Strange

So it becomes electrically conducting. If you apply that voltage to an insulator (such as solid salt) for a week then nothing will happen. I also don't know where this calculation comes from. It takes energy to dissociate an molecule or ionize an atom. Voltage is not energy. No. eV is a measure of energy. volts is a measure of potential difference. This equation is meaningless. It clearly would not be a waste of time for you. There are some excellent online courses from high quality universities available for free. Check out Coursera for example. That is 1.5 eV not 1.5 V.

Again? Really? 1. Suggest some research should be done - presumably because there is no evidence of the suppression of innovators. 2. Is about political dissent. 3. Is about strategies to avoid suppression (which you seem to claim is impossible) 4. Is about political dissent. And you still haven't responded to any of the criticisms in your previous thread...

I knew there was something itching at the back of my mind when I wrote that!

Is it?

I see no reason to think that is true. Unless you define "perfect" to mean symmetrical but then that is the fallacy of begging the question (which is remarkably common in discussions of god for some reason). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question Unfortunately, observations shows this to be false. Why? Why? Why? I see no reason to accept any of them. Your conclusion is unsupported. What!? This has nothing to do with the postulates of relativity. Well, except in as far as the postulates of relativity assume certain symmetries that you claim don't exist. You mean you wrote a program that reproduced your errors. Well done. I think it is said that you have deceived yourself in this way. It is a waste of the brain that your god gave you. And it is also sad that your faith is so weak that you have to try and invent false "proofs".

I heard a while ago (weeks ago on the radio, so no references) about a study where they put people in large calorimeters and measured the exact calories in (all foods) and out (all heat and waste materials). Any weight gain or loss was purely due to the difference between the two. It may well be that people (in the US particularly*) consume too much sugar. And for various complex reasons this may cause them to consume more calories. For example, it seems that a sugary snack may be less satisfying than one higher in fat or protein. (*) When I lived in the US, I was shocked at the sugar levels in almost everything. It seems to have developed as a way of proclaiming things as "low fat" even though they are no lower in calories and may be more likely to cause diabetes or obesity. From what I have read (not much!) recent research seems to suggest that the modern "fat-phobia" is not supported by the evidence.

As already pointed out, it was entirely reasonable for Lavoisier to deny that meteorites came from space as there was no evidence for that. Similarly, your plasma ameoboid aliens can be denied because their is, as yet, no evidence for them. (There is no point being coy about it, we all know what this and all your other threads are about. You show the monomania typical of all psychoceramicists.) You have still not provided any evidence at all to support your repeated claims that science is unable to progress because, even in the face of evidence, experts refuse to accept new ideas. You have also failed to address all the counter examples that have been provided. For example, that all (?) new paradigm shifting ideas are produced by experts. Talk about stubborn and closed minded.

This reminds of when I used to write 3D graphics code. When modelling reflections (simply) diffuse reflections are based on the colour of the surface while specular reflections take the colour of the light source.

Obviously not true. Again (sigh) science does not deal in truth. Knowing that 2+2=4 is not belief.

Are you really that proud of your intransigence, worryingly repetitive behaviour, failure to provide evidence, refusal to admit when you are wrong and inability to answer questions? Oh well, takes all sorts.

Evidence? No. What evidence do you have that long-term maintenance of the same weight produces an anti-aging effect? Some evidence that being consistently obese was healthy would be both interesting and surprising. Evidence? Nonsense. Weight loss is purely about calories in versus calories out.

I am glad you appreciate the "irony" of the suggestion.

I can't think of any paradigm shift in science that wasn't brought about by experts. So it appears that this claim is incorrect. The closest thing I can think of is the Mpemba effect. Clearly not true. For example, many experts championed Einstein's work on GR before it was finished, never mind tested. And "please" stop "using" the irrelevant "scare quotes". It "is" unnecessary "and" annoying. It makes "you" look a little "bit", well, you know, "cranky"...

Science is not about "truth", it is about evidence. I would be very sceptical, of anyone claiming to know "the truth".

Is it? What evidence do you base that on? Science doesn't deal in truth. That is for religion and, maybe, philosophy. (And crackpots.)

Indeed. But the problem isn't coming up with new ideas; there are millions of those - anyone can come up with a new idea. The hard part is formalising the idea, working out how it fits with everything else we know, testing the idea, etc. (After that, persuading others becomes trivial.) Actually, for some people it seems that the hard part is giving up the idea when it doesn't work...

6 arms (digits?) could be represented by "sklumpf", for example. 8 arm numbers would require two syllables (e.g. "blondsting"). But I think pronouncing as hex is a more sensible approach...

This is what Khun called a "paradigm shift"; this resistance and then acceptance of new ideas, when there is sufficient ideas, is an essential part of how science works. Ironic from someone who deliberately chooses to dismiss most of the evidence on a particular subject.

I am fairly sure that there is some non-anecdotal research on this topic. Perhaps you could read these 100,000 papers and then come back to us: https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=long+term+trends+antarctic+ice

Still "no" evidence "then"?

That is a bizarre, if not profoundly ignorant, thing for someone to have said. I'm fairly sure you would get close to 256 just using European characters (Greek and Cyrillic upper and lower case, the various accented characters, etc). You might have to throw in Korean and Hebrew if you wanted to avoid punctuation. But this ignores things like Japanese and Chinese (traditional and simplified), the many Indian scripts, Thai, Vietnamese ... But kudos for coming up with an imaginative and regular scheme. It reminds me of the phase encoding used in high speed modems. You could try allocating a consonant to each position and then devise some rules for the ordering of these to produce pronounceable words (with vowels inserted as necessary to break up impossible consonant clusters). I don't know it is possible for these all to be single syllables in the rules of English phonemics. I doubt it. But maybe if you allow multiple choices for the consonant in each position to allow a larger number of legal consonant clusters to be created. This might mean there is no unique mapping from a symbol to its name (i.e. a symbol could have multiple names) but there is a unique symbol for each name. You could start by just labelling the angles with the consonants in order (you can go round just over twice) and then seeing how various numbers come out as words. I would probably drop the redundant letters (c, x, q) and replace them with the consonants we don't have letters for (sh, th, ...)

Because it has the word "cooling" in it? Therefore it must prove climate change wrong.

So, I "assume" you are "not" going to "provide" any "evidence" to support your "many" ludicrous claims then. Sad.

As far as I know, it is extremely difficult to produce entanglement at the molecular level. It requires cooling to near absolute zero. So I doubt this is significant to life or consciousness.

Then you have nothing to worry about.