Strange

They got it from Calvin, then.

Given the toxicity of mercury compounds, I am surprised at this. Try googling "extraction of methylmercury"; that should get you several results related to plant and animal tissues.

You seem to have fallen prey to all sorts of numerology and pseudoscience. There is no such thing as "vortex math" (as least, not as mathematics): http://www.goodmath.org/blog/2018/01/02/zombie-math-in-the-vortex/ Electronic circuits use various ways of changing frequencies. This includes frequency doublers, phase locked loops, various types of modulation-based circuits or a purely digital approach. But none of this has anything to do with the sort of "free energy" nonsense you have been taken in by. There is no specific connection between rpm and electrical energy. It doesn't matter how fast you hula-hoop, you won't electrocute yourself. I suggest you spend some time learning some basic science. There are some good resources online. Khan Academy is often mentioned (I have no experience of it). Maybe start another thread asking where you can learn the basics of physics and engineering.

Well god has been called The Great Architect of the Universe. (Although that was a prod so maybe you don't count it)

As always, XKCD is there to help:

RPM is normally revolutions per minute. How doe this relate to a circuit board or an amplifier? What sort of circuit board are you talking about? And what do you want to amplify? How many watts, volts, amps for what? Formula for what? I have no idea what you are asking about. What sort of coil? For what purpose?

Or, in British English: inquiry = investigation enquiry = question

It is not quite as simple as that. More here: https://www.nist.gov/si-redefinition/kilogram-kibble-balance The mass is defined in terms of other factors that can all be measured independently of the mass: voltage, current, velocity and g (acceleration).

I don't think the average sea temperature has increased by 1º, has it? It is not a "wild crazy guess". (That is the sort of crazy wild comment that makes people describe "sceptics" as "deniers") It is, as the annotation shows, an extreme estimate. I would assume that this means it is reasonably unrealistic. I don't know what it is based on, but I would expect an "extreme" estimate to be based on continuing growth as in the past, with no attempts to mitigate and considering all other worst-possible inputs. You could argue (and I wouldn't disagree) that it is irresponsible to use extreme figures without also showing the full range of estimates. If for no other reason than it winds up people like you! My understanding is that "hindcasting" is valid because, unlike weather forecasts, climate models are not (completely) based on changes from the current state of the system. They model the state of the system given a set of values (insolation, CO2 level, models of heat transfer between parts of the system, feednbacks, etc). So you can plug in the values known from the past (as far as we know what they are) or predicted for the future and get a result (or range of results). More here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

But while that may be nice for humans it can cause problems. For example, if it's not cold enough over winter certain pests may not be killed off, and that can damage crops - Italy has had problems with olives recently for this reason.

You seem to have picked up an impressive number of misunderstandings in that time

Why? No one is saying that. But there is no unique "simultaneity of natural events" that all observers will agree on.

That is true. But it doesn't mean that tB - tA = tA - tC for example. Janus has given a more detailed explanation, but it seems you don't understand the point Einstein is making. He is simply saying that the speed of light is the same in both directions. He isn't saying that all times have to be equal.

I doubt you are accurately representing what they say. (Purely based on what you have posted on this forum) "The mean values of total concentrations of aluminium found were (0.91 ± 0.31) g/kg for green tea, (0.76 ± 0.38) g/kg for black tea, (0.23 ± 0.09) g/kg for herbal tea and (0.22 ± 0.08) g/kg for fruit tea. For the tea infusions (4.33 ± 0.35) mg/L for green tea, 4.40 mg/L for black tea, 0.52 mg/L for herbal tea and (0.12 ± 0.02) mg/L for fruit tea. These results are in good agreement with literature data." http://research.fh-ooe.at/files/publications/3145_KROEPPL.pdf So just over 1mg per cup (250ml) of tea. The amount of aluminium in a dose of vaccine is generally less than half a mg: https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-ingredients/aluminum And there is no evidence that aluminium has any harmful effects.

Not at all. Post a link.

No. That's not how this works. Please provide a reference to support your claim that:

Why? I can't see how you reach that conclusion. Where does it say that the distances have to be equal?

No he didn't. He faked the results and lied about it. He is still lying about it. He made an entire movie to lie about it. And people like you believe him. No they don't. There is more aluminium in a cup of tea. You are obviously desperately searching for anything that will support your ridiculous beliefs.

Can you provide a slightly more specific reference. There are thousands of pages on Wikipedia.

Who is "we"? And where is this reported?

No he isn't. He is a fraud who faked results. He didn't discover them. He invented them. Falsified results obtained by unethical means, including the abuse of children with developmental problems, are not "minor procedural problems".

Wakefield was a fraud who was struck off for his near-criminal activities. He is personally responsible for thousands, possibly millions, of deaths. Not someone I would recommend using as any sort of reference.

That is not a valid comparison. A more accurate analogy to the way climate models are actually used would be: you use your knowledge of the laws of physics and the lottery machine to build a simulation. You then run the simulation millions of times and look at the range of results. From this you conclude that that all combinations of numbers appear to be equally likely (within certain error bounds). If, say, the balls all had a different weight proportional to their number, then the simulation might find that certain combinations are more likely. It would not be able to predict specific outcomes, but could tell you the range of outcomes you could expect.

A little disappointed to see that from you (I hate it when people dismiss (*) an argument with "it's just semantics". Of course it is semantics, we are discussing the meanings of words!) But agree completely with your point Edit: (*) I know this is not what you are doing

! Moderator Note I will lock it for you. If you want it reopened, report this post.