swansont

"NOTE - NOT FDA APPROVED FOR USE ON HUMANS IN U.S.A." To get FDA approval you have to demonstrate that it works better than a placebo' date=' among other things. Not having approval isn't proof that it doesn't work, however. Note that they make no actual claims - it's [i']designed[/i] to work that way, etc.

The iron in your body is not in a form that is affected by magnetic fields. One reason you don't stick to the roof of an MRI machine. Magnets have no documented effect on your health. The people selling magnetic bracelets, etc., are con artists.

Was that when the atomic mass was defined using O-16, rather than C-12? I forget when they made the switchover. I've seen tables based on the old standard.

You do realize you are not obligated to participate any further, right? You can just leave the thread alone? I was referring to your statement about theories and laws when I said it was a matter of fact, not opinion. Your first clue would have been what I quoted. Your second clue would have been what I said in support of my statement.

It's a weighted average, by the % abundance. Also, it does not account for the mass defect. However, any problem caused by that is often mitigated by the neutrons' and protons' masses being slightly larger than 1 amu.

Hydraulic system, or pulley system, at a 10:1 mechanical advantage. Absent any friction, the power dissipated (P=Fv) is equal. Use a disc with 10x the area attached to a "U" tube with an incompressible fluid in it. Conservation of energy and continuity tell you that your relationship will hold (assuming you don't heat the fluid up at all)

There's not net force.

"The track uses a linear synchronous motor" I addressed this already. Did you have a point?

The "fabric of space" has a specific magnetic permeability and electric permittivity. Light is an EM wave, and is limited in propagation speed by the values of those parameters.

Was your table printed before or after 1997? If it was before, the names will be generic, as they hadn't all been discovered, and of those that had, they hadn't been officially "named" when your periodic table was printed. There is some contention over who discovered what and when, and who has the right to name the elements. Russians vs the West, basically. More More recently, there was some controversy over data for two isotopes (116 and 118), and the paper supporting the discovery was withdrawn after it was shown the data were fabricated.

And that is incorrect. It is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion. Not changing your mind doesn't mean you are being open-minded, it means you are being obtuse. As was already pointed out, Newton's law of gravitation is on much less solid ground than the general theory of relativity.

You dare to question the inventor of the grizzly bear-proof suit? How can it NOT be serious?

And if you read mine again you'll notice I didn't comment on your opinion. Only on your statement as to what is "generally accepted."

I think the bracket refers to the atomic mass number of the longest-lived isotope, which may or may not be easiest to make.

Right. Basically, to be a law you have to be able to write down a fairly simple equation, or a statement that behaves like an equation (e.g. the law of supply and demand) Theories do not "grow up" to be laws. The theory of relativity will never be a law, but that has nothing to do with its validity and everything to do with its complexity.

It's a multipole magnet. I think all you have to do is put on a localized strong field, well above saturation. Then you move a little, and do it in the opposite direction.

No. You need ~1.02 MeV to create the e+e- pair. When they annihilate, though, they must give off two photons (or more) in order to conserve momentum, so these will be ~.51 MeV each.