John Cuthber

11 minutes ago, katahiromz said:

Can we make artificial ivory?

Not really.
Ivory is a combination of mineral material (largely hydrated calcium phosphate, I think) and proteins (largely collagen).
Collagen isn't hard to get; nor is the calcium phosphate.
But combining them is impractical/ impossible.

The good news is that the only thing that ever needs ivory is an elephant, and it can make its own.

Yes, it is.
What's to discuss?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell-free_protein_synthesis

17 hours ago, iNow said:

Any liquid penetration into unfinished wood surfaces, whether pure water or chemicals of various sorts, will speed deterioration. 

The wood preservatives industry would not see it that way.
 

1 hour ago, MonDie said:

Does the biohazard mail service run from China to USA? 

Yes.
It's called "air travel".

I think we might as well treat the OP's "message" as spam.

When you get cold enough for spin energy to be significant, most things (including nitrogen) have already frozen solid.
So you don't get the same effects that you see with hydrogen and deuterium (and, I guess, tritium if you have any).

5 hours ago, studiot said:

And  I have never poisoned anyone, unlike some self styled high class establishments.

To be fair, that's a population size bias.

12 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

The big plus of preparing your own food is that you can make whatever you want regardless of anyone else's styles and tastes.

And you picked "beige" from all of them.

43 minutes ago, PhilGeis said:

Not aware the virus was not found in the wet market.

Did they look at the right time, i.e. before they knew there was an outbreak?
Did they look in the right place, i.e. at every (susceptible) animal there?

One odd case in some animal that passed the bug to a store-holder before becoming someone's cooked dinner would be all it took.

Obviously, you can't rule out a lab mistake as the "source" but you have to ask how the virus got into the lab.
It must have been in the environment somewhere.
How easy is it to rule out the idea that, rather than coming from the lab, it came from the tyre of the car that carried the sample to the lab?

Lab escapes happen. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_Kingdom_foot-and-mouth_outbreak
And they knew they were dealing with a dangerous (Cat 3, I think) organism.

The only way in which you can "blame China" is if you can be sure that they deliberately made a lethal human pathogen in what is- as you say- pretty much a school laboratory.
 

It depends on how hot you get them and for how long.
it does not depend on whether you heat them in a microwave or not.

16 minutes ago, PhilGeis said:

Please also recall Wuhan work was reportedly conducted in a BSL-2 lab - the limited contamination control standards used typically in micro 101 teaching labs.

Which would be the appropriate  control measures for a bat virus, and vastly more than those in a wet market.

Water is black to UV with a wavelength below about 200 nM.
But so is air, so it doesn't usually matter.

"How do Atomic Nuclei 'know' what the Temperature is?"
They don't.
They get batted about by the laws of physics and we interpret the way in which they behave as meaning that they have a temperature.

5 hours ago, npts2020 said:

I always thought the courts were a branch of the government.

13 hours ago, MigL said:

the Supreme Court, is in the 'pocket' of the party that appointed them.

That's pretty close to the same thing.
Here in the UK, at least in principle, "just compensation" is decided by a jury of your peers.

28 minutes ago, KeyOfDavid said:

If you can't say why his arguments are wrong, but merely attack his credentials, you have explained nothing. It merely proves your own bias.

And if I did point out why he's wrong and you ignore that simple fact, it shows that you are not here to do science.
And here's where I point it out.
 

On 2/24/2023 at 1:16 PM, John Cuthber said:

 

On 2/23/2023 at 5:57 PM, John Cuthber said:

It's a little beside the point. There have been plenty of measurements since his day.

More importantly; I'm not attacking his credentials as a physicist.
I am pointing out that he has no credentials as a physicist.

His video is no more "valid" than a high street butcher telling you that physics is wrong.
The difference is that the butcher does a useful job.
 At 11 min 22 sec or so he says that he doesn't understand the measurements.
At 12:57 he says G has varied in recent years.
How is he defining "recent"?

But the point is moot.
The "measured" values change- it's called experimental error.
That's not the same as saying the actual values change, is it?

 

17 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

  Policies should primarily favor those who work

You do realise that most of the people here telling you that you are wrong work for a living, don't you?

17 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

So far the corrective approach has been sorely lacking - one of tolerance and non-intervention,

How many are in jail as a result of this tolerance and non-intervention?

The big problem  is not drugs, nor addiction.
The big problem is that drug use is illegal.

2 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

There are those that argue that due to the addiction, the drug addict shouldn't be held accountable for his or her actions.  They commit a violent crime and are released within 24 hours.

Where?

2 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Cities already make legal decisions as to where the homeless can and cannot reside

If there's somewhere you reside, it's your home.
Homeless people do not have a residence.

Did you think this topic through before you posted?

15 hours ago, KeyOfDavid said:

how does that help me?

It explains why telling me about Sheldrakes nonsense is a waste of your time and mine.

 

15 hours ago, KeyOfDavid said:

If you can use your competence to critique Sheldrake's remarks on his investigation of how G is determined, then it might help a great deal.

I thought I already had.
 

19 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

It's a little beside the point. There have been plenty of measurements since his day.

15 hours ago, KeyOfDavid said:

I am none the wiser.

There may be more than one reason for that.

20 minutes ago, KeyOfDavid said:

Did you not listen to what Sheldrake had to say about G and how it's determined

Did it occur to you that I might be able to give a competent  talk on the determination of G?
Are you aware that physics and psychology are not the same thing and that Sheldrake might claim some expertise, but only in one of those areas?

I know what confirmation bias is.
It's trawling through google results until you find a video where someone says what you want to hear, and posting it as evidence- even though the video is by a discredited scientist working in a totally different field.

3 hours ago, KeyOfDavid said:

You showing an aptitude to think or comprehend is a pre-requisite to understanding what I have to say.

That goes both ways and you should think about the fact that you are outnumbered by actual scientists here.
 

1 hour ago, KeyOfDavid said:

I had a look at Cavendish's result. He's measuring a force of order 10^-11 N, compared with a downwards force of order 1 N. That requires an unbelievable sensitivity. A false result might occur simply by walking across the room and causing a tilt or bend in the equipment.

You should also have had a look at his methods.
He measured the change in position with a telescope.
So he wasn't walking across the room.
That's because he was clever enough to think about these things.

It's a little beside the point. There have been plenty of measurements since his day.

1 hour ago, KeyOfDavid said:

First up Sheldrake's censored Ted talk

Would that be this guy?
Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author and parapsychology researcher. He proposed the concept of morphic resonance, a conjecture which lacks mainstream acceptance and has been criticized as pseudoscience.

7 hours ago, exchemist said:

Your equation makes no sense, because you are trying to divide apples by sink plungers.

I'm going to steal that. 

A circle (or sphere) is not, in general, the right shape to  focus parallel light to a point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_aberration

1 hour ago, TheCosmologist said:

I'm not being funny, but are you unaware of what "infer" means? It's definition is a deduction. 

I know what it means.

It means deduce  or conclude.
I don't think you know how to use the word.

Now, please well us what you think the word "on" means in this context. Did you mean "from"?
"Notice here we didn't need to infer on superimposed arguments."
And then tell us what you think the phrase as a whole means.
Basically what you have written is bad English. It's not the only bit either.

Have you not noticed that several people are pointing out the inadequacy of your communications?

 

53 minutes ago, TheCosmologist said:

Well we didn't. We simply gave a definition of what the word chirality means.

I mean look, quantum mechanical lingo isn't easy. It never is, and sometimes people will use a phrase and it may not mean the same thing to another person. In the Susskind lectures, when Sussind described antiparticles and the solutions therein obtained of them from the Dirac equation, he asks the audience, "what do we mean by chirality?"

After a brief moment of silence, he continues, "We just mean it's handedness, whether it is right handed or left handed."

 

Obviously when we speak of left handedness or right, we are literally talking about the spin orientation of the particle/system. When you decompose the DIrac equation, finding negative solutions, we end up writing out wave functions of either ψL and ψR . The universe is literally filled with left handed particles, not right handed particles and has been dubbed the antimatter problem.

Or another phrase, Baryon problem.

I think you just proved my point.
You actually think this

58 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Notice here we didn't need to infer on superimposed arguments.

is meaningful.
What do you claim that "infer on" means?
 

The problem with this thread is not physics.
The problem is that you seem to think that sentences like this are meaningful.
 

2 minutes ago, TheCosmologist said:

Notice here we didn't need to infer on superimposed arguments.