John Cuthber

Once again, you have your fingers in your ears and are singing to yourself. "there is alternatives that also fit" No, each time you have put one forward, we have shown that it does not fit. "I just think you have some of it wrong," Quite possibly, but you haven't shown anything that even looks a bit like evidence, have you?

Do you think that this "Online takes a +Ev game and makes it -EV." actually explains what EV is? Do you read what you have written before you post it?

Posting on-line that there have been no breakthroughs is like baking a cake in the shape of the words "Ovens do not exist".

Mathematically, you are also in trouble if you are in a bowl unless it has a town in the middle. Having said that, the strategy will get you to lower altitude- which is usually out of the reach of the worst weather, and if there is water anywhere it will be at the bottom of the bowl- though it might not be fresh. Just a thought? It's likely that many people will think as Tar did and try to go down hill. It's also true that many of them will find the problem Captain pointed out. Do search parties check the pinch points first? For example, do they look at the places where a fork in the river would "trap" people who tried to make their way down hill?

No, but that might be because you have not defined some of the terms you are using. They may be well understood in poker, but I'm not a player so they mean nothing to me. -EV que pocket pair aces RNG. In any event, while I can see that the sequence of cards might be messed up (if they actually deal this way) I can't see how it's unfair. Firstly, you can always opt not to play if you don't like the rules. Secondly, the activity at the other tables isn't known to you, so you can't use it to gain any advantage. (or, if it is known to you, then it's known to all and they gain the same advantage).

Are you sure about this "half only have the maths skills of a child leaving primary school."? That implies that typically, children learned (at least some) maths in primary school and half of them learned no maths in secondary school. is the difference between primary and secondary education that great?

No, it is a collection of "crimes" but sometimes we ignore the normal rules. It's not considered criminal to shoot the soldiers of an opposing army.

"And knowing distance etc, is based on time." It isn't, the units we happen to choose are related, but that's just for convenience. How conceited do you have to be to think "I don't understand this so everyone who looked at it before is wrong"? It's not "my" definition: it is the definition. I'd bet that it already has a name.

Oh good! Since you know all that stuff, perhaps you can help me. My career path is a bit odd at the moment and, while I'm a chemist by training, I'm currently working as a computer programmer. I find it helpful to be a member of two professional organisations. I happen to prefer the publications from the American Chemical Society, rather than their UK counterpart- The Royal Society of Chemistry. Can I claim a tax rebate on both of these professional memberships (chemistry and computing)- even though one of them is based in, and billed to, another country? I need to be able to fill that in on my tax return and you seem to think it's obvious.

I'd start with Are you on medication? Have you experienced other "visions"? Did anyone else see what you did?

Let us know if that actually happens.

As I said, you are willfully refusing to listen. Start a thread on it and we can look at the "logic" There are essentially no ideas that are not part of current science. The last "example" you gave was the asler which has been understood for nigh a century. The problem is not with what science knows, but your refusal to knuckle down and learn what science can tell you.

But viscosity is obviously not the word for whatever it is that you are thinking about. It has a clear explanation in terms of momentum flux and velocity gradient that can not possibly apply to whatever it is that you are thinking. If it "sounds like " it to you then you don't understand it. Don'y you think you ought to find out what a word means before you use it?

I rather doubt that you can show any problem with on-line poker that's not already known about. We have challenged you, repeatedly and you just sit there with your fingers in your ears saying "Lah Lah Lah I'm not listening"

OK, for a start, you have demonstrated your lack of understanding by not knowing how to spell laser. Normally that would be irrelevant, but it's an acronym so spelling it with a Z indicates that you not only don't know how the word is spelled, but that you don't know how it works. Anyway, let's consider an argon laser. The viscosity or argon is documented here http://www.nist.gov/data/PDFfiles/jpcrd401.pdf and that for air is given here http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-absolute-kinematic-viscosity-d_601.html The values near room temp (in µPa) sec are Ar 22.59 Air 15 Obviously the gas in the laser is hotter and that will make it more viscous. So, in answer to your question. Yes, I can see your "definition" of viscosity. It is wrong. Do you see why? So when you say "a definition should be explained firstly to show the context?" you miss the point. the definition is the same regardless of the context- otherwise it stops making sense. If I choose to redefine "dog" as "whatever animal I happen to be looking at" then I can point at a fish and say "dogs can breathe underwater" or I can point at a crow and say "dogs can fly" and so on. It is sort of true (because of the definition of "dog" I'm using, but it is impossible to work with. For example, the definition makes it impossible to answer the question "do we usually get wool from dogs?" Since part of the use of science is to answer questions, your approach simply won't work.

You never sensibly expressed your ideas because you insisted on using the wrong words. How could anyone discuss them?

Do you not see this "majority of papers and experimental findings ... are too close to the author of the Theory." as a problem? There is no independent verification of the theory (one paper, full of holes, and not peer reviewed, doesn't change that). On the other hand, there have been countless experiments on the behaviour of hydrogen in arc discharges and none of them has observed the hydrino. How do you explain that?

I'm not certain, but I think the first error is on the first page. You have neglected to take account of the change in g with velocity. Since relativity has been tested countless times over the years we know it is correct. The most widespread use of it is in the GPS system and since that works, relativity must work. Your paper does not agree with reality. This is not because reality is wrong. I may be mistaken in identifying the problem but that's your job, not mine.

Gaza is so small and densely populated that parctically all of it is a civilian area. Where else could Hamas launch rockets from? Do you not think that Hamas need food and medical supplies? Do you think they would not use those tunnels to get them? What I find puzzling is that Israel has not noticed that a tunnel has two ends and they can block one of those ends without having to travel into hostile territory. As has been pointed out, 30 million isn't a lot of money Btw have you seen this?

Well, it seems that, once again, you have not read what I wrote. I have repeatedly explained that I was not referring to what they hoped to do with this. I was pointing out that the bloke in the video, on whom you were relying, did not know what he was talking about. The comment bout a power station stands because it doesn't matter how you do it, if it takes a kilo of magic beans to make a million joules of energy, it doesn't matter what you do with that, it's still a very low energy density and, you may wish to look at some of the earliest videos you posted in this thread which refer to Blacklight as a power company. "but you should have known what we were discussing from post 1," Nope, since I referred directly to the video, you should have realised i was talking about it. So, as I say, the reason this thread is so long is (in part) that you don't read. As for "I must sit on the fence because both sides are pitching a good game." Only on side is pitching. And, of course, it doesn't make a difference how many things I was wrong about elsewhere, they wouldn't have made this thread shorter

I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong and I accept that I was unduly pessimistic about the photovoltaic cells. I'd love to see how they kept them cool.enough to work and whether they figured that cooling into the efficiency calculation. My guess would e "no" and it would make the results a lot less impressive if they did- especially if you consider how it would work on a large scale. A thousand suns is roughly a million watts per square metre and if about 50% of that is converted to electricity then the rest must be wasted as heat. So the cells have to shed 500Kw per m^2. To shift that radiatively (i.e without active cooling) they would need to heat up to about 1700K They wouldn't work at that temperature. However, because I can count, I have to say that it looks like I'm wrong rather than "WRONG AGAIN" Can you show where I was actually wrong before? And in answer to your question, it seems that the usual reason you have to repeat yourself is that you have not read what I posted. (I'm happy to show examples if you want. ) And, for the record I did not (and do not) claim to own Buckingham palace.

OK, so the context was that a man who was prepared to take money to talk about something, even though he wasn't qualified was in some way evidence that what he didn't understand wasn't fraud. Would you like to buy Tower Bridge? "I would like to mainly hear from experts who have considered both sides and reviewed experimental data." I'm a spectroscopist and I read the sort of literature where any such evidence would be published. it hasn't. So, the fact is that only one side has "experimental data" and it's not the side that agrees with Dr Mills. Do you understand that? There is no evidence supporting this. None Zippo. Nill. If all the people who know about these things are telling you it's bull and you are still "on the fence" then you are ignoring us. "There are also another typreof PV cells in discussion, but I'm not awae of the differences except its claimed they can handle sunlight 1000 times brighter (or something like that..." Would you like to Buy Buckingham Palace as well?

"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, may have been made to have me in it!"" from http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams

Thanks Strange Barfbag, I have only referred to two people, both in the same Rowan Univ video. One is R L Mills of Blacklight and I referred to him because I felt that his fronting a video rather detracted from the notion that it was independent. The other is Peter Jansson, who is an engineering prof and therefore unqualified to discuss chemistry. I would like you to explain why you posted that video. Is it because you think it constitutes some sort of support for the Blacklight enterprise? Incidentally, since the efficiency of solar PV cells falls as they get hotter and none of them is 100% efficient, they get less efficient as the incident light level increases. Anyone who knows about PV cells should have pointed that out. One might wonder why Prof Jansson didn't explain it to Dr Mills.

I didn't. What I said was "They then have a bloke who says "I know about photovoltaics etc" (i.e. he's a physicist) and then says "based on the chemistry involved..." So, he may have a PhD, but it's not in the subject he is talking about. That's not a good sign" So, once again, you have completely missed the point. he said that his background was in physics. I took it from that that he was a physicist. (Actually, he's described elsewhere as an engineer.) The thing I was pointing out was that HE IS NOT A CHEMIST SO HE IS NOT QUALIFIED TO DISCUSS CHEMISTRY ANY MORE THAN I AM QUALIFIED TO DISCUSS KNITTING. he plainly does not know what he is talking about. BTW, Strange, unless I have missed your point, I wonder if I could trouble you to edit the bit that says "Christ, that is embarrassing." to read "Christ, that video is embarrassing." to clarify what is hogwash.