John Cuthber

What's wrong with appeals to authorities? Here's what Wiki says about it. The argument from authority can take several forms. A legitimate argument from authority can take the general form: X holds that A is true. X is an authority on the subject. The consensus of authorities agrees with X. There is a presumption that A is true. The argument is fallacious if one or more of the premises are false, or if it is claimed that the conclusion must be true on the basis of authority, rather than only probably true. Now, in this case, the Authorities are the peer reviewers, editors and such of the journals and it's accepted that they do know a lot about electromagnetism.. The editorial board of the journals is, effectively, a consensus of those authorities. And the view they hold is that Distinti's work is valueless. So the conclusion is that it is likely that his work is, in fact, valueless. Given that it is likely that the work is waffle, it makes sense for us not to change our minds about the very successful current model of physics, at least until there is strong evidence to suggest that it is wrong. But we know from everyday experience that the current rules of EM work very well- if they didin't there's no way I could be posting this on the web, for example. So, pending overwhelming evidence, we can ignore the proposed new work. Feel free to come up with good experimental refutation. Until then, forget posting about it.

You can have a generator without permanent magnets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excitation_(magnetic)

A true scientist already knows that whatever it is that has an effect on the windscreen, the stuff can't be volatile- or it would evaporate to quickly to do any good. He might also twig the idea that distilling potato pulp will get you practically pure water (maybe a hint of geosmin and things like that). A really good scientist would start out with a potato and a windscreen...

"I wonder if such a planetary atmosphere would be transparent to UV" No. Though, come to think of it our definition of UV is pretty much determined by the transparency of the proteins in our eyes and the transparency of the atmosphere. So life on another planet- especially one with lots of sulphur etc- would have a different view on what was "visible" and thus a different view on "ultraviolet". For them, a lot of our "visible" spectrum would be in their "vacuum UV"

Steel would go "rusty" very fast. "The best conditions for observing S3 in sulfur vapor are found at 10 Torr and 440 OC, when it makes up about 10- 20% of the vapor, and gives it its characteristic deep, cherry red color." from http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~vijay/Papers/Chemistry/Meyer-76.pdf which tells you more about sulphur than you are ever likely to want to know.

Doesn't take much thinking about.

Not in any conventional use of the word.

"sulphur vapour" gives about 11000 hits on google. What data are you looking for?

You didn't cite anything. There is a world of difference between what you first said " Wind generates 140% of Denmark electricity demand." and what you actually meant Denmark's power consumption once fell so low that it was producing 40% more wind-power than the electricity grid needed. "If US will build just a few more nuclear, hydro and wind power plants it would be sufficient to transfer most of transport to electricity." Until that happens hybrid cars don't help much.

That's nonsense. Why did you post it? Did you not understand that my point was that it never does become correct. So your suggestion that " if a person regularly makes a mistake then that "mistake" ceases to be one." is simply wrong. And, since it's your "central theme "you should accept that you are just wrong.

I presume the bit about Denmark is a typo; the figure is 40% not 140 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark At the moment fossil fuels generate about 70% of the US electrical power. And what I said was "for the moment a lot of it is fossil fuel." Why are you arguing? OK, so I should have put "etc" after solar power but... My point remains; if you run cars on electricity derived from fossil fuels then the change from cars running directly on those fuels isn't great.

Good question; is there a delete button? Every serious attempt has ended in failure. People stopped taking the idea seriously after a while. Since we know how TV works, there's nothing hard to believe about it. Also, practically all of us have seen it. So, yes, telepathy- which has never been observed- is more difficult to believe than TV which all of us have seen. Was that a serious question?

Just about every time I use the word "probably" I mistype it as "probabaly" . How often must I do this before it stops being an error?

At a quick glance the first video seems to prove that commercial disk magnets don't have their magnetic axis perfectly aligned with their geometric axis so, moving them on a plane parallel with their faces produces a non zero change in the magnetic field in that plane. No evidence of anything but imperfect manufacturing in a product where such perfection would be an unnecessary expense.

An analogy for what? It can't be analogous to skin because, as you say, an exoskeleton can be customised, skin can't- we are (pretty much) born with it

By that "logic" there's no reason not believe that the big bang was caused by unicorn farts. But, it's not a credo that will get you very far. Where you said "The leap is in the fact science has no place is attempting to unfold what could be deemed as supernatural (such as the big bang etc)" Well, you are wrong on two counts; the big bang is natural; not supernatural. Science is entitled to try to understand it, even if it never succeeds. Since I quoted your text when I replied to it, how come you didn't realise that's what I was referring to?

Are you sure about that? What about the fuel used at the power station? If that was all solar or wave power you would have a better point but, for the moment a lot of it is fossil fuel.

For countries that import oil, there's still a lot to be said for alternative energy sources unless they want their standard of living to be at the whim of the exporters.

It's a bit irritating, but mainly puzzling. Why would anyone do it- unless they were trolling?

"Since the birth of time, the worlds been casting an eager lookout in the direction of the coming of the antichrist." Why would anyone have looked for an Antichrist before there was a Christ. This thread is silly. "He's here. " Where? Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Corbyn or here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump or perhaps here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Francis or maybe here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Cooper

OK, for a start the idea that we have 5 senses is very old; and wrong. http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/07/humans-have-a-lot-more-than-five-senses/ It's also unrealistic to think we could have eurons that respond to every wavelength of EM radiation. At the long wavelength end of the spectrum we are warm and we emit lots of long wave IR. The neurons would never stop firing. At the short wavelength end there's a problem where the photon energy is big enough to significantly damage a cell. But there's a more important issue. Why speculate on the nature of ESP when there is no reason whatsoever to believe it is real. It's like asking how unicorns fly backwards.

"I can rule out the mundane reasons you claim it to be. " Then do so. "Yet I know you will still rule this all out." No we won't; we are scientists. However if you just pretend to have ruled them out then yes, you are right we will spot that. So, until you actually do rule them out you are wasting time posting here. And there's no point in science speculating on "what would happen..." when there's no chance that it will.

To be fair, a lot of people do seem to judge others by their skin, as much as by their clothes. It's dumb;but it's not rare.

Deceiving one's self is not normally called fraud.

I also want to point out something. What you have their is observer bias, rather than evidence.