exchemist

You are making a mistake regarding probability. If there is a one in 1000 probability of you stubbing your toe on any given day, then doing so on the first Sunday of the year when there is a full moon does not make that probability lower. It is still 1 in 1000. So if there is a certain probability of the virus being zoonotic in origin, based on previous experiences of zoonotic viruses of this type, that is not reduced by the virus being found at a place where there is a virus lab.

Radioactive decay, chemical change, erosion etc. If you look a railway track that is out of service for 6 months and look at it at the start and end of that interval of time you will see the appearance has changed. It seems a stretch to ascribe that change to movement - though at the atomic level there has been motion of oxygen atoms, I suppose.

It seems to me it is not movement that makes intervals of time useful to measure, but change. Motion involves change (of position), but not all change involves motion.

There is no reason to think this article is wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disc_rot

Post your idea here if you want a response.

Your mistake is in treating light as if it is a perception, like colour. It isn't. Light, or to be more general, electromagnetic radiation, is a physical thing.

Well obviously. It's other people's religions where the problems can start.

The two ways I've tried to this, in neither case from scratch I have to say, were reproofing a Barbour jacket with wax ( a tricky process involving melting a tin of proprietary wax in hot water and applying it with a cloth) and spray proofing a raincoat with Scotchgard, which I think is a silicone. It sounds as though with your gloves going the Scotchgard route would be the thing to try. I found it needed several applications to be fully effective and even then was not 100%, but it's a lot better than nothing.

Gibberish.

No you need to discuss your ideas here, in words. If you have been changing the appearance of copper coins, that sounds like chemistry rather than astronomy and cosmology. Is there a reason why you chose to post under this heading?

Most people will use a bin if there is one handy that doesn’t look revolting. In nearly every location I have seen where is litter, there are no bins to be seen anywhere. The exception is deliberate fly-tipping of rubbish, which happens a lot. I suspect the solution there is surveillance cameras.

Provide plenty of litter bins, in the places where people need them, and keep them regularly emptied and looking clean.

As so often in chemistry, it's not a black and white situation. You don't have either "a bond" or "no bond", but bonds, sometimes "partial" in character, that can vary in strength and completeness. BF3 is indeed the weakest Lewis acid of the various trihalides, which is attributed to F providing more effective π overlap than its congeners. This would be because it would involve 2p subshells on both atoms, which are of similar size: overlap between orbitals of different shells is commonly not so effective. But there is still a gain in stability in going from BF3 with 3 partial π-bonds to 4 full σ-bonds in an sp3 hybridised adduct with NH3. In part this will be because the back-donation from F requires a degree of polarisation against the electronegativity of the atoms, i.e. with a δ- on B and a δ+ on F. So the extra stability from the extra bonding won't be that great. The above is all a bit handwavy, I know. There is a more advanced discussion of this issue using Molecular Orbital theory here: https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/80247/molecular-orbital-diagram-for-bf3. which is really a more proper way to analyse it. (I'm afraid I've forgotten my Group Theory, so I can't guide you all the way through this.) But you will see there is a low-lying antibonding LUMO (Lowest Unoccupied Molecular Orbital) into which a pair of electrons can be accepted, at the expense only of reversing out the π-bonding contribution. You will see from that that it is a quite a complicated story, so your question is by no means a trivial one.

That seems a rather peculiar statement. Can you explain it? Because most articles I have read say the key is confinement of the plasma, in a dense enough state for fusion to occur.

The one a bit to the left of the other.

You mean you are suddenly wondering about this in your fifties? (It was the reference to your mother - and the rather basic nature of the questions - that made me think you were at school.) Yes words mean things, but you are also expected to engage your brain a bit. I did that when I saw your question and came up with an answer for you. Did it seem reasonable?

It depends on your neurological reference frame.

OK but regarding nudity in society today, please also see my response to your original thread on this, in September.

The whole story is an allegory of loss of innocence, exemplified by development of self-consciousness about exposing one's private parts. We consider the animals innocent - doing what they do without hangups about right and wrong. Small children ditto. Whereas adult human beings are moral creatures, with a responsibility to act morally. Eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil is symbolic of this double-edged transition: the gain of adult knowledge involves sacrificing childlike innocence. The story is clear that it is Adam and Eve themselves who decided they needed to hide their private parts, due to loss of innocence. So there is no suggestion that flashing your genitals is evil. That was a hangup they introduced for themselves.

We had a thread eerily similar to this one in September: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/127885-hi-everyone-my-husband-and-myself-are-going-to-try-to-share-this-profile-and-we-will-see-how-that-works/ Are you a sock of we2? If not, you will find the issue has been discussed at some length already in that thread.

Interesting. I think that would be because they teach all the relevant biology stuff ab initio but don't want to be diverted into trying to teach chemistry to people that can't cope with it. A lot of people don't find chemistry easy.

An excellent editorial that expresses very clearly and concisely the reservations some of us have been trying to articulate about this announcement: - the huge gap between laser beam energy input and the power needed to run the lasers, - the huge and yet-to-be addressed challenges in capturing the energy released and converting it into steam to run a turbine, - the issue, once all that is solved, of bringing the costs down to a scale that enable the technology to become economic, - and finally, given that all the above will take decades of further work with a still uncertain prospect of success, the risk the paper clearly sees of people taking fusion as yet another excuse for procrastinating on the urgent issue of decarbonising the world's economy as soon as we possibly can, using the renewable energy technologies that we have in our hands already.

In a nutshell, biology comprises the scientific study of living things. It therefore seems to make perfect sense to start a course on human biology with a description of what "living" means, and then proceed to the anatomy and physiology of the human body. Cell biology concerns the structure and biological and biochemical processes that go on in various sorts of cell, so what one might think of as micro-scale biology, whereas anatomy and physiology concern organs, the functions they perform, how they interact, where they are located and how they are connected etc., i.e. the macro-scale biology. As fas heart rates go, I'd imagine smaller human beings will tend to have a faster heart rate than larger ones. So boys' hearts will beat a bit faster than those of full-grown men. But why not ask your teacher? It's an intelligent enough question. You could even ask why this should be so, which could lead to an interesting discussion.

And, for some reason, you think this stuff from over a century ago constitutes news, do you? What I said was the BBC is one of the most trustworthy news sources. News. Do you understand what news is?

The BBC is one of the most trustworthy news sources around. (That news item is from February, by the way.)