studiot

Well the pH of 30% HCl is less than 1 and MY turn from yellow at pH 2 to red at pH 1 so it could be present, depending upon how much HCl you added. Do you know the source of your turmeric or its physical form ? The yellow colour in turmeric is due to curcumin, which is normally neutral to alkaline pH (greater than 7). Here are some pictures of pH variation from 2 to 13 The curcumin color changes from pH 2-13 (a), and the curcumin UV-VIS... | Download Scientific Diagram (researchgate.net)

Ahem ?

Why should I ? This was a direct response to your claim that there are no sellers that do not have the right to force a price on me.

Have you tried to negotiate a price with a water company lately ?

The problem with trying to argue with real scientists when you know so little, and in particular trying to lay down absolutes, is that you soon get found out. The formation of potassium aluminium sulphate requires 3 bodies. Indeed the formation of any substantial quantity requires this many times over. Potassium alum - Wikipedia Any gardner will attest to this

I wonder why politicians don't like that idea ? +1 🤣

Isn't two a a number ?

So why do the reflective surfaces not emit this light under other conditions ? And when they do emit light, that light is not generally of the same colour as the incident light that they reflect ? Have you ever 1) Built a laser 2) Experimented with a laser ? 3) Used a laser for any (practical) purpose ?

+1 The funny thing is that he has said this (only two things), amongst other things in his 'papers' .

That is contrary to my direct experience. The rest of this nonsense seems to me to be a best a hoax generated by some computer program to create quasi logical links between entries in a scientific dictionary. At worst is could be advertising for the commercial sites you have linked to at lexiclonedotcom.

Do you have figures to prove this ? Since America probably provides both the largest supply and market for SF I very much doubt it. Though glowing compliments for British writers are welcome, I think they are undeserved. I see that clarion workshops are still going, after a hiatus during covid and the recent death of Vonda Mcintyre. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarion_Workshop

I note this thread has now been moved by the moderators to speculations. I'm sorry but if you can't or won't clarify your misuse of other people's terminology I can't see this thread surviving much longr before it is closed. It is a shame you do this whilst claiming What respect ? How many centuries ? As a matter of record Avogadro did not claim a particular number when he introduced his postulate in 1811. "Equal volumes of different gas under the same conditions of temperature and pressure contain the same number of molecules" As @joigus has pointed out that we have derived a number (Perrin 1911) from this postulate that is applicable in our current system of units. I am particularly concerned with your unsupported misuse of Mathematics, whilst invoking Cantor. In particular in the set {elephant, monkey, tangerine} all those three objects are accumulation points, quite unrelated to whatever you mean by 'accumulation points'.

There is a difference between photon as such and a photon that has become part of а set (of elements, other photons). Until the photon has become a part of the set it does not exist, it is not observable in any way. For example, photon from a supernova 1 billion light-years from Earth is not observable, it has not become a part of the many elements of the observer (human). That is, such photon is a part of the "dark matter". A not distinguishable from others becomes unique, that is it acquires qualities (such as color) only by becoming a part. Sorry for the tautology, I am inspired by the String Theory. I don't know who (or what) you are but I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt since you are obviously not the usual crank with a particular agenda. All these responses are almost what I might expect from an AI that had been told to read a Science library in order to to learn Maths and Science. Not random but not yet making appropriate connections. I hope you are really human! So I will tell you a true story of my own experience. When I was about 13 I learned about forces in structural frameworks (roof trusses etc). I was also learning about other Sciences as well, in particular about molecules when the ball and stick or framework models were popular. Anyway I conceived the idea that I wanted to apply structural framework theory to molecules, as no one seemed to have thought of it or tried it. I did not then know enough to know how inappropriate that was or why. Many years later I know know why this was inappropriate, but I also now know how a variation called structural dynamics can be applied to molecules. This is very important in Spectroscopy and some other aspects of Chemistry. I understand your description of accumulation points, also called limit points, cluster points or interior points, in set theory. I can now tell you that these are mathematical (topological) conveniences but that they do not need the 'orbisphere' to have infinite, or indeed any measurable, radius. We use the shorter term 'open ball'. This conforms to the topological idea of open and closed sets, which is closely tied to accumulation points and leads to the study of continuity and measure theory in Mathematics. But Mathematics requires no connection to anything in the physical world. Sometimes (often) it can be a useful mathematical model, but it is not the same thing. So press on, but try to reduce the number of your ideas to one or two at a time. You just have too many at once.

Has the 5 post rule for new members been suspended or deleted please ?

You can tell a red photon from a green one. If this is true I recommend reading and study over guesswork. There have been several great Russian Physicists, you could then be one of them.

Which clearly demonstrate my point. You and MacSwell are talking about different things when you say 'the government'. And changing the name local government to local authority does not make any difference.

Tha language of this website is English. I hope this is not a preamble to a religous offering. Well go on then, I asked for the connection between set theory and your topic here. I quoted your statement for detailed explanation. I hope this thread is not just a wind up.

That's a remarkable claim. I look forward to your jsutification / explanation. Please explain the meaning of this statement and its relevance to the subject.

At the risk of getting my head bitten off from both sides of this argument. I think you guys are arguing at cross purposes. I am with Mcswell in considering a lumped public sector. But I am with Cuthber for most of the comments about this sector. BTW firemen work for local government is that not 'government' ? I also think there are far too many entrenched outdated attempts to create an 'us and them' by dividing society and its activities up into the private sector and the public sector. Also a little bit of history. In 1984, at the time of 'the miner's strike' the miners worked for the nationalised National Coal Board. They fought pitched battled with the Police, employed by local government but funded mostly directly by central government, as local government itself. So I repeat my earlier comment that no one has taken up that two parts of the state or public sector engaged in a very minor civil war with each other. Not a desirable situation.

Singularity functions are not new in Mathematics. Here are some ways of handling them and indeed making good use of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_function note this can be downloaded as a pdf. All these oddities and fractals us rethink our ideas of 'points' and point set topology. This is because the classical view of a point is as a 'static' identifiable object. But if we look the other way for a fractal, (expanding to larger and larger scales, rather than contracting to smaller and smaller ones) our 'static' points (I would rather use the word fixed, but Banach has already bagged that in the fixed point theorem) are not static at all but change as the scale increases. So if we take the traditional isotropic and homogeneous n dimensional ball about a point, ie as a neighborhood including that point as an interior point, we find the properties of that point depend to some extent on the other points in the ball, which in turn depend upon the scale of the ball.

Hello and welcome. Seems you are a bit of a dreamer. Perhaps you should either study some real Tech or write science-fiction. There was a series of stories about a superstrong cable dangling from a geostationaary satellite carrying an elevator as a way of getting into space. I can't remember the author but think it was either Asimov or Clarke. With regard to your siphon, the theoretical maximum lift of a siphon is the height of a water column supported by the atmosphere, ie about 32 feet. For practical applications see the charts in the pdf. https://scdhec.gov/sites/default/files/media/document/Temporary Siphons.pdf

I don't know. I would have added +1 to your original statement I quoted if you had included 'big' in it, because I think the differences I have outlined are major ones, not small ones.

No not really. It's just that some people confuse the two. You aim at a target or you aim somewhere else, if you are aiming at all. But a target can exist independently of whether anyone is aiming at it or not.

but there's a insert 'big ' difference between target and aim...

Other strange mathematical constructions, of potential interest to cosmologists are Gabriel's Horn and Peano curves. Gabriel's horn is part of a family of infinite n dimensional objects that enclose our bound a finite (n+1) dimensional object. Peano curves are n dimensional objects that fill (cover) spaces of greater (n+1, n+2 etc) dimension. These completely cut though and violate conventional metrics such as Euclidian, Riemannian etc.