John Cuthber

Well, you could rise to the (tacit) challenge and explain it now... Obviously this "One solution would be nondualism, which denies that anything truly real came into existence in the first place..." seems to be mumbo jumbo, so you would need to do better.

The philosophers had a head start on science, got as far as they could and they stopped. You keep claiming there's a solution, but failing to produce it when asked. Are you going to repeat that pointless exercise?

There is a market; but it's essentially for works of art, rather than anything truly practical.

If I could sell gold jewellery super cheap it would be a great business except that it's expensive to make it.

Or we might just carry on being rather bright apes.

If you came here to try to debunk science (I think things like "This book is not written for scientists, (I loathe them, as you soon discover)" suggests you might )then you already failed. Do you understand that you are posting via a communication system, the design of which relied on all that science stuff in which you don't believe? Every time you use the web you prove the science is right.

Contemporary science has given us a Big Bang origin to the universe, Nope, the scientists didn't give us a universe; it was there before we arived. subatomic particles of astonishing diversity Fewer then two dozen to explain everything in the universe is actually astonishingly simple. and with even more astonishing properties. Yes, some of those properties are very odd. But they are real measured properties, if you don't like them, hard luck. it just means you don't like the universe you are in. We have cold dark matter which cannot be found. It was found- that's why we know it's there (Although they are spending a fortune of tax-payers’ money looking for it.) On the authority of politicians who, if the people chose otherwise, would not have paid for it. Have you a problem with democracy as well as reality? Particles that comprise atoms are also waves and sometimes they are part wave and part particle, although scientists are the first to acknowledge that particle and wave are mutually exclusive. No they are not, and thus no we do not. We are also told that each subatomic particle exists everywhere (as a “superposition of wave states”), until it is observed, when it is where you see it, and much more besides. And again, that's how the universe behaves. It's not as if the scientists told it to act like that, we just report the results. Nobody says you have to like it; it will carry on acting the way it does, whether you are happy about it or not. Worryingly, laypersons who suggest this is nonsense are told, (very politely) that they are too stupid and/or ignortant to understand Well, what would you suggest telling people who disagree with observed reality? There is an alternative to "you are ignorant or stupid" Most people don't like the third option- " you are insane because you don't accept the world for what it is" and scientists further try to protect their hallowed status by surrounding their theories (perhaps ‘encasing’ would be a more appropriate term) in arcane mathematics. OK, so your problem is that, because you can't do the maths, you assume it's some strange conspiracy. Well, unless you actually have any evidence (and here's a hint; you don't) this thread is not going to be here long. Also you need to change the title. this isn't a theory; at best it's a hypothesis. I suspect it's actually a rant. Here's what a scentific theory is "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2][3][4] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature[citation needed]and aim for predictive power and explanatory capability" from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory feel free to prove me wrong.

"Is logic a branch of philosophy or maths?" One plausible answer to that question is simply "no". consider this "Is logic language a branch of philosophy or maths?" After all, both areas use language (and both end up arguing about it), but it's not really a branch of either because it exists outside of both disciplines. Since logic gets used in other things too- for example, it's the way you discern the (probable) meaning of ambiguous statements like "I saw a man eating shark"- it's not a branch of either philosophy or mathematics. Logic is a very useful tool, employed by mathematicians and by philosophers (and by practically everyone else and also by some animals).

That phrase is dependent on the assumption that it's needed for a "well ordered militia". Well, you don't have one.

There is, it's the reason why hurricanes spin (and, in particular, why they spin in opposite directions depending on which hemisphere you are in). The Earth's spin means that the equator is doing roughly a thousand miles and hour, but the poles are essentially stationary. That velocity change as you go North or South is what sets the air spinning.

Why have you posted this twice?

OK, so are you an experienced chemist, as you claim, or one who doesn't know basic chemistry, as you also claim?

Well, for a start, I'm not the only one pointing out your mistakes, so most of your attack makes no sense. You clearly don't need to have me here to argue since you can tit for tat with yourself. You say I'm smug, but also that I have no self esteem. Well, which is is? And you also said "I killed NO wildlife" and "Just pesty spider mites." Well, did you or didn't you? And if you sell stuff as organic which you treated with non- organic pesticides then you are committing fraud.

It looks like you didn't understand.

i don't mean to ppt the metal (That wound also be an option, but more complex). I meant add NaOH or some such and ppt the stuff as the (I'm not certain) oxide or hydroxide or whatever. Then use that to make the nitrate. This is high-school chemistry . Why are you asking the question?

In a very real sense however, in a rather more real sense, here's what Christ is reported (by one of the gospel saints) to have said about those bloody laws Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. and, more importantly the Christian church upheld those laws. They opposed slavery and the provision of pain relief in obstetrics and they still persecute homosexuals. So, if they abrogated those laws (by saying that they were left unchanged, how come they kept following them for centuries. Isn't it a bit more plausible that the Church tried to keep those evil laws, but was overruled by an increasingly rational society?

OK, so now you say you object to the curriculum because it says they have to do something that's sensible. Did you think this through? Well, one reason why schools might not teach sensible things is if political interference stopped them doing so. For example, you and I might agree that teaching critical thinking is a good idea. we might not agree that a party that tried to stop it being taught should be closed down as more damaging to society than terrorists. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html So, as you put it, it's clear that some people don't understand that we "already know how to add, subtract, multiply, divide and work with ratios and such " They think we are doing it wrong, and should stop teaching kids to think.

OK, so let's see. You say "All children should learn these concepts, in this order," And the only thing that they specify any "order" for is this "◦In grades K–2: Concepts, skills, and problem solving related to addition and subtraction ◦In grades 3–5: Concepts, skills, and problem solving related to multiplication and division of whole numbers and fractions ◦In grade 6: Ratios and proportional relationships, and early algebraic expressions and equations ◦In grade 7: Ratios and proportional relationships, and arithmetic of rational numbers ◦In grade 8: Linear algebra and linear functions" So, logically, you have a problem with trying to learn addition and subtraction before multiplication and division ... and ... before algebra. Well, OK, but I think most people would agree that's the sensible way to do it. And you also say "use these books that your local schoolboard will pay for" Well, the part of the curriculum you have cited doesn't mention any books at all (never mind who pays for them). And so on. So, as I said, where ever it is that you get your ideas about what the curriculum says; it isn't from the curriculum is it? Do you realise it's as if you were saying "I don't like the Bible because it bans mobile phones". It simply doesn't say what you claim it does.

The word "Yogic" always reminds me of this sort of thing and even this and this is not a spoof, or parody. It is a genuine political broadcast. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=438UKM1Av1g

That's the problem, you seem to have put it together from nonsense you heard on Fox. That's why I keep asking you to look for it in the real world. And you can't (or wont). Do you see the problem there. You seem to be relying on something that's known to be more often wrong than right. So, once again, I challenge you to actually show that you are not being misled. Show me where the curriculum says those things you claimed.

No more logical than it was last time. For example, the fact remains that you can do both so it's still a false dichotomy, even if one of the options is pointless. 2 Nobody is suggesting that. 3 the evidence shows that they are taking risks because they have been misinformed, rather than by choosing to. and so on.

OK, lets have a better look at those now I have a bit more time. (I have numbered them to make it easier.) 1 What you have said there makes no sense. The point remains that you can enact law and you can go after criminals. So your implication that you could only do one or the other was a false dichotomy. 2 That's a strawman. I didn't say laws stopped people getting guns; I said that gun control stopped people getting guns. Please learn to read stuff properly. 3 I know that many or most Americans don't realise it's nonsense. A good fraction of Americans also don't believe in evolution. That' doesn't stop evolution being true, and it doesn't stop the idea of "home defence" being nonsense. citing "most Americans" is a logical fallacy- the "bandwagon effect". 4 Ditto; just because it's common, doesn't mean it's sensible. 5 Do you know the joke about the man who walks around London with a bucket of sand? He sprinkles a bit of it on the ground as he goes. From time to time, people ask what he's doing and he tells them that he spreads it to keep the elephants away. They say "there are no elephants in London", and he says "well, that just shows how well it works." You don't seem to realise that what you have put forward as an argument in favour of gun ownership is practically identical to the punchline of an old joke. Does that trouble you? 6 fatal shootings don't. removing those from the stats would reduce the overall death toll. 7 if only criminals got shot, I'd not care too much. but how many of the children killed in the US this year were criminals? Again, it's an issue of trying to keep the overall death toll down. So, 7 times out of 7 you made no sense. Like I said, you just did a fine job of supporting the anti-gun lobby.

Quite right. However, that's not the issue under discussion. The point I was asking about was where (if anywhere) the curriculum actually said what you claimed it did. Where does it say this? All children should learn these concepts, in this order, use these books that your local schoolboard will pay for, and the children will be tested, using school time, school buildings, and salaried employees as to whether or not they have learned the concepts, according to an imposed criteria and good teachers who have not taught to the test, or teachers with below average students, will be penalized and districts will lose federal money unless they comply. So, can you back up the claim you made? If not, are you going to be honest enough to admit that you can't defend the assertion because it simply isn't true, and you made it up?

Repeated boiling down with nitric acid will do the job, but it's slow and the fumes / spray is a nasty idea. I'd precipitate the mercury with dilute sodium hydroxide then wash the ppt and redissolve it in nitric.

That video isn't any official guide to what the curriculum says. So I conclude that it doesn't say what you claimed.