John Cuthber

Have you put forward evidence that "neutrons don't decay while being used in an unobserved quantum experiment."? Because, without it, there's nothing to question

You brought it up...

I found some sort of helpful data https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/srd/jpcrd425.pdf Page 1155 tells me that at 1000 MPa and 290K the density of methane is 571 g/litre So, even at ten thousand bar the pressure isn't high enough to raise the density to that of liquid methane at its normal boiling point. So, if I have got the arithmetic right, the use of the ideal gas equation gives you an answer that's at least ten fold wrong (and I have no direct data about how much worse it actually is). At half that pressure the density is about 497 so the density doesn't change very fast with pressure. That, in turn suggests that even at 20KBar the density would be less that that of the liquid

As far as I can tell, none of those is actually valid. That's not to say there aren't viable claims to be made; just that the report you cited doesn't show them. It's interesting to note that the Left is saying that the impeachment action is in support of justice, rather than their cause.- They may be lying. What is the Right's justification for opposing it? Do they not want an investigation and hearing that would clear their guy and make the opposition look stupid?

Fair point. OK imagine I fill a tank with liquid methane at its normal boiling point. The density is 0.656 kg/litre And if I close the tank and let it warm up then (ignoring the deformation of the tank) the density will stay the same, so I need to find the pressure where gaseous (strictly, supercritical) methane has that density at room temperature- say 20C or 293K. I spent a while trying to find data for that, but I couldn't. I will have a look when I get back to work, to see if anyone has the data. On the other hand, if I use pv=nrt well, p=nrt/v I have chosen v= 1 litre the mass is 656g That's 41 moles so n = 41 r = 0.0813 litre bar / k/mol About 950 Bar (I think- feel free to check). However, fundamentally, the reason I said it was a way of estimating the pressure badly is that you are using the ideal gas laws- which assume that the compressibility of a gasi is quite large. However, you are actually considering a supercritical fluid. Gases are easy to compress because they are mainly empty space. That's not the case with supercritical fluids where the molecules are nearly "in contact" with one another. If the molecules are "in contact" then you have a liquid In the case of liquids, the compressibility is tiny- for most practical purposes water is regarded as incompressible, for example. So, to get the 656 g of supercritical fluid which (near the critical point) has a density of 0.562 kg/l into a 1 litre tank you need to compress it by a factor of about 85%. Now, I know it's not the same thing, but to compress water to that extent the pressure needed is huge. The compressibility is about 0.5% per 100 Bar And you are trying to compress it by about 15% That's about 3000 bar. Methane is going to be about the same ballpark.

Did he ever knock his opponent out? In general cutting someone's leg off is banned. But removing a gangrenous leg, to save the patient is permitted. In both cases, harm is done- the guy loses a leg. But in one case the intent (even if the operation fails) is to help them. Also, if this"Society will ban something if the health risk >= b. Therefore Y is banned." was right, the drugs policy would be utterly different.

That's relevant if cricketers typically spend the night on the field. Are you saying that, because it is premeditated- they trained and practiced to deliberately hurt people- it is somehow better? As far as I can tell, that's the opposite of the view taken society (as codified by the courts.)

Because, though you repeatedly fail to accept it, there is a difference. You do not set out to brain damage your opponent when you play Rugby. Do you accept that there is a fundamental difference between boxing and other sports? I can only presume that you don't understand the difference. The difference is that of intent. Like the other difference you don't seem to understand- that between pharmacology and murder. Giving people physiologically active chemicals might be homicidal, or it may be medical. The difference rests solely on why you do it.

Badly.

The difference between pharmacology and murder is intent. Civilised societies do not judge only on the outcome I understand that there is consent. I also understand that the law doesn't always recognise consent. "In the UK, in Operation Spanner, three men who consensually agreed to engage in consensual sadomasochism, were convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The resulting House of Lords case (R v Brown, colloquially known as "the Spanner case") ruled that consent was not a valid legal defence for wounding and actual bodily harm in the UK, except as a foreseeable incident of a lawful activity in which the person injured was participating, e.g. surgery. " Currently "Boxing"- by the Queensbury rules" is lawful and knuckle fighting is not. Had you checked on that before telling me I didn't understand? That sort of decision making is, essentially, what I do for a living. You have made a common error. You have only got half way to the well established idea of a "risk/ benefit" analysis. By your "logic" we should ban cars- since they kill more people than rugby. The "benefit " of boxing is, largely, the entertainment of the people. If the crowds were big enough, would you think it was "right" to feed Christians to the lions?

They don't hit themselves; they hit each other. That's the point. It's also the opinion of the society which expects teachers and other adults to stop kids fighting in the playground. You seem not to understand that it's other peoples health they actively seek to damage. But the answer is obvious. your point is a strawman. It's not my decision, but society's.

Unlike any other sport, where harm to the opponent is incidental to the process, the primary goal of boxing is to brain damage your opponent. The euphemism they use is "knock out". So, if those involved want to make the "sport" safer, they have to reverse the rule; a KO should lose the match. Fundamentally, this is grown men (in the ring or the audience) doing something they should have grown out of while at school.

Let's face it. I'm not shy. If I had any meaningful suggestions for an explanation, I'd put them forward. I will make one point. It's not a difficult experiment to set up. Anyone with any "theory" about what went wrong could repeat the experiment. I found this on the web. Are their data concordant with yours? https://pennyroyalresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/the-effect-of-temperature-and-concentration-on-galvanic-cells.pdf

I have seen better jokes.

A few years ago, Enthalpy made that simple, easy to understand observation. And yet we still have people asking things like this.

Ideally, the input resistance of a voltmeter is infinite. 10^13 ohms will be close enough. Putting a resistor in parallel will slightly reduce the accuracy of the measurement.

Is this going to make a difference in the world? If so, what?

Or if there was DNA, but degraded and/ or contaminated.

No, you do not. As I said... So, get out and do the experiment.

It's not a matter of what I believe, is it? After all, it's not as if I post under my real name here, so I recognise that a name isn't important. It's a matter of your assertions not making sense. Either you have experimental subjects or you don't. You don't need the media to do the experiment I proposed.

Either you are wrong, or you are wrong. Either you can send these messages to people, and they tell you what they "heard" or they don't. If they don't then you are wrong to say ". i can send random messages to a person and the person heard it, that includes words numbers and symbols.". On the other hand, if you can send those messages then you are wrong to say that you can't find experimental volunteers because the people who tell you that they "hear" your messages are experimental volunteers. Chose a story , and stick with it, or just leave. If that's true, and yet you are saying things that contradict eachother then you must be lying. However, here's a simple experiment for you to try. Go for a walk through town of go + hang round at the bus station or some such- anywhere that you can find plenty of people. Wear something slightly unusual- a red coat or something. Telepathically send a request to anyone who passes you saying " Ask the guy in the red coat what the time is". Now I accept that some people who "get the message" will ignore it but it's hard to imagine they all will.. Try this experiment for a few hours over a few days and come back to us to let us know if anyone actually asked you the time. Once you have enough data - say a dozen people asking you the time,- repeat the experiment, but this time send some other message and see how many people ask the time anyway,- just to establish the background rate. If you are really telling the truth, you should be able to confirm it in an afternoon.

Which variation of stupid are you being? The evolution of dogs and people started at the same time since (like all mammals) we have a common ancestor. That invalidates your claim that our pet dogs have had longer to evolve than we have. And you said "pet dogs" and they only became pet dogs after we started petting them. That invalidates your claim that our pet dogs have had longer to evolve than we have.

Are there any homeless people where you live? How about students or bored housewives? This idea that you can't find experimental subjects is daft.

Then why are you using the internet?

We have been around for longer than pet dogs.It kind of follows from the definition of "pet". And "Where the domestication of the dog took place remains debated, however literature reviews of the evidence find that the most plausible proposals are Central Asia, East Asia, and Western Europe. " From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_domestic_dog So, that's plainly after we left Africa.