npts2020

Fair enough, I just wonder where the perception comes from to begin with.

Cool. Instead of crop circles we have earth squares.

Highlighted is the real beneficiaries of the current proposal. Why? Because what would happen to our capitalist system if someone actually believed there was something that could be bought or sold where "profits" should not be "maximized"?

Exactly what is it that the Democrats are doing to "pander to the far left"? The only difference I can see is that with the Republicans in charge we would be getting even more of the same "good ol boys network" and "politics as usual".

At least in anarcho-syndicalism you would be free to shoot syndicalists you didn't like.

Does that mean if Mr. Bothwell was a member of a devil-worship cult it would be OK for him to serve? I wonder which would upset the proponents of barring him from office more atheism or satanism?

I agree, but at least you can for the most part definitively describe the phase of a material that way, even if the characteristics of a given phase are ambiguous.

Really? How was my point about business interests opposing gay marriage on fiscal grounds "refuted" (near as I can tell it was ignored)? We can argue about whether or not it is fair for them to do so but nobody has countered the notion that it is a secular reason for opposition.

Yes, but DNA affects you whether or not you even know it is there. DNA does not need to hold every possible bit of information any more than a computer program needs to know the outcome of every possible mathematics problem. All that is required is understanding and being able to use the methodology needed to arrive at the correct answer. The fact that you can learn and how much is directly related to your genetics.

LED's are used in some bicycle headlights. That would lead me to believe they are powerful enough for most optical microscopes.

What about equal rights for all citizens under law? Can 50% + 1 vote take away the rights of the 50% - 1 vote? IMO outside of those religious fanatics wishing to impose their values on the rest of us, the main opposition to the whole idea is business interests who make money from being able to deny everyone the same benefits (which is the real secular reason for opposing gay marriages).

I disagree, the fact that you are able to do any of those things is because your genetics made your (and body) brain capable of doing them. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged How are instincts related to genetics?

I have been to many bars without drinking (anything alcoholic anyway). AFAIK any student may opt out of the sex education part of health class in all public schools, if you can show a case where anyone has been forced to sit through it then I will stand corrected.

What do you do that is not "genetically programmed into your brain"?

IMO the long and short of it is that, federally insured financial institutions ought not to be allowed to trade in unregulated financial instruments.

The idea of entropy in the universe seems unlikely to be overturned IMHO.

I don't see how the LHC could produce a large enough quantity of anything like that to pose any danger outside of the immediate local effects of radioactivity.

So why even bother defining different phases of any material? It seems to me that there is so much overlap of properties that the only consistent way of doing it is thermodynamically by latent heat of vaporization and fusion. IMO the OP is saying there is no distinguishable difference between phases (of at least some substances) given a long enough time scale but in fact thermodynamics says otherwise.

Thanks for the clarification. Apparently, I misunderstood the original question and took it to be asking when a solid becomes a liquid instead of what properties distinguish one from the other. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIMO it is just easier and more well defined to describe phases of matter thermodynamically then through physical properties of a substance since a phase of one type of material can act in the same manner as a different phase of some other material.

What if the ice were in an identical barrel, either under pressure or one or both barrels not completely full? It seems to me that they would reach the bottom at the same time if both are filled to the top but I am unsure how water sloshing around would change the dynamics, especially if the barrel did not roll fast enough for centrifugal force to even out the level of water on the inside.

Why would a monopole not reach equilibrium at some point? I mean would it not come to rest at the part of the field it is moving through where the highest opposite charge is?

I realize it has been a long time (over 30 years) since I had to learn about this sort of thing but it was always my understanding that the reason that the point of latent heat was used for determining the phase of most materials was precisely because of the ambiguity of many states of matter, especially when time is involved. Am I wrong about this?

String theory until it is conclusively shown to be false is part of science or rather more accurately part of the scientific method. The beauty of scientific method is that all parts of science are subject to change in light of new knowledge. When experience (usually through experimentation) shows something to be true every time you perform the same actions and analysis, it becomes as close to fact as is possible in science. Why do you think no (or almost none) serious scientist believes the world is flat? Because many experiments and much experience has shown that the world is not in fact flat. Is it possible the world is flat? Extremely unlikely, since the only ways of getting around the common experience of the world being round and not flat involve highly improbable events or situations and reasoning that cannot be shown to be true through any human experience. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedBTW philosophy is part of science in the same way.

This does not really contradict what I have been trying to point out about latent heat and phase change in regards to defining the state of a substance. Plasmas and bose-einstein condensates are the only substances I can think of off hand that do not fit those definitions. I could have written about it in my own words but wikipedia already had good explanations IMO. One small point, however, "melting" a substance (especially a rock) and resolidifying it is not necessarily the same as leaving it alone for a trillion years. If you heat a diamond up at atmospheric pressure beyond its melting point and resolidify it at the same pressure will it still be a diamond (hint diamonds can't form except under very high pressures)? Whereas, a diamond if left alone at normal earth surface temperatures and pressures will be a diamond forever AFAIK.

Yes, but for humans today only in theory.