John Cuthber

It's difficult for me to supply evidence. You made a claim that the first two replies in this thread referred to sequences. There is nothing in the two posts that suggests that (it seems to me that they refer to x being a variable). So, what evidence could I cite? I could quote your post back at you to show that you wrote it if you feel that would help. Also, re. "!!" http://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Multiple_exclamation_marks

And yet you are still wrong.

It does mean that He is not energy- because we do see evidence for that. (Also, if we never see evidence for God, then He might as well not exist. but that's a different issue)

Thanks

"It is common in our Western society to believe that the death and suffering of a child is more severe, more emotionally touching, more radical, than that of an adult." Nope. We are just more upset about it because it seems more unfair somehow. As far as I can tell, neither side of this is strictly logical.

Oxygen is a di-radical species - essentially all of its reactions are radical reactions. The Antiknock agents (TEL, TBME) all form even more stable radicals which can act as quenching agents in free radical chains reactions. Both effects would tend to retard the reaction + prevent pre ignition detonation.

Well, if a fly crosses my room (about 12 feet across and about 12 feet from me) in 12 seconds I can see it easily. If the fly was doing near the speed of light (almost exactly a billion feet per second) it would cross the room in 12 nanoseconds or so- that's too quick for me. But if my room was a 12 billion foot cube then I'd see the fly (as long as it was brightly enough lit). That's about 3.6 billion metres. The sun is about 149 billion metres away. So an object roughly a 50th as far away as the sun but travelling near the speed of light would be visible (assuming I got the maths right). How big it is doesn't really matter- what would make a difference is how bright it is. Since it's 50 times nearer than the sun it could be about 2500 times less bright- and still "look" as bright as the sun. At night it could be much less bright, but still be visible. The moon is something like a million times less bright than the sun. So something about 3.6 billion metres away and emitting about a bilion times less light than the sun would be visible if it passed us at "near" the speed of light. It would almost certainly kill us.

Lmao you guys are soooo obvious in your attempts that you you're dishonest. "As stated, I was talking about absorption. Let's skip to the chase and look at the math that determines the photon and electron angle, energy, as transfer ration as shown in the Compton scattering equation." "ps you still think the polarization longitudinally lol?" Longitudinal WRT what? If I set up a dipole antenna and hook it up to a radio transmitter the electrons move up and down the dipole. The radio waves are emitted from the sides of that dipole. However the polarisation of the radio waves is vertical- just like the motion of the electrons. So, WRT the acceleration of the electrons (and that's what you were actually talking about- you said "The electric charge is accelerated longitudinally (for the most part) in the x-ray spectrum. " the polarisation is along the longitudinal direction. Did you think you had made some sort of point?

The only thing that can travel at the speed of light is light. If ilight travels across in front of you like a plane, you won't see it.

God alone knows what position you are looking at it from. But changing all the hydrogens for deuterium makes it a different chemical. (different boiling point, different rates of reaction and- from a biological perspective- I suspect it smells different too) In any event, it has little or nothing to do with the issue. Why not answer the questions? Where else would I get my carbohydrates? and How is the carbohydrate different from the carbohydrate?

Since absorption is not the same as scattering the wiki page about Compton scattering has nothing to do with it. It certainly isn't the "nail in the coffin" of anything except your credibility.

The two processes look the same, apart from the direction of time. Nobody said anything different.

It looks to me as if the molecules with high octane ratings are ones which produce stable free radicals easily. That's going to influence the combustion process which is a radical reaction, but I'm not sure of how.

Practically all the carbohydrates I eat are from fruit + veg. (Mainly Saccharum officinarum, Solanum tuberosum, Beta vulgaris, Triticum aestivum and zea mays) Where would I get the "unhealthy" ones?

Not really. The x ray is emitted with a polarisation along the direction of the acceleration And the Xrays emitted from most sources (other than things like synchrotrons) are emitted in all directions- so we know that the acceleration is not longitudinal. That's because many of them are produced by this process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auger_effect it's not meaningful to define the "direction" of an electron hopping between two energy levels deep in an atom. Of course, if we look at synchrotron radiation we know exactly what the acceleration of the electrons is- because we carefull designed it. They are accelerated towards the centre of the circle. And the Xrays come off tangentially- just the way we expect. So we actually know that the emission process is pretty much the same for radio waves and Xrays. So, fundamentally the answer to your question "Question: Experiments at 40 MHz are unnecessary because we know x-ray experiments show the photon is quantized, right?" is yes- the 40MHz experiment is unnecessary.

"That means all the folks who think they are drinking water from solar stills that is sans the chlorine and fluoride are mistaken." No, They will be very near to correct. I'd not like to have to try to measure the fluoride or chloride in water from a good solar still. There will be nearly zero. The solar still idea would remove essentially anything that wasn't volatile-. Some chlorine (not chloride) might make tit through the process. It would certainly be clean enough to reuse in the spa.

I'd be interested in seeing a compass that can follow a 1GHz magnetic field.

There seems to be a tacit assumption here that the OP wishes to demagnetize a magnet. Perhaps he's just checking that his propose idea won't kill his magnet- or, at least, won't do it quickly.

Your problem is not that I say "anyone could have invented that". Your problem is that I, and others have pointed out that your "inventions" like remote controlled kit for dealing with nuclear material were invented a long time ago. Here's an picture from 1957 of people building such a system. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/hh/item/id0444.photos.224041p/

The existence of energy has been repeatedly and clearly demonstrated.

Because that's the wrong comparison to make. How many compounds failed in animal testing and were then never given to humans and never caused harm to humans? Incidentally, that 92:8 ratio could be improved enormously by using a larger range of animal species- especially if we used higher primates for testing. Is that what you are hoping to achieve here? Nobody ever said animal testing was perfect- or even good. Plenty of people (I'm one of them) are working towards replacing it (at least as far as we can). But the point is not that it's poor, but that it's infinitely better than nothing.

Decades (or half decades) would make sense. There's a potential conflict- essentially there's more difference between 12 and 14 than between 62 and 64 so you would want more finesse at the younger end- unfortunately as years go by the "younger " people aren't young any more.

May I make a suggestion? Redraft it in terms of "what year were you born?" That way, it will remain correct as people get older.

I'm a big fan of Penn and Teller - mainly because they do things that don't just entertain, but inform. Stuff like this

I doubt that: I doubt it a lot.