John Cuthber

That's what they thought in the 19th century. In the 20th , they realised that the smoke doesn't "blow away", because there is no "away".

I'm pretty sure that the OP has posted this idea on other fora and failed to listen to the replies he got. I can't see why it's going to work better here. (and the same goes for his other ideas based on magic.)

That may be the only "useful" thing that anyone learns from this thread.

You were beaten to it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secchi_disk#Secchi_depth but it's a good, simple, cheap way to compare turbidity

Do you understand that pages like this one are a joke? http://hmpg.net/

You can buy deuterium depleted water. Which means you start off with 0.0115% deuterium and get 0.00815 % (or 0.01311% if you are trying to concentrate it.) You need a lot of stages to get a good product.

Because the hole is repairing itself since we stopped using so much CFC. The VLF is not going to make much difference to it.

Just one credit will do; He put the serpent in the garden of Eden and He is therefore solely responsible for everything bad in the world. Think about that...

Two points. I suggest that you look at them first. and re. "nobody needs data from 30 years ago", ask an historian.

Good. And at a hundred times the intensity... the plastic melts- which doesn't happen with sunlight, no matter how long you leave it. Accelerated aging tests (often relying on Arrhenius plots) are great, but not infallible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrhenius_plot

How do they know? 😉

I just wish I didn't come across so many people who seem to be engaged on research in this field.

Should the people who are most likely to come up with new ideas and discoveries be employed as scientists?

Nice bait and switch there. The thing about "falling" is that it implies that the direction is "down" so there is information about a trajectory.

Slightly less useful; you couldn't even fertilise the rose-beds with it.

That's interesting. You could say the same of platinum and silver. But their relative cash values change.

Not that I'm aware of and, if you are writing about something obscure, and fail to explain what it is, then you are writing badly.

The spherical harmonics are not, themselves, spherically symmetrical. But the sum of the trio of P orbitals (one on each axis) is symmetrical.

It's more than that. The atom can not know what axes you chose for your coordinate system and must therefore have an shape that is independent of your choice. The only way it can do that is to be spherical.

The simple answer is that, according to our experiments, atoms are round. The case for non hydrogen-like atoms is complex, but the simple answer is that the orbitals we get have to be linear combinations of the corresponding orbitals for hydrogen (in order to meet the same momentum + energy criteria). So they look like these https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:D_orbitals.svg But what is never explained in those diagrams is that the actual sum of the functions is (So I was told as a student) spherically symmetrical.

No Most of what we see as science is a complex interlinked grid of theories deductions and observations. And the important thing is that they all interact successfully.

If you are going to try to be petty: get it right. It's a strontium ion. " The photo shows a pinprick of a positively charged strontium atom " If it was neutral, it wouldn't be held in an ion trap. Yes they are. Those funny looking dumbbell shapes you see are poor representations of the probability density. The actual functions sum to a spherically symmetrical distribution (unless there's one outside influence on them) But the biggest problem is this If I look at the end of my finger, what I see are photons that were emitted by virtual stated populated from the ground sates by incoming photons. The process is the same- albeit that the energy levels are different.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/trapped-atom-photograph-long-exposure-competition-spd

Then I suggest that you get someone else to read your stuff before posting it. That way you might avoid saying things like "I read it twice before reading it ."

Did you read that through before you posted it?