John Cuthber

Well, this tells you what a volumetric weight is. http://www.online-calculators.co.uk/volumetric/weight.php And, as I thought it might, it has nothing to do with what Talos is on about.

We are all "defective"* but, as I understand it, polydactyly isn't a strongly heritable trait. I'd not worry about it on that account. "Defective" in the sense that we all have some sort of fault- my personal obvious ones are that I'm very shortsighted + losing my hair.

guess again. http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/sites/www.npl.washington.edu.eotwash/files/webfiles/publications/pdfs/prl98-021101.pdf So, your idea predicts changes in the measured effect of gravity at distances below 10 mm. Those measurements have been made. The inverse square law still held. So, you are wrong. You can stop now.

I'm calling "troll!" on that

Religion is a valid topic for science- specifically, the study of religion is largely a part of psychology. No religion should be treated as science because the way religion deals with facts is different from the way science deals with facts. In short, if science discovers a new fact which disagrees with what it had believed, it changes what it believes. If religion discovers a new fact which disagrees with what it had believed, it denies it, or persecutes those who point out the problem and eventually (perhaps a few hundred years later) it accepts it and tries to pretend that nothing happened. Science does not distinguish between religions much. There may be some scientific study of why religions come and go over the years so science may distinguish, for example, between very old religions like Paganism and very new ones like the church of the Latter Day Saints. Just a quick reminder. Science is based on evidence. If you can't provide any for some subject then stop posting about it.

OK You say this isn't your idea of how balloons float. fair enough. What is your idea of how balloons float? Is it, by any chance, the stuff you have been talking about in this thread? If so then it is your idea - whether you originated it or not. And you seem to have fallen so deeply in love with it that you can not bear to see it questioned. That would explain why you don't answer questions like "what drives the generator?" It would also explain why you deceive yourself into thinking that other Great Names agree with it. You haven't actually asked them the real question "do balloons fly for the same reason that planes do?" because you know you daren't. It's plainly true that they don't but you are so infatuated with the idea that you can't see its faults. Whether physicists answer pointless questions rather depends on the meaning of "pointless". If I email a physicist and ask if a rock weighs less on the moon that it does on earth, the question is pointless- because I already know the answer. But it's easier for the physicist to send an email saying " yes" than to work out why I'm asking and what I already know. You asked a question to which we all agree on the answer- as long as you don't explain the context. So that question was pointless. Not only that, but you did it to support a logical fallacy- one that you have already been called out on- so that also makes it pointless. So, you are simply wrong; physicists do answer pointless questions. Would you like to try to refute that by saying what the point of those questions actually was? I, on the other hand, do accept that I ask pointless questions at least some of the time. For example, there is no point in me asking, yet again, "where does the energy to run the generator come from?" It's pointless because I know you won't answer. You can't answer because it would break your "faith" in this idea of yours. None of what Studiot, strange and I have said is "claptrap". It has all been directed towards a simple goal, showing you why you are simply wrong. But, as I have said, you refuse to accept that. It's impossible for you to see the error in this idea you have adopted. So your only viable way forward is to resort to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

It may just be sloppy use of language. I'd put my hand in a beaker of mercury, but not in a beaker of dimethyl mercury. Perhaps he considers dimethyl mercury to be the "wrong type"

He isn't going to let a mere fact get in the way of his idea. I predict the he will email a famous physicist and ask a pointless question.

And?

I won't, not because I " will be proved wrong" but, because it would prove nothing. Do you still not understand the problem with argument by authority? I'm also puzzled about what you think has changed about aeronautics in the last 15 years.

I grant you it's not very different, but I thought some people would be more used to a link than to a citation.

It looks like a real paper to me http://www.scribd.com/doc/73492989/Stephenson-1966-Cultural-Acquisition-of-a-Specific-Learned-Response-Among-Rhesus-Monkeys

I wiser man than me once said something like- "jet packs are easy, it's fireproof pants that are the problem."

Just a thought, is there anything in the Bible that can be independently shown to be correct? That is, can you show clearly that any part of it is not a mistake?

Ooh! I haven't been called a "crony" in ages. It seems you still don't understand so I will try to spell it out for you. It does not matter who the "authority" is because even the greatest authority can be wrong (if you wan't to argue about that from a theological point, please open another thread in the right section, rather than derailing this one). newton was probably agreed to be the greatest authority of his day concerning kinetics (among other things). You could, for a few centuries cite Newton as the authority on how things accelerate when acted on by a force. And yet, as Einstein showed, he was wrong. That's the problem with an "argument from authority". That's what makes it a logical fallacy. So, please stop trying to convince us of anything by saying "so and so says ... so it must be true". You just look silly. You would do yourself a lot more favours if you were to address the problems that have been put to you. And, as a hint, once again "On the bright side "IT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU COUNT AS YOUR SYSTEM. I THINK YOU HAVE TO INCLUDE THE EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE" progress at last." you were really on the right track there. Here's another hint; if I store energy in a compressed spring, is that energy in one of the atoms the spring is made from or is the stored energy a property of the whole set of atoms?,

True, but even if he had asked where the energy to run the generator from, (or even "how does a plane fly?" it would still have been a logical fallacy. In much the same way, if he had asked the guy at NPL "Does weight change with air density?" then he would have got the right answer to the right question, rather than a correct answer to an irrelevant one. I get the feeling he's not really trying to learn. Since he's steadfastly refusing to enter into discussion and citing authorities as if they are some sort of oracle, perhaps we should ask for the thread to be moved to "religion".

You really don't understand do you? It's not a matter of who the authority is. saying "It's true because so and so says it is true" is still a logical fallacy. Do you accept that? If so, perhaps you can stop bothering these people.

Nice try at a straw man there. It's not the wording that was discredited, but the idea that it's significant.

Yes, not least because some of the energy may end up driving a geneator that (in contravention of the rules) you refuse to discuss.

Nope, that's not the way it works.

As he said, "HE BOTTLE AND FOR THE BALOON, THE AIR ABOUT IT IS DENSER, SO BOUYANCY WILL HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO ACOUNT." So, your own evidence shows that the density of the air affects the weight. (and that's why they might seek to measure it in a vacuum) Did you not realise you were arguing against yourself? On the bright side "IT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU COUNT AS YOUR SYSTEM. I THINK YOU HAVE TO INCLUDE THE EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE" progress at last.

Do you mean like this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermionic_emission

Hi If I wasn't careful, citing Archimedes would look like the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. It's not only a fallacy, but Archimedes got a lot of stuff wrong. By citing the LPL's website I can point out that they are providing advice on how things are actually done. The stuff about correcting for air buoyancy is my "bread and butter" as an analytical chemist. I know that if you don't make those corrections you get the wrong answer.so it's based on not just a legally recognised authority (with which Talos might amusingly disagree) but it's based on my own observations. If he says I'm wrong, he has to explain why it works or call me a liar. He can't do the first and he will get banned if he does the second. My guess is that he will (once again) ignore the question.

You may very well say that. However you are plainly wrong for a number of reasons. This page discusses the particular error that is relevant here http://www.npl.co.uk/upload/pdf/buoycornote.pdf Other reasons you are wrong include the spin of the Earth, latitude, altitude and more fundamentally, whether you are on Earth or not- you weigh roughly 6 times less on the Moon. Did you not realise that if I had made such a fundamental error others would have pointed it out? In the mean time, perhaps you might like to tell me where the energy comes from to drive the generator.

Best switch the sun off then.