Mr Skeptic

We use energy to reduce the local entropy of our bodies (same thing a refrigerator does).

Looks like a little extra memory in exchange for huge computing savings. I think you did the right choice there.

OK, so a laser. The light can be made incoherent easily enough, I would think. But it's still going to emit other radiation unless you keep it at 0 K, which is impossible.

Hm, could be tested by having them run with pure oxygen, possibly also with increased levels of CO2 to impede CO2 transfer from the lungs.

Really, I don't think you'll find anywhere in the scientific literature how thin faeces can be spread. This is research, you have to do it yourself. It's not that hard...

It helps to know how to do math with exponents. When you multiply the same number with an exponent by the same number with a different exponent, you add up the exponents. When you divide by a number with an exponent, it is the same as having a negative exponent. Feel free to test this out on as many real numbers as you want. [math]3^1 = 3[/math], [math]3^2 = 3*3=9[/math], [math]3^3 = 3*3*3 = 27[/math], [math]3^3*3^4 = (3*3*3)*(3*3*3*3) = 3^7[/math] Use that knowledge to solve for division; for example [math]3^5/3^2 = (3*3*3*3*3)/(3*3) = 3^3 = 3^{(5-2)}[/math], which if you test works for all numbers. But when the exponents are equal, [math]3^n/3^n = 3^{(n-n)} = 3^0[/math], but also [math][/math], [math]3^n/3^n = 1 = 3^0[/math]. This is not a formal proof since it uses specific numbers, but if you test it with any number you like (other than zero, because division by zero is undefined), then you get the same. And yes, you're learning things out of order but that can be fun too.

I doubt you'd notice it being any quicker than at 1 K, although it would be by a little. It won't speed up the rate at which warm bodies emit radiation though, it would just mean that the cold body radiates less. Incidentally, the night sky is very cold, just a few degrees K.

Bet its still worse than hydrogen and oxygen.

Information is an abstract concept and can take many different forms, and also there are many different definitions. In the example I gave where everything is considered information, it seems physicists are undecided whether information can be destroyed or not, which would make comparison between things with and without information rather difficult, and also it would be inseparable from any particles. If we go with the slightly larger scale where information is represented in macro arrangements and can be removed from them (like burning a book), then we could remove information from something and measure for differences. But then I think it would depend on the specifics of the information storage device, for example if you store information as scorch marks on paper than the paper with information would have less energy than blank. There was also an interesting paper where researchers used information to gain energy, but the energy they gained was from random thermal motion. If they could have gotten that information for free it would be a perpetual motion machine, but of course there' an energy cost in measuring the system to get the information. Basically they use the information to lower entropy, so information as "free energy" (not free as in the stuff you hear from crazies, but as in it can be used, the same sort as the free energy you lose to friction), which is not quite the same as energy. http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101114/full/news.2010.606.html

Hm... can you compare that to fresh coke gone flat?

Well I don't really know, but I'd guess that the blood would still be detectable, and similarly bloody fingerprints too, but the DNA would probably be very contaminated due to bacteria even if it were not destroyed. If there's some deep crevices in the knife, that might be enough to protect DNA. Now I don't really know, but that would be plausible to me and I wouldn't question it in a movie (they always have far worse things). I think the more unusual thing in this scenario would be the killer keeping the bloody knife for a day.

The government sure doesn't have any right to randomly test you, and companies have no obligation to enforce drug laws. So you don't take drugs because your company has a policy against them, not because they're illegal. Most places you're also not allowed to go to work drunk either, even though alcohol is perfectly legal, and people avoid that too.

So the contents of a refrigerator rise in entropy when it is turned on, you're saying? See, this is more intellectual dishonesty. The bolded sentences do not match -- evolution is not talking about closed isolated systems. So are you saying that DNA cannot be randomly generated, or that once DNA is randomly generated it can't be rearranged in a specific pattern? In case it wasn't clear, I was saying there were two processes, one making random DNA (necessarily implicit in saying the DNA was random) and then the bacteria growing and turning it into nearly deterministic copies. Oh, if that is your standards than random chance is definitely a causally adequate mechanism to explain life on earth. After all, random chance can change any pattern to any other, its just unlikely (just like some designer existing before life on earth). And I notice also here your double standards; with evolution it has to be directly seen when it happened, with design some human doing it somehow is adequate cause to explain even things before there were humans. (See, another example -- processes we know existed are causally inadequate, processes that there is no evidence for (an intelligent designer) are causally adequate.)

So I put an f where I should have put an F. Everyone but you seems to know what I meant, and while it is a bad mistake it is easily corrected. But instead of correcting my mistake and continuing on, you go crazy. How about after correcting that, you continue on with the proof, and see that I did indeed find the correct answer?

I just got randomly curious, and am wondering whether coca-cola can rot or spoil (when still pressurized inside its container). From what I hear its some pretty nasty stuff and I'm wondering whether anything can live in it. And has anyone ever had some laying around for a long time that they think is spoiled?

Galileo didn't start off by saying "Jesus, wake up, you're in the Matrix"

I think it depends on how soon the knife was thrown in the lake. Dried blood is nasty stuff to get off.

Sure. First of all, it is impossible to manipulate information without using energy, whether you want to read, transmit, or store it. Secondly, any particle can be considered to carry information (its location and momentum and particle type), even if this information does not map to anything useful. All the particles are the same regardless of whether we're using them to transmit information. For example, with fiber optics the light is just the same light as any other light of the same color. Even though for convenience we often use big groups of particles with very unnatural properties (such as being all the same phase with brightness rapidly increasing or decreasing, like a pule in fiber optics), so that any such group if seen would clearly be a structure we made for transmitting information, we can still do it with individual particles at the cost of having much more expensive detectors. So if individual particles can transmit information, and the particles are indistinguishable from any other particle, we can consider them all to carry information. As for the energy required for this: You can't move something without using energy, so no transmitting without energy. You can't look at something without using energy, so no reading without energy. You can't change something without using energy, so no writing without energy.

There's agarose, a gel made from kelp. But your tablets might dissolve too slowly.

A continuation of your unnatural and inefficient ideas? By using very cold temperatures as required for radiant heat to be effective cooling, you have to remove heat against a huge temperature differential, which will cost you a lot more energy per unit of cooling than conventional air conditioners.

There's not an increase in pressure, not a noticeable one, since the lung is open to the atmosphere.

Looks to me that someone needs to visit an asylum. I know a schizophrenic, he thinks his dad is trying to poison him and that people are constantly breaking into his house. Emapth, my arse.

How efficient is your engine compared to a conventional one of the same price?

Take the rocks to a local archeologist. Please note that a huge part of archeology involves knowing exactly where the items were found, so that they will carefully remove about an inch of material a day from a small area.

Put some pure ice and pure water, at sea level atmospheric pressure.