John Cuthber

It's not a design flaw- it's just that you don't understand their purpose.

What do you mean by an anhydride of ferrocene? There's nothing you can add water to and get ferrocene. Similarly there's nothing you can add water to and get adamantane.

I have goo news for you; you can. You simply point out that decisions can be overturned, and if it's the "will of the people" they will be overturned.

The nearest that gets to having a meaning is (the mass of a star) ^ 5 But then the units don't make sense because you also say "if approximate mass of the universe equals approximate mass of a five dimensional star." and a mass can't be equal to the fifth power of a mass. Do you understand dimensional analysis? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis It shows that your idea is impossible.

You do know that the light from one of those can damage your eyes, don't you?

Set one up.

Science (and scientists) are unlikely to try to convince you of that. Have you read the rest of the thread?

Ordinary "chlorine" bleach reacts with hydrogen peroxide. While it is good practice to dilute acids by adding them to water,it doesn't matter which way round you do it with HCl. It might be interesting to try using an alkaline material (perhaps bicarbonate of soda) to see what effect that has.

So, A Christian, because it's easier than getting a real explanation of those experiences.

If you ever meet a "real" strong atheist- one who won't believe in God even if He turns up and says "I jolly well am real", then you will have a point. What I'm saying is... what I said. Most people who would be counted as "strong" atheists are, if pressed, uncertain, and will acknowledge it.

Can I blame one of them for my typing?

You say that like it's a contradiction. It is perfectly possible to want gun control and also to want a gun. Especially if you believe the nonsense about self defence. A quick reminder for those who were not paying attention earlier - there are two sorts of guns- The ones left out where people (kids in particular but not just kids) can grab hold of them and use them in a hot headed moment (this sort kills lots of people) The ones that are kept locked away and are thus no use whatsoever in defence against an intruder (this sort indirectly kills people because they get people to think the first sort are a good thing) [Today's example of the first sort] http://wate.com/2015/10/04/8-yr-old-girl-dies-in-white-pine-shooting-police-arrest-11-yr-old-suspect/

Other fora are available.

This is getting into (fairly pointless) semantics. Nobody would bother to quibble about someone saying "Unicorns don't exist", even though, strictly speaking, that statement is unscientific. So, please remember that when someone says "God does not exist", it's a short-cut. what they generally mean is that they consider the probability of God's existence to be vanishingly small- comparable with fairies at the bottom of the garden, and Elvis turning up riding a unicorn. The point I made was that against the background of what the short-cut phrase is taken to mean, the "and never will" clause is unscientific. That's' what distinguishes science from religion.

(1) Even the ones who go on killing sprees? (2) So you think they can win it then? Or were you simply not paying attention to the regulations and restrictions on abortion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_abortion_restrictions_in_the_United_States Even if you hadn't, did you see the list I posted?

(1) No it isn't. (2) Nope, the higher truth is reality- not political expediency. That's why Galileo was actually right; there really were moons. (3) You seem not to have understood my point that, since the mind of God is either none existent, or unknowable, any "truths" attributed to "Him" are made up by men, but they are dishonestly put forward as divine truths. (4) That may well be because we actually took action to prevent (or at least reduce) them. (5) Yet (and see 4) (6) It might look marginal to you but there have clearly been changes and those changes have caused problems. To some extent those have been addressed by seeking to avoid the worst excesses- but we may yet still screw up th eplanet- especially if we don't listen to those who actualy know stuff, rather than those who pretend to. (7) Makes no sense- see (8) (8) Actually it is good for jobs and careers. (9) Oh come on! Why does the fact that I don't believe in God have anything to do with whether or not I look at historical data? That's just silly (and,BTW, I'm old enough to remember 20 years ago quite well). (10) By whom is it expected and on what factual (rather than personal bias) basis? BTW, science moves on. You are in fact contradicting yourself here. if you go back we were predicting a new ice age (essentially on the basis that it had been a long while since the last one). Now we are predicting the opposite. Were you aware of that? Anyway, it proves that science can and does change its mind when new information becomes available. (11) Not it isn't; because no it isn't. "Truths" of this sort are not relative. It is religion that's closed minded- not atheism. (12) if it can be used for both then it's a bit meaningless.

Just a thought

You seem not to have understood Swansont's post. Rules of the forum require that the discussion occur here, i.e. without anyone being required to download anything. The researchgate link doesn't get you a copy of the report

Imagine my calculator only has 2 places of decimals and I try to find the square root of ten. It's going to tell me that it is 3.16. But 3.16 squared isn't ten, it is 9.8956 So, if I put in 10, then press the square root key, then square the result I should get 9.9856, but the calculator can't display that so it will either say 9.99 or 9.98 depending on whether it truncates or rounds off. How could it give the right answer? It's certainly not a very strange thing for a calculator to do.

I suspect other motivations. And I didn't bother to comment on the dubious copyright declaration, mainly because I don't believe a problem will ever arise.

However in reality, pain perception isn't bimodally distributed as you suggest. This "magical" split into two groups isn't real. If it was then it would be obvious inevery study on pain and painkillers- yet it never gets a mention in those studies Now here's an interesting thought. If you think that this "higher being" implies that there must be two sorts of people- based on pain perception, and those two sorts of people don't actually exist, then you have shown that this "higher power" does not exist.

The BIOS is not read only. There are about a zillion websites that tell you how to update i; here's an example. http://www.howtogeek.com/196916/how-to-check-your-bios-version-and-update-it/ and, it's perfectly possible for malware to do that. Also, not all eproms are uv eproms.

Among other things, you need to define " a five dimensional star." before this idea has any meaning.

Nice bit of rhetoric about "Thank you for admitting that your goal is to diminish the rights of the people. ", pity it is nonsense. All law is always simultaneously a restriction of rights, and a guarantee of them. The law which proscribes murder offers me the legal right not to be murdered. The right to own guns has, according to the post above, resulted in the forfeiture of the right to something like 12,000 lives a year. And all this because of an amendment to an old law, which by its existence shows that it's a subject that even wise men make mistakes about.

If you are measuring scattering then you are barely doing spectrophotometry, you are doing nephlometry. It's not going to give a linear calibration over much of a range of concentrations.