Sayonara

The reviews for that item include the best review on the internet, and some of the best replies to the best review on the internet: http://www.amazon.com/review/R3JUIEGFUTUWMI/ref=cm_cr_pr_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B000796XXM&nodeID=#wasThisHelpful

Not having a negative effect is not the same as being "good for the body". People claim all sorts of things are "good for the body" without a shred of evidence or explanation. Unless there is - at the very least - some ostensibly plausible benefit, I'd avoid all manner of 'traditional wisdom' when it comes to repeated long-term exposure to organic compounds. If you want to find out if something is harmful or beneficial to the human body, then you need to be looking at the results of studies, not people's opinions.

What you are saying here is essentially that you can get free energy by piping cold gasses about. But to get a gas cold enough to be useful as you have described (i.e. in a production environment device) you have to physically invest more energy than the amount of energy you want to remove. Here is the critical assumption: that the 1642.5 litres of liquid nitrogen which the elan2 machine can produce by running constantly for a year will be sufficient to drive a turbine (engineered however you see fit), over the same period, to generate 300MWh. Care to fill in the blank in that reasoning? If your reasoning was sound, then the elan2 would have an optional add on called the "Liquid Nitrogen Free Energy Device". It doesn't.

Do you have any idea how much work is required, in energy terms, to cool a fluid to 73 Kelvin? You are talking about -200°C. When you expend energy to cool down the fluid you have to take that as being a cost of the system you are using the fluid in. In other words, while you are correct that temperature differentials can drive turbines, in this case it would be additional energy supplied from an external source in order to force the system to work. That somewhat defeats the claims made by Kender.

The Happening. Don't bother. It starts with potential, then basically flushes the potential down the toilet and goes with rubbish instead.

I wouldn't have a problem seeing that post in the religion forum. You state your stance on the issue and describe it as nonsense, because it does not make sense to you. Had you added "....the stupid ****s." on the end of it, then we might have a problem.

The rules don't say you cannot call religion nonsense. If someone says something that makes no sense to you, whether or not it relates to a religious topic, then by definition what they said will be 'non-sense' to you. Feel free to express that diplomatically.

And people can still ask for that evidence without making it into an attack. The rule isn't "don't offend people". That would be an impossible requirement. Look, iNow, we are well aware of your stance on religious claims. But we don't base our rules on your opinions. If you can't or won't adhere to the rules, then stay out of the religion forum. There is plenty more internet about the place where you can discharge your opinions.

Yes, but until they become persistently block-headed most people try to help them see their errors in a constructive fashion. The only reason it is pointed out in the religion forum is because some see religion as a soft target, and need it pointing out to them. There is room for diplomacy on all of the SFN boards. This one is not special in that regard - we just want members to be very clear on the policy that the mods will be working to.

Ah but in 28 Days Later the zombies spread the infection by projectile vomiting blood. You want to get near THAT with a baseball bat, be my guest - it'll buy the rest of us a bit more escape time

There is no change to what you can and cannot discuss. The rule that you cannot have discussions which are prohibited by law (such as planning a bank robbery, which would be conspiracy) still applies, and to be honest the differences between US law and UK law are pretty small insofar as they pertain to that. The reason that the privacy policy is needed is because the Data Protection Act in the UK is very specific about what one can and can't do as a data collecting organisation. We are not entirely convinced that the data we store on users makes the Act applicable to us (for example we don't collect real names and tie them to other identifiable information), but we are complying with it anyway so as to avoid problems if it turns out that's an error of judgement.

Some religious people (especially Young Earth Creationists) think that if they can associate eugenics with the Nazi Party, then eugenics is bad, and that if they can then associate Darwin with eugenics, then Darwin too is bad. They then go the extra mile and suggest that this falsifies his description of Natural Selection. Which is of course complete nonsense.

Heresy!

Those are all very good points Bascule, and it's obviously something that we are going to have to look into in more detail. We don't have a specific strategy per se for deciding what topics will have a sub-forum, and which will not, and it might be a good idea to develop one. I hope you realised that my reply was not supposed to be a definitive one, but one which shows the problems inherent in using VB's rather lame search engine as a basis for predicting or measuring interest. Well actually I presume you did, because you quite astutely point out the false negatives issue as well as the issue of interest not necessarily correlating with the presence of threads. The issue is now under discussion in the staff forums, anyway.

The fact that the word "global" or the word "warming" appears somewhere in a number of threads does not make earth sciences "one of the most popular topics on these forums". VBulletin searches are hardly a sufficiently granular data set to permit a reliable inference. If you search titles only, which is more reliable, you get 139 threads for the search terms "global warming". However this is an either/or search. You can immediately remove 12 threads because they do not qualify statistically (they are either reported posts, resolved reports, old Debate Challenges, or old Debate Threads, or they were posted by ExtraSense). You can then remove the results for the word "global" which have nothing to do with global warming, including threads started by spammers, threads where the term is in the title but not the actual topic, or where the actual discussion in the thread is on something else, such as economics or politics, etc. There are 32 of these. We'll allow threads where the topic is global warming but the focus is politics or physics or whatnot, because deciding what forum they should go into could get pretty opinion-driven. Anyway, we end up with 95 threads over a period of 6.5 years. That's fewer than 1.1 topics per month, on average. Confused, Bascule? I don't think so. I think that I have a fairly realistic view of what the data shows.

I doubt I will read it, because I am not interested in the tarot. Also because I have 36 books in the queue and I just ordered two more.

We get the thread "Why is there no Earth Science forum?" more frequently than we get Earth Science threads that aren't asking that question. We could always have a "Why is there no Earth Science forum? and other Earth Science topics" forum.

Apparently... it does. ISBN10: 0913866121 ISBN13: 978-0913866122

What do you mean, "behind" the sun? As in hiding, or responsible for it?

Does it have an ISBN number?

A wicky wicky waa waa west.

A bit off-topic, but the other day I saw a computer case for sale, new, on a retail site... with a "ZipDrive" bay on the front of it. I was confused. For a minute there I thought it was 1998.

Planetary orbits can be both directly observed, and accurately simulated. So what's your point? That your ignorance of the data refutes it?

Sciencemaster (or Gaffer, whatever your name is)... remember when I asked you if you knew about vectors? I will try and explain it in those terms. A vector is the result of one or more directional changes. So if you are moving parallel to the ground, that's a change in the X direction. Let's say you are also moving upwards at the same time. We'll call that a change in the Y direction. For simplicity we'll assume your velocity forwards is constant, and so is your velocity upwards. Imagine that your position in both X and Y are mapped on a graph. The line which shows your position will be some sort of diagonal, won't it? That's a vector representing your position changing over time, in two axes. It's the result of adding both the horizontal and vertical 'journeys' together. You actually travel along a diagonal path, but the components of that path are a horizontal journey and a vertical journey. What people are trying to explain to you is that the gravitational field of the planet will affect 'you'. But it will only affect your velocity in that Y axis. It won't change your velocity in the X axis. What you see on the graph when you take gravity into account is that your positions in the X axis over time will remain the same as they did on the first graph. However, because you are taking acceleration due to gravity into account, your position on the Y axis will change over time such that the diagonal becomes a curve. Forces in the same axis add or subtract on paper because the forces are actually adding to each other or working against each other in reality. Two forces can't add or subtract on paper if they are at right angles together for the simple reason that they don't add or subtract in reality. Current theories explain this adequately and are demonstrated with ample evidence. If you want to replace those theories then your version needs to be a better (ideally more parsimonious) explanation which is a better fit for all recorded tests.

Those five words end your entire case far more effectively than any possible counter-argument. Go away, learn the basic principles of scientific enquiry, then come back and have a proper discussion. Thread closed.