Delbert

Assuming you're not playing devil's advocate, we live in paradise. Living in paradise is something I believe Al Bean remarked upon after returning from the Moon. And similarly with Mike Collins as he exited the Apollo 11 Capsule after his return from the Moon: you've got a nice blue ocean down here on Earth. As for a hard life, the all Coots on the local river near me lost all their young - presumably to predators. And what do they do? Start again almost immediately, to the effect that they are resitting on eggs. And then that TV prog (UK) the other day where I think David Attenborough mentioned that 90% of Ostrich nests end up being destroyed. And then there's the Mason Bee grubs in my garden possibly being eaten alive by the Gasteruption Jaculator parasite! One could go on. Life is not unfair.

Well, tried a test message in Plain Text from my machine (haven't an iPad) whereby I inserted some text both before and after attaching attachment. The result was the received email had no extra text file and the text was as I typed such that one wouldn't have known at what point I placed the attachment. I might add that I do have a Tablet (don't really know why I bought the thing!) and that doesn't show said extra files!! Although one has to action a 'Load more' button to see the bit that would've been in the extra text file! Indeed, sometimes one has to action 'Load more' on the Tablet to see any of the text!!! And then sometimes every line of the extra bit is prefixed with an '>'. One difference is that the Tablet's Mail application uses HTML, so perhaps the '>' indicates the sending format is Plain Text or this bit is from an extra text file - or something like that. Anyway, not possessing or being cognisant with an iPad, it seems to be some sort of workaround to overcame Plain Text limitations. Plain Text limitations because as far as I can see the iPad Mail application doesn't or can't use HTML. I'm sorry, but in general I find these iPad and Tablet thingies a bit rubbishy.

When receiving an email sent from an iPad using the Mail app containing one or more attachments, I also receive extra text file attachments. These extra attachments appear to contain any email text apparently typed after the file or files were attached. In other words, any text typed after attaching a file ends up in a text file attachment and not in the body of the email! I'm using Outlook 2010 and 2013. It seems to me to be a bug with the iPad Mail app as it only occurs with emails from them. I've told the iPad users to get a proper computer! Anyone have any thoughts or experienced the same?

Doesn't look invisible to me. I'd say probably just a normal biological variation. Some might say a defect, but I'd say a variation. If by some bizarre situation in the wild such a hair was somehow advantageous to survival (even if it's nothing more than some odd mating attraction) you would have an advantage and win out over others. Your progeny would probably also benefit by inheriting said hair and so in the fullness of time it could become a feature of human biology. On the other hand, if the variation is disadvantageous, then the reverse survival process occurs. But in our sanitised world one just gets a razor and shaves it off, such that it'll make no difference one way or the other.

I did say in my acquiescence about venturing the description of anything from two to eternity, that is, an unspecified amount. But presumably you didn't read that bit. So, I rescind my acquiescence. In my twisted way perhaps what I'm trying to convey is even though one might be fully cognisant with the chemical oxidising process, if one expresses it differently or perhaps in slightly greater detail, it'll be considered a failure. Because as far as I can tell, that's the only difference in our view or description. Anyway, I would've thought the question should be able to accept any answer as long as it's chemically correct, i.e. the appropriate number of atoms (or molecules) or just the general description of oxygen and hydrogen can join up and result in water.

I know, I know. I was just going along with your apparent interpretation that to specify only one hydrogen atom it likely say only 'one hydrogen atom'. It appears I can't win. If I suggest one view (mine) it is countered. And then if I acquiesce to what appears to be the contrary view, I'm told I'm still wrong! When I said "Okay, 'hydrogen' actually means either two hydrogen atoms or one hydrogen molecule." I was tempted to say 'any number from two to eternity'. But I didn't want to introduce another factor to confuse things and be shot down again on such complication! This was a chemistry paper not a general knowledge paper. Yes, it uses 'word' in the question, but that meant nothing particular to me because what else would one use to identify what the formula referred to? Perhaps I should prefix this reply by saying 'this is a word reply' - clearly ludicrous, which was my puzzlement with 'word' in the question.

Okay, 'hydrogen' actually means either two hydrogen atoms or one hydrogen molecule. So, presumably why then does 'oxygen' clearly only mean one oxygen atom? Surely using the same logic that means two oxygen atoms or an oxygen molecule? I'm sorry but all this seems ridiculous. In chemistry I understand two hydrogen atoms would be 2hydrogen, and a hydrogen molecule would be hydrogen2. Again, I would fail the test magnificently.

Exactly! I'm reading it as written and it says hydrogen and oxygen - one of each. It was a question from a chemistry paper and not a general knowledge question. Anyway, it's clear my approach, or even understanding, is wrong, and as I've said, I would have failed the test with flying colours. Perhaps it may come as no surprise to anybody that I am, and always have been, a total failure in exams and tests.

Yes perhaps we all know O2 and H2. So, assuming they are also saying the oxygen is really oxygen2, why is the answer (water) saying nothing about the spare oxygen that presumably floats off to who knows where? As said, there is another question where numbers seem very flexible, but I'll leave it as just this one as I'm still puzzled by the lack of precision. Is one to presume therefore, that when reading a chemical formula there will be one or two, if not lots, of missing numbers whereby one is to 'just assume'? Also as I indicated in my reply above, would the examiner when reading (say) my answer adopt a similar laxity? I'd bet a bob or two that he or she wouldn't.

Well, not quite sure what to say about such, apart from if I were taking the exam hoping the examiner doesn't over think the answers! But I bet that wouldn't be the case - they would be picked over in detail..

Today my newspaper (UK) reproduced some sample GCSE questions. And they left me baffled - I certainly would have failed such a test. One chemistry question asked: Complete the word equation for the oxidation of hydrogen. hydrogen + oxygen =? The answer is water. So where did the second hydrogen atom come from?? It doesn't say hydrogen2, it just says hydrogen! And what's more if two hydrogen are somehow to be assumed, why not assume two oxygen - or any other numerical combination? Surely, if it means two it should say or indicate two. There is another whereby numbers seem a tad loose. Anyway, the upshot is I'd fail a GCSE test with flying colours.

Yes! Didn't notice as the only date I looked at was the preceding post from Physica.

What's your diet like? And what's it been like in the past? That includes anything that's passed your lips or been consumed in any other way. On a slightly different tack, the other day my local surgery invited me for a health check (think they were conducting some sort of survey), and when the nurse asked me what I had for breakfast that morning and I replied porridge, she was ecstatic! Indeed, a similar response for my report of other meals. The impression I got was that such was unusual. Moreover, what did I see the other day? Someone sitting in a coffee shop very early in the morning obviously having breakfast, which consisted of a substantial piece of chocolate cake and a coffee.

I suppose that's one way to look at it. I did locate the argument for this some time ago, but I can't quite recall it! Other than to say that the other two observers will view the situation different to us. Such that they will see us at a different time, that is age, than they see other object that's suggested to be moving away from them at 1.8c. Whereas we see the other two objects at the same time - that is age. Which will probably mean the 1.8c will turn out to be <1c. I'm sure I've got some diagrams describing it all somewhere, but I can't find them! So I'll have to leave it there.

Not quite sure what you're saying. The speed of light is based on physics as defined by James Clark Maxwell and is not defined as an absolute speed that would be measured different depending local speed -- that is one could never catch up and travel alongside a light beam. In the universe there's no such thing as absolute speed only relative speed. In other words what ever speed you think you are doing, the speed of light will be the same. But if one takes the view that there is such a thing as absolute speed, just ask yourself: what speed am I (i.e. the Earth) doing right now? Looking at the universe I think you will come up with anything from zero to close to, or even at, the speed of light. In other words the very question as to what speed are we doing is invalid, such that there's no such thing as absolute speed, only relative speed. I understand that the speed of light is a slight misnomer, as more correctly I believe it is the physics of the propagation speed of a massless particle. And as light, I further understand, is deemed to be massless it is referred to as the speed of light. I think Brian Cox explains it perfectly in the book: Why does e = mc2 ?

It seems you're viewing the speed of light as an absolute. In contrast, there is no such thing as absolute speed in the universe. All one needs to do, I suggest, is to ask what speed does one think one is doing right now? If you do I think you could come up with anything from zero to close, if not at, the speed of light. The speed of light is based on physics and not absolute speed, as defined by James Clark Maxwell. What that means is that the speed of light will be the same for everybody - irrespective as to what 'speed' the observer thinks he or she is doing. In other words, speed is relative as defined by Einstein. Which, from your question, implies that mass is also relative. A particle may appear heavier relative to us when it's speed is faster relative to us. But presumably if you or I were to hitch a ride on said particle (just a thought exercise), we'd feel more or less the same, but then it would be the things around us that would be different. For exactly the same reason when taking the question above about what speed one is doing right now (i.e. the Earth), one might come up with a speed close to the speed of light, or maybe at the speed of light, and as far as we can tell we are not a black hole.

So, you've already decided that there is something. I'd have thought that before posting such an inviolate fact, I think in science one has to define such a property, i.e. existence defined such that an object can be described as something. I understand that atoms are mainly empty space. Even to the extreme that I further understand that investigations into the bits that aren't the empty space are also empty space! Just because something seems solid doesn't necessarily mean it is in absolute terms, i.e. it just seems solid to us. Perhaps like absolute speed, we might feel there is such a thing as absolute speed, but once we look into the night sky we cannot define what speed we are doing in absolute terms. In other words there maybe relative speed, but no such thing as absolute speed. Even time, I understand from Einstein, is relative and no such thing as absolute time. Perhaps there's something similar with 'something'.

On occasions I've discussed at some length with the doorknockers, and whatever one says their view seems unmoveable. And it seemed similar with my friend as before I changed the subject as above, I did start to counter his idea. He immediately interrupted me to inform me (with hand movements!) that he's 'looked into it all'. It was clear he wasn't willing to consider any view contrary to his. It was at this point I changed the subject. As regards the doorknockers previously mentioned above, in addition they also stated that they have evidence disproving evolution. I replied: get it published, peer reviewed and astound the scientific community. They replied that that doesn't or didn't work (I can't recall which), to which I responded: that's because it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Well, if it's not based on evidence and reasoned investigation, what else is it? Interesting conversation the other day during a restaurant meal, whereby a friend stated that evolution is false because dogs can't talk! Can't talk, which means they can't and couldn't survive on their own. Can't recall how the conversation got round to such, but I thought it best not to pursue the argument, and changed the subject to the food - which was rubbish! With those knocking on the door about horses mating with donkeys a couple of weeks ago, for some reason I seem to have attracted a few arguments. I'm sorry, but magic might be the word.

Correct. Or expressed another way: if you want to generate a voltage higher than you can generate, charge a capacitor to the voltage you can generate and pull it apart.

I'm not aware that anyone is saying anything of the sort. As my offering #34 above, it seems we humans tell stories to each other, which may enable us to join as groups from friendship and fellow feelings. These stories may well be factual or complete fiction, it doesn't matter. The latter is probably more likely. But as long a we feel comfortable with each other as a consequence and experience and reinforce friendship and fellow feeling, we can engage in joint enterprise to achieve something we can't as individuals. Over the years when they've called as above, they've made all sorts of suggestions as to why the discoveries of science are wrong. But as I tend to point out to them they slowly accept the findings they previously fervently claimed as fact to be wrong - atoms and Sun centred solar system mentioned above, to name just two.

In times past discs nearly always had bad tracks and sectors - doubtless it was viewed to be next to impossible to produce a fault-free surface. Although there was a limit to how many such flaws could be logged, and such were handled by flawing tracks and skip displacements (skip over the error). Mind you, that was in the days where it was brown iron oxide (rust) surface material. Nowadays they seem to be made of shiny silver coloured material, which presumably is superior.

Had a couple knock on my door yet again the other day (Me thinks they've got me marked down in their book, or something!), and from discussion they offered the example of their understanding of evolution being that a donkey would have to mate with a horse for species to change or a new one appear. They continued and said that it doesn't happen (apart from rare exceptions), so therefore evolution is false. I did venture into discussion with them, but their view seemed unshakeable. I was completely puzzled by their understanding, but then again perhaps my understanding is wrong! It seems that in general they have the view that species don't change, and therefore for something different to appear it has to be a product of creatures already in existence, as in the example above. On the specific thread subject we ventured into discussing atoms, and how weird they appear (quantum mechanics and all that). Their view was that that therefore meant that they must have been created by a omnipotent being, i.e. God. I said that similar to the Sun centred solar system, as far as I know the religious establishment countered any suggestion of the existence of such things in the early part of the last century. To the extent that they labelled Ludwig Boltzmann irreligious for suggesting things are made of atoms, to the degree that he ended up committing suicide. Think I've got my history right - but perhaps others know better.

Presumably that would be Fifth Columnists.

Windows 98? My latest hardware wouldn't install Windows XP! Can't recall the error, but the oldest MS system it would accept is Windows 7.