Strange

! Moderator Note This is a science forum.

If you can't be bothered to provide your article in a readable form, I assume it is not worth spending any time on. (I did have a quick look: it appears to be complete nonsense.)

As far as I can see, there has only been one accusation of lying in this thread: Any new leader might find it hard to leave the EU without a deal, as several of the candidates are currently promising. This is because the majority in Parliament appear to be opposed to that because of the serious economic impacts. If they then had to request another extension (or even revoke Article 50) it would be very bad for their supposed "tough" approach to the EU. Normally, one might expect that to seriously damage their ability to lead the party, but we have seen that normal expectations don't really apply any more. Another possible outcome is that the new leader of the Conservative party is unable to form a government and so a general election has to be called. That just wastes even more time before the Brexit deadline. It seems likely that the Conservative party would do very badly in an election. As would Labour. It is hard to see which party would have a majority, or even be able to form a ruling coalition. So I certainly can't see a scenario that ends well!

I have clarified the wording in my post as no such implication was intended. Sadly, it has brought out the worst in those with extreme positions. And pushed more people to have extreme positions.

The irony is that so many have taken the results of the referendum to mean that exactly what the tiny majority voted for (whatever that was - it covered a wide range of possibilities) and the other half of the voters have to be completely ignored. A moderate approach that was more like Switzerland or the EEA could have satisfied (reluctantly) people on both sides. But May's xenophobia made that impossible and positions have got increasingly polarised so that there is now no form of Brexit that will satisfy a majority. Although a second vote could find which was the least disliked.

Why? Your democratically elected government chose to have it that way. Vote for a different party in future if you want the UK to join Schengen. Oh, sorry, too late. You will have men with guns checking your visa soon. Nonsense. That is because Switzerland has a free-trade agreement with the EU. The UK could have had something similar but the government decided to rule it out. (Even though some moderate Leave advocates were in favour of it.) This agreement allows some free movement of goods and people (the latter being the reason that the UK gov ruled it out - apparently driven by the racist popular press). However, the claim, made by some people, that there is no visible border is just complete nonsense (for example, lots of idiotic Brexiter politicians and journalists have posted moronic stories about walking or skiing across the border, as if this were relevant). Trucks and other commercial vehicles have to go through specific border crossings where there is a large amount of physical infrastructure, and there are often long queues.

Nonsense. Did you miss the fact we have just had elections? I have to assume that all you know about the EU comes from the Daily Mail or similar rag. Most people have never voted for the prime minister of the UK, either. No one voted to make Theresa May PM (the same is true for about half the PMs in the last century). The president of the EU is nominated by elected representatives and then voted for by elected representatives. Not very different from the PM. Apart from the fact that the PM is not voted for by either the general public nor elected representatives. That is because the UK decided not to join Schengen. Travel between most other countries is as free as that. You can't blame a choice of the UK government on the EU. I travel fairly frequently between the UK and Europe. I very rarely get stopped by men with guns. I can only remember two occasions in the last 3 or 4 years.

Get a poster of the Periodic Table (may be able to pick one up cheap on Ebay) so you can see the relationships between elements. For the moment, the reasons for the structure of the table doesn't matter but one day you can both lean about that. There is always more to learn from the table. When you find out something about one element you can look up similar elements. For example, table salt is sodium chloride. From the Periodic Table we can see that there should be a similar compound, potassium chloride. There is, and it is used as a salt substitute but is toxic in large doses. Or when you find out that hydrogen sulphide smells of rotten eggs, you can find out that selenium sulphide smells unbearably worse. And tellurium sulphide even worse than that. As kids (and adults) love extreme smells and explosions, here is a link to a series of blog posts by an industrial chemist on "things I won't work with": https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/category/things-i-wont-work-with There are some great descriptions of just quite how appallingly smelly or dangerous some compounds are.

I don't know where the "predetermined time frame" comes from. The UK used to have a system when a government could call a general election whenever they wanted. That has changed with the Fixed Term Parliament Act, but the time between elections is still very variable. Theresa May called one 2 years after the previous one. In general, the most recent vote is more valid than earlier ones. In the case of Brexit, a second vote would not be on the same thing as the first one, so the issue of "more valid" (nor "keep voting forever") just doesn't arise. It is just a silly strawman put about by Leave campaigners (presumably because they are scared that any second vote would not go the way they want - hence the claim it is "not democratic").

I am not aware of any mechanism that could cause it to slow down. If the shape changed, then it would be continuous (no steps) as GR is a classical theory (so Planck units not relevant). (That may change if/when we have a theory of quantum gravity.)

Because they are delicious? To stay on topic, citrus fruit might be more effective for longer because acetic acid is volatile (which is why the smell dissipates)

Lemon or grapefruit juice might smell nicer than vinegar!

I think the question is about alternatives to salts.

Black holes are classical (non-quantum) objects. So Planck units don't appear to be relevant. If you are thinking of Hawking radiation, then the change in radius will be proportional to the mass lost. Again, Planck lengths don't appear to be relevant. So, for example, if the black hole lost the mass of one electron, the radius would decrease by a very, very small amount, about 10-23 Planck lengths.

I assume it is faked. There is no current technology that can do that (as far as I know).

There are a number of technical problems to be overcome before aluminium-air or aluminium-ion batteries are practical: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium–air_battery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium-ion_battery I imagine there might be significant problems scaling up the recycling of the aluminium as well.

These are both paths (to me). The first is a path through space, the second is a path through spacetime (a 2D projection of the path [a,c]). I'm not sure what the difference is. The graph represents that at time a, the object is at position a. At time t it is at position c. You could animate that and show the object moving between the two points. Or you can just consider it as a path showing the position at each time. These are just different views of the same thing. In other words, the question as to whether the particle IS at all points on the timeline depends on what you mean by "IS". So, really, this is a philosophical question (see also "block time"). However, there is a difference between animating a path through space and one through spacetime. In that latter case you are implicitly introducing another measure of time - the external one that passes in our world. So it could be considered "cheating" a bit.

https://observer.globe.gov/about/get-the-app More information here (with videos!): https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/15/18308044/nasa-app-point-smartphone-trees-picture-height-satellite-why

I didn't interpret it that way. There is a difference between saying that there is "no reason to believe something" (because there is no evidence) and saying "that thing should not be considered". In future, people may be able to come up with a way to test it and find evidence for in it, at which point the belief will no longer be irrational. There is a class of things that can never be proved or disproved (solipsism, the universe is a simulation, Last Thursday-ism, etc). One can believe in such things, even though there is no evidence for them. And no one can ever prove you wrong. I suspect the OP's idea is of that form. But as they are unwilling/unable to provide a model or testable predictions, we cannot really know.

No. It is because it is not testable/falsifiable.

The “critical juncture” would be where you provide some evidence. Which you have failed to do. But don’t feel too bad; I don’t think it is possible. What measurements could we make to test your idea? What measurements would prove you wrong?

This seems to be a extremely popular topic (for reasons I cannot really understand) so here is a good article about the actual physics involved in how there could be multiple universes and whether that means there is another "you" out there - or even an infinite number. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/05/23/could-parallel-universes-be-physically-real/#de8c5cc4d3f6 Spoiler alert:

As this is a non-physical question, it is hard to answer. However, as far as we know there is no "mechanism" that determines when the atom decays and so I would expect that it would be like taking another atom and watching it for the same time. To simplify this a bit, we can look at an unstable fundamental particle such as a muon. These will decay after about 2 microseconds. They are elementary particles so there is no mechanism counting down. They are all identical and so testing two different muons is the same as testing the same muon twice. The decay time is random.

Why does that need an entire section of the forum? It comes up occasionally in the Philosophy section (which is probably the best place for it) or the Speculations forum. It is kicked around a bit. And then people lose interest until the next time. I will point out that it is not falsifiable and so: (a) it is not science and (b) if you want to believe it is true, then no one can prove you wrong. I really can't see what there is to discuss or why anyone would find it interesting. See also, solipsism and Last Thursdayism: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism

There is the issue of defining randomness that studiot mentioned. For example, if your random number generator output the numbers 1 to 100 in sequence, you might think it wasn't being random enough and try to stop it doing that. But if you don't allow it to generate sequences like that (with the appropriate probability) then it isn't random! Quantum processes are both random and deterministic: for example, we can predict what the result of atomic decay is but we can't say when a specific atom will decay. So radioactive decay is sometimes used for generating "truly random" numbers (think of the random clicks of a Geiger counter). Another common method in electronic circuits is to use the thermal noise generated in a resistor. Other sources described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_random_number_generator And if you want to generate some random numbers, there's an app (well, website) for that: https://www.random.org (Also has lots of good articles on randomness.) (Hidden variable theories are ruled out by Bell's Theorem.)