Jump to content

John Cuthber

Resident Experts
  • Content Count

    16766
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    23

Posts posted by John Cuthber


  1. 39 minutes ago, Carrock said:

    Acquittal is all Trump can really go for. Doesn't matter so much if everyone is sure the trial was fixed.

    I'd like to think it matters here on this site where, as scientists, we understand evidence.


  2. Avoiding any trial is, of course, a way to ensure that you avoid conviction, but that ship sailed.
    He's getting a trial (of sorts).

    It seems reasonable to me that his team want to avoid the facts being heard, because they show that he's guilty.

    In effect, their actions show that they know he did the wrong thing.

    Otherwise, they would want a chance for the evidence to prove he's innocent.

     


  3. Is there  a consensus here that deciding to have a trial with no witnesses is admitting that you don't want a fair trial, and that anyone who doesn't want a fair trial doesn't want a rational, fair, decent outcome?

    Is there also a consensus that , if you don't want a fair trial, it's because  you are scared that the guy is guilty?


  4. You need a whole bunch of solutions (all dissolved in water)

    25% Ferrous oxalate 

    Concentrated ammonia (not specified, but probably 25% w/v or thereabouts.

    A saturated solution of oxalic acid.

    Unfortunately, ferrous oxalate isn't very soluble in water. So the first of those is impossible.

    So this is going nowhere.

     


     


  5. 48 minutes ago, Complexity said:

    c is only constant in a vacuum !

    No.

    C is "the speed of light in a vacuum".

    And so  C is constant.

     

     

    12 minutes ago, Complexity said:

    I deem you haven't give me an answer yet to my question . 

    But, in the real world, we can see that the answers are right here in this thread.

    You are just ignoring reality.

    How do we distinguish that from trolling?

    51 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

    Please stop putting forward stuff that can be destroyed with just a few moments' thought.


  6. 1 minute ago, Complexity said:

    Isn't the force noticed by the speed of c ? 

    No.

    Since c is a constant it can't change under the influence of a force so it wouldn't tell you if that force was there- that' idea is just silly.

     

    2 minutes ago, Complexity said:

    How could anyone notice something if they aren't looking for it ?

    By that stupid argument, nobody notices anything new.

     

    Probably the best known example is the precession of Mercury.

    They noticed it many years before they knew what explanation to look for.

    Please stop putting forward stuff that can be destroyed with just a few moments' thought.



     


  7. 3 hours ago, Complexity said:

    You would be the ''adverb'' . 

    No.

    "You" is a noun. Misusing Words like "adverb" doesn't help.

    3 hours ago, Complexity said:

    It is a causality answer and not meaningless .  

    Plainly wrong because, as it happens, I didn't use force and a knife.

    I used a super-power laser.

    But I got the same answer.

    That's what people here are trying to explain to you.

    The answer is the same - regardless of the mechanism.

    The density of an apple is a little less than 1 gram per cm3

    I can make use of that fact by comparing it to the density of water, and, since the density of water is 1, I can predict that the apple will float.

     

    But, because I'm clever enough not to insist on asking "how is the apple divided?", I can make the same prediction without actually dividing the apple at all.

    So, when I go apple bobbing, I'm not stuck with a bowl of apple soup.

    3 hours ago, Complexity said:

    My suggestion that lower energy is somehow an attractive force is not ''way out there '' over the top in imagination , based without fundamental  foundations . 

    Yes it is.

    Simply because any such force would, by now, have been noticed.


  8. If you want to be stupid about it, you can consider density  in terms of physically splitting things.

    If I take an apple and dice it into 1cm cubes then the number of cubes I get is (approximately) the volume of the apple.

    And, I have similarly shared out all the mass of the apple among all those cubes.

    The density of the apple is the average mass of each cube.

     

    The question "what divides the apple?" is a bit meaningless, but as good an answer as any is "my imagination".

     

     

     


  9. If the proximate cause is "the fog of war"- and I accept that's plausible, then the root cause is "some bastard started a war".

    There are essentially two suspects for that.
    Both are saying how wonderful it is.


  10. 20 hours ago, MigL said:

    Using that logic...
    Since missiles don't have 100% kill ratio, it wasn't just the missile that brought the plane down.
     

    The logic is that you can't say it's 50% without further data.
    It doesn't say much else.

     

     

    If a hunter mistakenly shoots a man because he thinks he's a bear, is it the bear's fault, the victim's fault or the man who didn't make sure before he pulled the trigger's fault?

     

    On 1/15/2020 at 12:32 AM, MigL said:

     

    If the Iranian missile radar interrogates only on mode 2, and receives no reply; what is the operator to do ?
    Further, he tries to contact his superior, but unreliable Iranian comm. systems make it impossible; what is the operator to do ?
    He only has 5 -8 seconds to make up his mind; what is he to do ?

    Let's be clear about this; before you do something that may kill a lot of innocent civilians, you should put a lot of care into verifying ID.

    If you don't have the data on which to make that decision, you don't shoot.

    Shooting "blind" is not acceptable.


  11. 6 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

    Wasn't sure whether this belonged in physics or chemistry, but being that from my familiarity with physics, heat makes objects LESS conductive, I

    Only with metals.

    With electrolytes and semiconductors, they generally conduct better when hot.

     

    However, you may be right in thinking that chemistry gets involved, heating cellulose- a poor conductor- converts it to charcoal- a much better conductor.

     

    Also, flames are quite good conductors compared to air


  12. On 1/11/2020 at 8:27 PM, MigL said:

    Root cause analysis

    In this case, do you consider the root cause to be Trump, his Iranian counterpart, whoever "pulled the trigger" or what?

     

    It's not clear what the aviation industry can do about this.

    It's not as if the Iranians had announced that they were going to attack an air base and (more or less) consequently,  power up their anti- aircraft  weaponry. 

     

    If you are not careful, you get into the realms of "victim blaming".

    You can take your pick about whose" fault" this massacre was, but it's not the airline.

     

     


  13. 20 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

     

    That is the post that bothers me.

     

    Re. " there is the side that is ignorant and/or lying. "

    In fairness, I think you might want to consider "misguided" as a possible third option, though some would say it's a subset of "ignorant".

    Psychotic is also a possibility.
    These 4 options can be summarised as Wrong, Wrong, Wrong and Wrong.


  14. 48 minutes ago, Cynic said:

    I doubt the ability to accurately measure global temperatures as precisely as have been claimed, with the exception of the only very recent measurements obtained by remote sensing. Much of the data is collected from stations never intended for the purpose of determining global climate change.

    Why would the purpose of the data  recording matter?
     

    50 minutes ago, Cynic said:

    I feel like the odd man out on this man made global warming thing.

    I invite you to contemplate why that might be.
     

     

    50 minutes ago, Cynic said:

    Climate has changed repeatedly and dramatically over the millennia with the complete absence of man made technology, or even man for that matter. It seems perfectly reasonable to believe that current changes are due to factors similar to what have happened throughout earth’s history, not something that came along in the last blink of an eye.

    The recent changes in climate, like the "rise of man" have both happened in the blink of an eye.

    https://xkcd.com/1732/


    We know that CO2 levels have gone up .

    We know the temperature has gone up.

    We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

    In effect, what you believe is that we put  another blanket on the bed, and we are now warmer, but the two things aren't related.

    Are you surprised that you are called "called stupid, brainwashed, denier, ignorant of science, "?

    And, of course there's this aspect of it.
     


     

    climate cartoon.JPG

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.