John Cuthber

No. You can't convert momentum into energy. (if you want proof, try looking at the units) It has been specified that the walls are perfect reflectors. That requires them to have infinite mass (it's OK, we already said it was impossible) So there's no momentum exchange on reflection.

It would be an odd design that relied on that. They usually use a solenoid valve that's is opened by an electric current, but closed by a spring. that way, if there's a power failure, or the cable is cut or whatever, the gas is switched off. It's called failsafe. If you are really feeling paranoid, you out two valves in series. But, of course, that makes the system more complex- see my earlier post.

One. On the other hand, I usually have a camera with me.

It's a general rule of thumb in engineering, that the component that you don't need to include, can't fail. The system you have put forward seems to me an absurdly complex one. Why bother?

LOL Good luck proving that. If i say I'm going there to fight Against ISIS, how can you tell if I'm lying?

"logic can't be applied to words. " You just did.

Just a thought. Good IR detectors are cooled to improve their sensitivity (Strictly, their S/N ratio). If you want to "see" the IR from, for example, a person's body heat. you will have a much better chance if the detector is cooler than that person. Good luck evolving into a cold-blooded life form.

If you have given up on the idea of innocent until proven guilty, then you are well on your way to agreeing with the extremists.

Did you realise that nobody had suggested anything like those three ideas? They are allstraw men and that's not a big or clever thing to do.

You say you tried hydrochloric acid. What happened? What were you wanting to happen? The acid should dissolve steel quite quickly.

In the real world, we have been preserving things in sugar (originally in honey) for thousands of years and we don't all have diabetes. It is, of course, better to eat preserved food than to starve to death. Did you think you had some sort of point, or was it just that you didn't understand where I wrote that too much of anything is bad for you? So, to get somewhere back near the point: Notwithstanding Fiveworlds' strange opinion on preservatives, eggs are fine in moderation, but a little high in fat. They are also pretty much devoid of fibre. I agree with him about the water being a good thing (as always, in moderation) but not about his reasoning- water commonly contains chlorine as a preservative. However, the sensible answer is (as usual) Go and ask your doctor.

It's very difficult to answer this question because the answer depends rather strongly on a few other things What is UV? and exactly what are the things made of. Pure water doesn't absorb much of the UV that reaches us from the sun. Sea water or muddy water will. My glasses are very good at blocking UV. It correlates fairly strongly with having a high refractive index. But a cheap pair with actual glass (rather than plastic) might hardly block UV at all. If the sunscreen actually has a SPF of 30 (and the question says it does) then it lets through nominally 1/30 of the UV and blocks the other 29/30 so it blocks something like 97% of the UV. Window glass- who knows? It probably blocks a lot of the shorter wavelength UV but relatively little of the longer wavelength stuff.

I look forward to your evidence.

Do you think that the sugar we put on our breakfast cereal is made from oil or something? It's all essentially the same stuff. You have answered your won question about us eating sugar in the past. It is, as you say, present in fruit etc. Too much of anything is bad for you. Why did you say "Eggs and Water are a must since eggs tend not to have preservatives added to them. "? It makes no real sense.

Sugar is a perfectly natural part of our diet. It's also a preservative. So your implication that preservatives are bad makes no sense. "Also there was an article about sausages having so many preservatives now they think eating shop bought ones is worse than smoking. " There may have been such an article, but it wasn't based on the facts. Why mention it on a scientific site?

At least in part because the North Korean Won crossed out 2 zeros on the value. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_won#2009_revaluation

Do you understand that getting a patent does not mean that the idea works?

Still a lot of talk about Islamic attacks in France. Not so much about French Separatist attacks in France Given the data http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/terrorism-in-europe/ this seems odd. And describing an attack by terrorists as "an act of war" is a poor decision. It flatters the criminals into believing that they actually have a cause that's worth fighting for. and it's impossible to work out who signs the armistice when it's over- so you commit yourself to an almost perpetual war. Are you saying it will be over when Islam is no more, or what?

The words you used were " I think that any respectable scientist would need to be well versed in theology." which I paraphrased as "You have said that science should study theology" It's not clear to me why you are saying there's a difference. On the other hand, there's a lot of difference between either version and " I said that science and religion go hand-in-hand and can compliment each other. " which is what you now claim (though the best you can come up with for evidence is a logical fallacy- an appeal to authority). Do you realise how pointless it is to try to move the goalposts when they are posted here and everyone can see exactly what you said?

Citation still needed. Saying it twice doesn't make it any more true. Nor does calling it a fact.

Probably of the thing next to it which is asserted as fact, but without any supporting evidence. Specifically, this

The phrase "Yes, the free expression of opinion is something that your average atheist is not very fond of." just broke my irony meter. As far as I'm concerned "idiot" is a straightforward descriptive term here (and, as was pointed out, you are just plain wrong about me being a mod. which rather illustrates my point). Anyway, perhaps you would like to comment on what I said, rather than one the word I used when I said it. Have not observed Buddhists, or did you contradict yourself? And it seems you are being censored in the very important sense that you are not being censored at all.

Butter, cooking oil and sugar don't generally have preservatives added to them, but they are a bad thing to add to a weight loss diet. Did you realise the bit about preservatives was nonsense?

This is a little out of date, but I think things have probably not changed much. http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/ If things have changed since that was written 5 years ago then perhaps we should seek to understand the cause of the change. It can't be a book written centuries ago- it's still the same now as it was in 2010 If you look at this page http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/terrorism-in-europe/ you will see that the story is pretty similar in Europe In particular, France seems to have a problem with separatists who killed more in each of the 3 years for which data is presented than Isis did in the most recent attack. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_Europe#France

I would also have picked the iodinated version as more reactive. And, for what it is worth, Hypervalent Iodine and I are both chemists.