John Cuthber

Here's an interesting take on a related issue http://blog.dilbert.com/post/113340087216/is-it-healthier-to-be-republican

I'm intrigued by the coincidence that the "reaction " can be balanced that way with a negative amount of stuff. The first thing to do is always to find out what the reactants are and what the product(s) are.

This isn't chemistry so perhaps one of the mods might like to move it. It's easy enough to soak the victim in water. That brings the resistance down to something like 1000 Ohms. That graph suggests that something like 30mA would do enough damage to hurt So that would take about 30 volts which requires less than a Watt of power. 0.9W is 0.0009KW So, for 12 hrs it would need 0.0108 KWHr at 0.1$ per KW Hr it would cost 0.108 cents And, as is widely known, it would achieve nothing, except bringing you down to the moral equivalent of the victim. Why even ask the question?

It's possible, but rather dangerous to produce it. It's potentially dangerous to use it. You shouldn't do it.

You can't calculate the limiting reagent with negative numbers in the equation. But then again, how could you have negative numbers there in the first place? I grant you that the arithmetic works- but what's the physical meaning of minus 2 glucose molecules? You might find the name of the product to be something of a hint when balancing this.

The cost would be too high. It's a small fraction of a cent, but since it serves no purpose it is overpriced.

What ideas have you come up with on which we could provide feedback?

Just for the record, it's also probably illegal.

In fairness, there simply isn't any real evidence (because, if there were, surely someone would have cited it by now). So, Pymander's made up stuff is just about as good as anyone else's. Of course, that doesn't excuse the use of fallacies to seek to make a (tangentially relevant) point.

I look forward to the day when a politician says "We could always sell beer in half- litres. Nobody needs to use pints".

A sheet of aluminium foil will block a GPS signal. Blocking the gamma rays is generally more difficult.

In my experience, generally rather late on a Saturday morning.

Do you understand that every proper tests of "mysticism" has shown that it doesn't work?

Are you saying that two structures that are under water are (parts of) Atlantis that have been raised? The problems there are 1 there is no reason to imagine they are really Atlantis 2 They are not raised. There's no reason to imagine the stalactites forming under water So, that's a complete red herring. In fact, since neither I nor anyone else said they did, it's yet another logical fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man Are you aiming to collect the full set?

Does this thread exist solely so that Ed can post cherry-picked papers that agree with his personal opinion of how the world should be? Is that science? I'm still amused by the idea of a "healthy" diet that will kill you ( from b12 defficiency) if you don't add supplements.

"The sufficient condition you speak of, chemistry expert, is beyond us." Yep, so why did you say "The only guarantee of truth we may have is that all our beliefs are consistent, nothing more." when you know that we have no such guarantee, and that what we do have falls short? "It may be relevant here that I have received qualifications to teach secondary mathematics and computing, and left in disgust, because of the political use of education" I can't see how. It's not got much to do with the reality or otherwise of someone said to have lived 2000 years ago. For what it's worth, I agree that the erosion of educational standards is shameful- but it's got nothing to do with the issue. It's also barely relevant to the topic, but can I just check on something. Do you realise that Atlantis never rose; not in 68 and 69 or at any other time? Are you joking when you say "And through 40 years he was being cross-examined, without apparent contradictions." or don't you realise that Atlantis didn't rise; and that rather contradicts any claim that it would? The most charitable thing you can say about him is that he's clearly wrong, so he's not reliable.

No living thing is ever even close to thermodynamic equilibrium. trying to do much thermodynamics with the human body isn't going to get you anywhere- especially if you are not sure what entropy is.

No. That's like looking at a simple "coil of wire round a nail" electromagnet and saying "wouldn't the current going from the back of the coil to the front negate the field produced by the current flowing from the front of the coil to the back?"

""The Official Edgar Cayce Readings" can be purchased on a 2 DVD-Rom. Albert Einstein's "Ideas and Opinions" may be downloaded as a PDF. The Bible KJV may be downloaded likewise. These three form a consistent body of knowledge, in my opinion, and I have studied the last two in their entirety, and used the Cayce Readings to form a consistent interpretation of the scripture, if perhaps too profound for the uneducated or the disinterested. " They may be consistent, in your opinion, but they are not consistent in fact. http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#contradictions "The only guarantee of truth we may have is that all our beliefs are consistent, nothing more." Nope, that's a necessary, but not sufficient requirement. But the fact that the Bible isn't consistent is, as you say, proof that it's not actually true. And, if you wish to be taken seriously, stop citing Edgar Cayce.

The placebo effect is great- but you shouldn't use it if there's a better treatment (or one that's as effective, but cheaper). You are right, it's difficult to distinguish a sham treatment from a real one in this sort of case. That makes it all the more important to try. So I'm very concerned about the honesty of people who set up what purports to be a scientific trial, but isn't because they didn't include a reference treatment. (to be fair, there might have been one in that trial- I can't check)

Unfortunately, that abstract doesn't answer my question, so there's no way to tell if the intervention is anything but a placebo effect.

You seem to have forgotten to answer these Please try again. .

In what way do you think I'm sinking? Also, when you have finished ranting, do you accept that , if someone contradicts themselves, they must have been wrong either originally, or finally?

What was the reference intervention against which it was tested when it was found that "Whether it works depends on the willingness of the client and skill of the counsellor. "?

The mandate which the OP asked about is there. Enforcement isn't.