exchemist

There have been attempts, for instance the "tired light" hypothesis, but nothing that fits all the observations.

I was interested to read today that Goldman Sachs believes the spot price of gas may halve by the end of this N hemisphere winter, as a result of the alternative supply and stockbuilding measures being implemented by the EU. Appears the EU is ahead of their stockbuild target, floating LNG gasification plants are already in place in the Netherlands with more to follow in Germany, and there has been some success in curtailing gas demand. So this may be a fairly short-lived spike, in which case government borrowing to tide us over may not be quite as foolhardy as it first seemed. And then Russia will be screwed, as not only will the price come down dramatically, but nearly all their gas pipelines are West-facing and nobody in Europe will ever rely on them again. But a very hard winter could change the calculation.......

According to the currently dominant model of cosmology, there was a beginning to time and space.

Where do you get that idea from? It's quite wrong. For most Christians, baptism simply brings you into the Christian community. What is needed for an individual to get to heaven starts from there.

I'm afraid I don't know much about the "born-again" sects. They are a minority in Christianity.

Haha, yes indeed. Now that’s a really evil scam, preying on the hopes of the poor to impoverish them further.

Indeed. Nor do they teach you how to become a millionaire, or how to fly. Scandalous, isn’t it?

I think I would expect the new Albanese government to remove obstacles to renewable electricity generation. Of all countries on Earth, Australia has good reason to take climate change very seriously indeed. Seems like a no-brainer. But I'm intrigued. 15kW is quite a bit. What area of solar panels do you need for that?

My chief thought is you could look this up, if you really wanted to know. A subsidiary one is that you don't seem to be very good at expressing yourself clearly. Making a big deal out of the "born again" thing is only done by certain Protestant sects within Christianity, largely in the USA. For the rest, baptism is a ritualised symbol of joining the community of Christianity, by metaphorically washing away the "original sin" of humanity with which everyone is said to be born. That's why infant baptism (christening) is the general practice in most denominations. Christ's resurrection concerns a different piece of doctrine: that of the Atonement. It does again relate to the original sin idea, however.

Why don't we start by you engaging your brain and thinking about the fact that (i) there are numerous different types of fabric, (ii) there are these things called dyes and (iii) there are just one or two mechanical processes to convert raw materials into fabric and then fabric into clothes? After you've done that and can formulate a sensible question instead of a silly one, maybe it will be worth going to the trouble of answering it.

That's crazy. The whole world needs Li for EVs, never mind storage for a renewable-based power grid, where batteries are just one (partial) solution.

Yes, I think the UK would do better to target the help at lower income groups and use a windfall tax of wider scope to help fund it. At present it is not only the fossil fuel companies that are making money way in excess of what their investment plans were based on, but also the electricity generators that do not use fossil fuel (renewables, nuclear), because the market price for electricity is set by the gas-based generators. I have read in the FT that some of the renewable operators would actually welcome moving to a different pricing system that gave them more predictable revenues, even if they would make less money at a time of shortage like the present. A more constant revenue stream removes risk, and risk always costs a premium when it comes to business investment, as well as reducing the number of interested participants. Truss is trying to be a papier mâché Thatcher wannabe, to follow the papier mâché Churchill wannabe that we have just got rid of. But that's decades out of date. I think fuel prices and electricity bills are already high enough to make everyone want to economise and think about alternatives. Going even higher would for some people mean dying of cold or starving. So targeted government help, at least, seems unavoidable to me.

Yes, I read an article in the Financial Times this week by Fatih Birol, the (very experienced) head of the International Energy Agency, in which he described the notion that the renewables push is responsible for high energy prices as "absurd". The high prices are of course due to the war in Ukraine, and both Russia and the EU's reaction to that. Also, OPEC has refused to fill the gap in fossil fuel supply, no doubt realising that the world is moving away from fossil fuel and they might as well get as much for it as they can, while they can. High energy prices should be accelerating the move to renewables. Anyone who thinks the answer is to carry on relying on fossil fuel at these prices, which OPEC shows every sign of wanting to maintain, is an idiot. Regarding Australia, it is sitting on much of the world's supply of lithium, which is vital for batteries and hence will be a strategically critical resource in years to come. I should have thought Australia's mining industry should be transitioning to that, away from coal, at top speed, to secure export revenues for the coming decades. At the moment, China does all the processing of Li. Not great, strategically : they could be the next Russia. Maybe Australia should take a look at Li processing, i.e. a spot of vertical integration. They'd have plenty of support for that from the rest of the world, I'm sure. Could probably charge a premium for the added security of supply.

But that is fainting, not headaches.

Ballocks. Participles belong to verbs. There is no verb to intricate, or to be intricated.

No idea whatsoever.

If the solution is clear, i.e. not turbid, then the sugar is fully dissolved. But you raise a nice point. If the g/l figure you have been given was determined as the mass of sugar that was added to a known volume of pure water, when the solution was made up, then you can use the density of water. If it is the mass of sugar per unit volume of solution, then you will need to use the density of the solution. So you will have to get out a hydrometer to measure that, I suppose. Can you determine on which basis the g/l figure is derived?

True, but Bozo lying to the Queen was one of the black marks that ultimately led to him being branded a serial liar - which got him chucked out as leader by his own party. It went down very badly with a lot of people.

I told you that. A few atomic radii in.

Combustion by definition involves oxygen, but this can be in the form of an oxygenated compound, e.g. NH4NO3, or even internally within the molecule, e.g. nitroglycerine. There are various solid propellant systems for rockets that use these principles. But all of them need to be ignited, i.e. initial energy has to be supplied to start the reaction off. I can't think, offhand, of two solids that spontaneously inflame when brought into contact, though. One problem is that solids can only form a contact along a surface, limiting the extent of reaction. One would probably have to pulverise one or both to increase the surface area.

Oh I think the monarchy will last. It would take a revolution to get rid of it and we're not going to do that unless we get a really bad monarch at some point. As for the role of the monarchy, the more I look at recent US politics the more value I see in separating the roles of head of state and head of government. Many republics in fact do this, not just the (fairly numerous) monarchies of Europe. Even a merely ceremonial head of state provides an alternative centre of power to the that of the government: power based on national psychology and personal loyalty. That division of power is a good thing in my view. We can (and often do) despise the various heads of government and the political factions that come and go under our democratic process, but the king or queen sits above all that and can provide continuity and a focus of unity for the country. When I contemplate the Trump years in the USA, I think our constitutional monarchy may not be such a bad system after all. The challenge Charles III faces is modernising the monarchy in a way that enables it to continue to command respect and loyalty from British citizens. I think he may be quite a good king, but he won't have long to make his mark, as he's already in his 70s.

You had already found the British Common Cold Study according your very first post. So now you "thank" @studiot for drawing your attention to something you are already aware of? And you still can't be bothered to follow up for yourself any of the associated references.

They are. And you have been told where to find this scholarship. So go and look it up and stop wasting our time.

Not robbery, certainly, as you don't seem to have offered anything of value. What I would suggest is radically altering your style of communication: cut out all this useless verbiage and circumlocution, and learn how to summarise ideas succinctly. Doing this may be challenging, but the process will help you get your own thoughts and ideas in order. Get to the point quickly, and stick to it. At the moment you seem to be in a huge muddle. My experience is that people that use a lot of words generally are less insightful, and produce work of less value, than those who are able to express themselves in a concise and focused way. I find, myself, that trying to set down my ideas concisely in print is a good way to make sure I have thought the subject through properly. The other thing you can usefully do is control your ego. You have failed lamentably to express your ideas clearly on this forum, and when people's patience wears thin, you assume it is we who are the idiots, rather than you, and resort to insults. We will draw our own conclusions from that. Nobody owes you a hearing. It is you that needs to convince others that you have something worthwhile to say and show that you can have a civil discussion about it. Unless you are happy to talk only to yourself, of course.

Seeing that skin is chemically speaking a highly complex system, with many hundreds of chemical species, I think it is quite likely that a few atoms or molecules may detach and adhere to the surface of whatever we touch. Also, the water and oil in skin secretions may well dissolve a few atoms or molecules of the object we touch and transfer them to the surface of our skin. The surfaces of substances tend to be less chemically stable than the interior, due to the atoms being incompletely surrounded and thus having unsatisfied valences. So adsorption on surfaces is quite common. But as @StringJunkysays, penetration to any significant depth, i.e. more than a few atomic radii in, is likely to be zero or close to it, except in particular cases.