exchemist

Financial Times, BBC, Guardian, Reuters, mainly. I also check Independent, Brexograph (headlines only, to see what the Swivel-Eyes are thinking, or being told to think ) and the Spectator and New Statesman for commentary. And others from time to time on specific topics, e.g. Forbes, Business Insider, New Scientist, Nature publications etc.

Your inferiority complex is showing. I remember similar stuff from the USSR when I was a child. They were taught that Russians had invented just about every modern appliance. Their government felt the need to boost national pride by changing history. In your case, you seem preoccupied with some kind of competition that a nation "wins" or "loses". That may be how China, or Malaysia, say, is being taught to see itself, because of an uneasy awareness that it has spent the last 30 years "catching up". But don't try to change history. Nobody "laughs" at Russia because of the war with Japan. You are imagining that. Spain - in the form of Al Andalus - was mostly under Moorish rule from about 700 to 1250, 550 years, not 750. But why pick on that? All manner of parts of Europe and the Middle East were ruled from elsewhere for considerable periods. That's what happens in history. Nobody but you thinks in terms of "Europe" or "The West" versus everyone else. It's simplistic, childish and divisive.

Do they mean light is made of bosons, so even rather than odd? 😄 Actually I presume it is because they have just described the strong gravitation of black holes, so readers may be thinking that bodies with mass can't escape, rather than massless photons.

This is wrong, mad and in Cyrillic.

No. Do your own homework, you lazy git.😁

If you want us to watch a video, please at least summarise what it says, how long it is, and what your point is in asking us to do so.

I may be out of date when it comes to modern terminology, but I don't understand what you mean by "global" rate of reaction, nor do I understand what is meant by a "unique" rate law. A reaction rate can be expressed in terms of the rate of consumption of any of the reactants, or the rate of generation of any of the products, surely? No one of these is more fundamental or "global" than another, so far as I can see. Where do you get this rate expression for ozone decomposition from? It looks a bit strange, especially the inverse dependence on O2 concentration.

Most of this fails to make any testable prediction and is therefore not part of a scientific theory, but just metaphysical speculation. The one thing you do say which seems to be testable is that stuff about black holes exploding. Is there any evidence for this?

Getting at actual production costs is very hard, for commercial reasons, unless one is actually in the business. Data I’ve seen on line for brewing suggests ingredients plus production, excluding packaging, is only 30% of total costs, with another 30% or so being due to packaging. The rest will be distribution, sales and marketing, tax etc. For soft drinks, I imagine these non-production costs would be similar with the obvious exception of tax. As for the production process itself, my guess is beer production is more complex, with more steps in it, than soft drink production, since it involves malting and fermentation, which are fairly subtle biochemical processes, whereas soft drink production is just a matter of blending. Also it takes longer, which increases working capital. I would not like to put numbers to the difference. But you can see from this that even if production costs were twice as high for beer as for soft drinks, that would only make total cost about 15% higher. Tax will be the other big difference. Actually there may be 3rd element in some cases. Glass bottles are a hell of lot heavier than PET packaging. This may have a big effect on distribution costs.

In addition to @Sensei's point about excise duty on alcoholic beverages there is also the need to avoid confusing cost with price. Price is set by supply and demand for the goods in question. The connection to cost can be fairly indirect.

Not to mention their prison camps and surveillance cameras...............

It seems to me the way to control the effects of greed in political life is laws, standards and codes of conduct against corrupt practices, transparency, and a vigorous, free and serious press. (The role of law is vital, which is why recent events in Israel are so troubling.)

What makes you think those in power are any greedier than other people? Do you have evidence for that? Could it not simply be that, when one is in power, the opportunities to satisfy greed are greater? After all, many people enter politics to make the world a better place, as they see it. Most able people, if they are motivated simply by greed, can get greater rewards in other professions.

There is no evidence so far that gravitons even exist. They are just a conjecture at this stage, suffering from problems with the mathematics. From what I understand, detecting gravitons - if the maths is ever sorted out - is expected to be a practical impossibility, requiring enormous, planetary or stellar masses. To date, gravitons are not part of any physical theory, since we have no theory of quantum gravity. The whole idea may turn out to be misguided.

It looks to me as if Rayleigh waves, as observed in earthquakes, seem to be of this type: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_wave

But surely in the gravitational case it is only -ve relative to infinite separation of the bodies concerned, which we arbitrarily set to "zero" by convention.

Could it be a Rayleigh wave? : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_wave

He was clearly that. But then so are many of the best educators. Often, however, these are not the best researchers. Feynman seems to have managed to combine both. But there was obviously quite a big ego at work.

But can't we reach the same conclusion about c being a speed limit just by considering limits? I'm no mathematician, but I understood the point about limits is you can see where a function is going without resorting to infinities.

Plenty of people publish papers who are not "renowned". He could have been a PhD student or something, or he could have simply left academia to do something other than research. Does it matter?

A microwave oven will not generate high temperatures in anhydrous silica gel.

This issue has now been adequately answered by several of us. You are becoming a bore.

No. I'm out of this now.

The point about lack of coherence is that your "arguments" are almost impossible to discern. And frankly, there is no reason why we should all make a superhuman effort, just for a random unknown person on the internet. So you need to get coherent somehow, either by yourself or with appropriate help, and maybe people will pay attention.

Yes, but the issue here is that it is not deception per se. It's more subtle than that. As I understand it, it is rewarding researchers that manage - whether by good science, luck or bending their findings - to get the sort of results the big man hopes for, to support his theory. And presumably by burying the careers of those unfortunate researchers that can't replicate the findings, or get positive results. In medicine in particular, there seems to be a culture of the big man: the eminent doctor or surgeon whom everyone wants to consult, whom everyone wants to study under and who has extensive powers of patronage. So, without any actual overt malpractice, a system can be created that is biased towards finding convenient rather than inconvenient results. And then the temptation to fabricate, to discard -ve data and so forth is there.