find that he is out of earshot and line of sight, are you saying that the only other recourse is to risk being arrested? " So, no it doesn't seem reasonable to me at all. You have made precisely no attempt to trace the owner; even running up to street level isn't a real attempt as you knew you wouldn't find them (because you heard them drive away). "How exactly would he hold you liable? Are you saying he would report someone having stolen a suitcase he threw out his window while being chased by the police?" You seem not to have read this bit of what I wrote. "(i.e. whoever the $ was stolen from.)" I think we can assume that the driver is not the legitimate owner of the money. The person from whom the money was stolen is (which I grant you is only one possible reason for it being there, but it makes sense if the driver decided to throw it) will probably have reported that theft to the police. It's possible that he's the sort of person who notes the serial numbers (I gather that the banks sometimes do this too). You spend that money and you have to explain how you got it. "I found it" isn't going to help you there. Re. "I don't think the police would give you anything but the suitcase itself after no one claimed it. You'd need a permit in the US for the gun, that much pot is illegal, and since the money was found with the drugs, I'm betting you wouldn't ever see that either." The police are obliged to give you a receipt for items handed in- that would include the value of the cash in the case. If it's not claimed in 6 months then the finder gets to keep it. I'd get the money back and I wouldn't want the gun or the dope. OK it's possible that someone might find out about the cash, make up some story, go to the police, explain how much money there was and how it came to be thrown out of a car the police were chasing... and claim that it was their money- but would you risk that?

How come you can list two compounds that are not volatile and one that's barely volatile?

The major reaction is probably 2Cu + O2 + 2 H2O --> 2 Cu(OH)2 The water doesn't evaporate because of the glycerine and other stuff so the reaction of copper with water and air gets a chance to work better than usual. The triethanolamine in particular , and the others to a lesser extent, might also react to for, complexes or salts. On the whole the reaction will be a rather complicated mess.

"Finders keepers, losers weepers. This is ancient common law... " No, it's called "theft by finding" "...and applies after you have made a reasonable attempt to return the property to its rightful owner. " Exactly my point. Failing to hand it to the police is failing to make a reasonable attempt. You could be held liable by the rightful owner (i.e. whoever the $ was stolen from.) The only legally defensible position is to hand it in. If it's not claimed then you get it legitimately (after 6 months IIRC). And, as you say, the guy who chucked it isn't going to ask the police for it back.

"I think Iv'e explained perfectly well how and why atmospheric effects only enhance the ability of humans to observe stars on earth using our "less than perfect" eyesight and its (slightly time-lapsed) relationship with our "less than perfect" brains - not that they add to their brightness." I don't. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI'd also still like to know where the other photons go. Actually, at one level I know exactly where they go. The star is pretty close to a point source but my eye isn't infinitely large. Since it has a finite aperture the photons going through it are diffracted. They spill out into a diffraction limited splodge at the retina. Roughly speaking the Airy disk will be about a micron across which is about the same size as a cell. The photons will be distributed across that diffraction pattern. Any light source that would, from the point of view of geometrical optics, give an image smaller than about 1 micron, would give the same, diffraction limited blur at the retina. So yesterday I got bored. I took some cooking foil, put it against a flat piece of glass and pushed the point of a sewing needle through it. That gave me a small hole in an opaque layer of metal. I checked and the hole is about 100µm across. (Not the most accurate measurement in history but I think it's within a factor of 2.) I then folded it over the end of a torch so I had a small (about 0.1mm) bright spot. Then I looked at it from 2.5 metres away and it looked like a small bright spot. I may have got the arithmetic wrong but I think that the image of that spot at my retina would have been diffraction limited (plus any distortions from the imperfection of my eyes). My eye is about 25mm front to back and the object was about 2500 mm away so the image should have been about 100 times smaller than the object. Actually the eye behaves as if the optical centre is about 17 mm from the retina so the factor is more like 150 to one. That gives an image a micron across or less at the retina- but that's smaller than the diffraction limit so what I actually saw was a diffraction limited spot (distorted by whatever my eye does.) Now, here's the killer. If I made the hole 10 times smaller and the lamp 100 times brighter I would see exactly the same thing. Similarly, if I made it 100 times brighter and 10 times more distant it would look the same. Also if I made it 10 times bigger but 10 times more distant it would still form the same image at my eye- a dot distorted by diffraction and the faults in my eye. I can keep doing those operations until I have a very bright, very distant, fairly big star. Whatever I do I still see a diffraction (and abberation) limited dot. Unless you can claim that the twinkling of the light as it travels 10 feet in still air is responsible for the fact that I can see a torch with some perforated tin-foil over it then this experiment seems to indicate that twinkling is not needed. You can see an arbitrarily small thing, provided that it's bright enough. In the limiting case (and a star is pretty close) what you see is the point spread function of the lens. BTW, re. "You need to read a bit about eyes, receptors and quantum behaviour to appreciate the very low probability that even two photons from a "point source" would hit the same receptor cell. Even if they did, receptors are so small you would barely notice." LOL. I'm a chemist specialising in spectroscopy and I have also studied imaging systems (including the eye) as part of another university course I did just for fun. but the real killer is that you seem to have gotten so hung up on the quantum physics you forgot the basics. What you see when you look at a star isn't a true point, but the distortions of the eye. There would be nothing to stop the folks on the moon seeing exactly the same thing, but slightly better.

I don't understand Mr Skeptic's assertion that "Now, the money in this case doesn't belong to anyone:". How did that happen. If it's stolen then it belongs to whoever it was stolen from. If it was freshly minted then it belongs to the treasury. It might legitimately belong to the guy who chucked it. Imagine I'm a wealthy businessman who likes to relax at the weekends by smoking dope. I went out to get the year's supply and, on the way home I was spotted by the police. They wanted to talk to me about an unpaid parking fine. If they catch me with that case I'm deep in the S*** so I chuck it. I had the leftover cash from the deal and the gun I carry for personal protetion on such deals. I decided to lose them rather than get caught with them The money is perfectly legitimately mine.

"You need to read a bit about eyes, receptors and quantum behaviour to appreciate the very low probability that even two photons from a "point source" would hit the same receptor cell." Where do the other photons go? Plenty make the journey- or you wouldn't be able to see the stars from Earth. The receptor cells are pretty lightly packed so what happens to the other photons?.

It still needs to be very clean for the liquid to supercool. How did you clean the capillaries?

I don't believe in God for exactly the same reasons I don't believe there are fairies at the bottom of my garden. What I never could understand was why anyone else thinks differently.

The polymer molecules are long chains of similar repeating units strung together. Cross links are joins from one chain to another (or sometimes to a different bit of the same chain).