John Cuthber

It was an arbitrary choice. We know who made the decision. And we even make jokes about him getting it wrong. https://xkcd.com/567/ The biggest problem with your "evidence" is that it involves currents flowing through things like air or water where the situation is more complex because both charges are involved- the current is carried by both positive and negative ions. You have been told this before. Please do not keep posting the same mistakes.

If you burn the stuff, you get ash. They weigh the ash from a known amount of flour.

Bad idea. No I suspect that no laser, or maser, is powered by a magnetron. Certainly most are not. You can not get nanoscale resolution with Raman spectroscopy. You can not do Raman spectroscopy with microwaves. You can not get nanoscale resolution with microwaves. And, because the skull is in the way, you can't do Raman spectroscopy on the brain. What do you think you are talking about? No, they did not. Nonsense.

I imagine it will have changed but I couldn't find details.

The implication of what it says here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_barbasco_trade#End_of_the_barbasco_era is that they steroids are now derived from soy.

The reaction can not work. It's impossible to balance it. The electrons won't add up.

Well... most people can. But you do need to start by learning science. Have you tried that approach? I have seen no evidence that we need to try at all, never mind "very hard". What "LIES" have you seen? It's not possible for me to pollute the OP. I can't change it. Do you know what the abbreviation means? You didn't answer my point about cooperation; you went off at a tangent of moaning about me correcting your spelling. You did exactly the thing you accuse others of doing...

The issue really isn't nativity plays. You are posting on a science site. Many- perhaps most- of the people here are atheists. What does Islam say about us?

Fission reactors produce power. Do you recall what the Z stands for in the acronym ZETA?

Science has always relied on cooperation. And, as the areas of science that are open to small scale experiments are sorted out, we move towards a world where massive collaborations like CERN are the way forward. If scientists don't cooperate with you, it can't be because scientists are uncooperative, can it? It's not a matter of "jumping"; you have made your lack of understanding really crystal clear. A notable example is that you didn't spell "knowledge" correctly.

It is true that cosmic rays will occasionally spall neutrons off nuclei and give rise to an unstable nucleus or two. However that's going to happen on Earth just as much as on Mars. Since it's not a problem here, it won't be a problem there.

If you answered him, and you remember answering him, then you should be able to quote your answer. Can you?

The windows of charity shops used to be covered with a yellow film that blocked all the UV and some of the visible blue/ violet light. It stopped sunlight fading the goods on display. Black paper will almost certainly block all the UV. (In principle it would be possible to make a "black" paper that didn't absorb UVA, but it would be more difficult and more expensive than using carbon black as the pigment so nobody will bother) Practically all commercial white paint uses titanium dioxide as a pigment. That will absorb all the UV but reflect the visible light. (By a helpful coincidence, the reflection cut off for TiO2 is practically the same as the cut off for visible vs UV light.) If you have blinds with white slats so that the light coming in has to bounce off two slats to get through, practically none of the UVA will get through, but you won't be in the dark.

It might be a good idea if you learned some maths- at least the sort that is available on a 2$ pocket calculator- before you set out to disprove physics. That's not a check mark, it's a square root symbol. OK, so science changes in the presence of new information more than you want it to. OK so science changes less than you want it to. It seems you have a problem that is nothing to do with science.

If you think that weight is what creates pressure, then you have not understood the words. Yes. It does No it is not. It can not be an a priori thing because we have proved that it does not exist.

An experiment rather like this is actually done as a means to measure things like air pollution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavity_ring-down_spectroscopy The effect you are looking for is not observed.

The production of ammonia (and other amines) is exothermic. You would get more heat in your rocket by burning hydrogen than by reacting it with nitrogen, letting the heat produced by that dissipate (in the ammonia factory) , and then burning the ammonia in the rocket. Not really. You can drill a hole in the ground and get alkanes. (admittedly, you can piss in a pot and get ammonia) Until the Haber Bosch process came on stream, it was difficult and expensive to make ammonia- a state of affairs that hampered food production. The production of ammonia uses about 1 or 2 % of the human race's energy consumption. That energy is generally obtained by burning alkanes. The hydrogen for the industrial production of ammonia is derived, on the whole, from alkanes. If you look at this chart of energy densities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#/media/File:Energy_density.svg you will see why they use hydrogen- it's all the way over to the right The alkane fuels (LPG, petrol, diesel etc ) are all pretty much lined up at about 45 MJ/Kg and ammonia and hydrazine- the only amines on the chart- are well over to the left. You could make kerosene denser by adding sand to it, but that wouldn't make it a better rocket fuel.

I am a chemist; but not a rocket scientist. Can you explain why a molecule like PMDETA would be a good fuel? It's got a lot of nitrogen in it which is "carried along for the ride". It's loosely equivalent to adding water to the fuel. It adds weight, but not energy. There may be times when that's a good thing, but rocketry isn't one of them.

If you did this once a year then you could "safely" multiply by 365. It's a non problem. Drinking water the rest of the year will make more difference to the total dose.

Are you really trying to say that they changed the Bill of Rights and nobody noticed? Are you still expecting to betaken seriously?

Why would I bother? "Heresy" is only an issue if you think that your beliefs are more important than reality. Nor to us. Why don't you stop?

Just another example but... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earnshaw's_theorem says that you can't have something stable and levitated in space by a magnetic field. And it should be correct. But, QM gives you a way round it. So things like this are macroscopic quantum observations which you can set up for yourself.

Well, if it could be made better it wasn't perfect, was it? Do you recognise that your idea is logically impossible? In reality, China pretty much brought in martial law to stop the virus. No, they didn't. They were led by a man who said they didn't need to because the virus would disappear in Spring. Do you understand that saying things which are clearly wrong does not help to convince anyone that you are right about anything?

It's not a "charge"; it's an observation. What would your second guess be?