John Cuthber

No. The equations are based on the laws which were discovered using experiments that are not optical. But the point of using experiments to derive laws is that the laws are generally applicable. In particular, while they were discovered using very low frequencies, the laws of induction etc still apply at high (optical) frequencies.

I think the Bible is a good thing in so far as it puts people off religion. And the second bit is worryingly similar to this http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/08/19/todd-akin-gop-senate-candidate-legitimate-rape-rarely-causes-pregnancy/ re the law. Do you realise that it changes because people stop following what the old laws were and that's usually becaus they stop following what the religion said? Different times: different laws.But the church usually opposes those changes.

I don't have the figures, but they are not very efficient. About the only time they get used is when the fact that they are quiet is more important than the running cost.

OK, what happens to the pistons and fluid system, (in particular, what happens to its reversibility) when you introduce this requirement? "That was meant to mean that there are no dissipative processes."

I wouldn't use any chemicals to do that. The risk/ benefit analysis doesn't work.

If we could teach our kids that "if it looks too good to be true, it probably is" then we would wipe out quite a lot of crime.

probably more similar than most of us like to think.

Science has a very clear theory about this. There is no such thing as a soul. If there were then there would be evidence for it. So, do you have any examples of real things?

You have ignored the obvious options. There is no abortion and the "guilty" woman is "proven innocent", in which case the Bible lies. Or there is an abortion (whether she is "guilty" or not), but it's nothing to do with God. Of course, I'm allowed to say that, because I'm an atheist. But I was wondering what your explanation was. Is the Bible lying, or is God an abortionist? OK, so I accept that the terminology is different. I should have said "BTW, is there a reason why there's no such test for men committing adultery fornication?" Now, rather than getting tangled up in the linguistics, why not answer the question? And I'm pretty sure that women would talk- as long as the men didn't hear, it wouldn't matter much.

Te (lack of) a magnetic effect with calcium carbonate is surprisingly well documented from the days before they invented plastic. http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/bulletin/02/nbsbulletinv2n1p87_A2b.pdf page 89 The strange thing about the original observation is that not many things are anything other than diamagnetic.

1.98650352574581e+31* pi^12 is not 6.24441297605896e+43 pi^12 is 924269.18 (or so- there may be rounding errors). 1.98650352574581e+31* 924269.18 is about 1.836 e 37 So you are wrong by about three million fold. Google's calculator says that "3.14159265*3.14159265*3.14159265*3.14159265*3.14159265*3.14159265*3.14159265*3.14159265*3.14159265*3.14159265*3.14159265*3.14159265" is 924269.16885 and that pi^12 is 924269.181523 The difference is because pi isn't exactly 3.14159265

If you think that a direct quote from the Bible "seems way out on the fringe" then you seem to have missed the point of the Bible. It's The Book. There's no way it's "fringe". Re."no indication that any sort of chemical was used to induce an abortion." Nobody said there was (and no priest, or even herbalist, of the time could have done so.) In saying all that stuff about a scare tactic you are saying one of two things. Either, God causes abortions, or The Bible lies. Depending on whether the priest's "magic spell" works or not. Which one do you want to pick? There's also the fact that women talk to one another. The message "It doesn't work you know" would get round faster than anything. BTW, is there a reason why there's no such test for men committing adultery? Is it because God is "one of the boys"? Finally, this "Again, I hope Nicholas recognizes that attempting to silence inquiry or dissenting views is always a good indication of a wrong idea." does not make any sense. Neither Nicholas, nor anyone else here, has tried to silence anyone.

Interesting thought. Imagine I already plan to build a hydroelectric power plant. If I arrange for that falling water to flow through a heat pump just after it has gone through the turbines I can grab a lot of fairly low grade heat. If my dam was next to a town I could sell the heat for something like community heating in the same way that conventional CHP systems work. As far as I can see, the real problem is that people don't generally build dams near towns.

The iron in an egg isn't there as the metal. Depending on the chemistry it might be diamagnetic (i.e. repelled by a magnet). However http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhotite and "When eggs are cooked for a long time, the yolk's surface may turn green. This is due to iron(II) sulfide which forms as iron from the yolk meets hydrogen sulfide released from the egg white by the heat" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron(II)_sulfide Though I'm surprised to find that the effect is big enough to see. Water- which makes up most of the mass of an egg is diamagnetic, and I'd expect that effect to dominate.

I think it's a variation on one of these http://www.scientificglass.co.uk/contents/en-uk/d68_Distillation_Heads,_Splash.html it's purpose is to trap spray in the vapour and return it to the distilling flask so you get less impurities carried over into the product. Incidentally, it's probably pointless on to of a fractionating column.

"Religion is used to explain what hasn't been publicly explained by science. Easy." Can you give some examples please? Also, please remember "God id it" isn't an explanation of anything unless you can explain where God came from and why He did it. BTW, had you read all the thread before you posted?

Perhaps, but the planets still went round the sun. Speaking of things going round things, you can use a current flowing in a circle to generate light directly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation and that does tie light directly to induction.

Pharmaceutical alcohol can contain quite a lot of other stuff and it does contain denaturing agents to stop you drinking it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubbing_alcohol I don't know what's in the Wallgreens' stuff, but it might be a good place to start distilling. You might get more alcohol, and less "tired of" distilling" it. If this http://www.walgreens.com/store/c/walgreens-ethyl-rubbing-alcohol-70-first-aid-antiseptic/ID=prod6056575-product is the stuff you mean, it lists the inactive ingredients as Acetone , Denatonium Benzoate , Methyl Isobutyl Ketone , Water I'm guessing those are alphabetical rather than largest %age first. The question of how good it needs to be depends on the details of the proposed experiment but two things would be bad for an esterification Water and other alcohols. So you would still need to clean up that product.

It seems that you are unable to count as far as two, or determined to ignore your own bias, even when it is repeatedly pointed out to you. Two common denominators 1) Sex and 2) men

The site rules have a way to respond to people who repeatedly insult groups of other people.

No, they did not say "it must be at least...", they specified the exact day. They said "In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth, Gen. 1, v. 1. Which beginning of time, according to our Chronologie, fell upon the entrance of the night preceding the twenty third day of Octob[er] in the year of the Julian [Period] 710. The year before Christ 4004. " From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology And this bit "Early times (Creation to Solomon). Ostensibly the easiest period, as the Bible provides an unbroken male lineage from Adam through to Solomon complete with the ages of the individuals involved. However, not all of the versions of the Bible provide the same ages — the Septuagint gives much longer ages, adding about 1500 years to the date of Creation. Ussher resolved this problem by relying on the Hebrew Bible instead." tells you which book they used- the Hebrew Bible. Wouldn't it be better if you found out what you were on about before posting?

I'm not sure why I'm contributing to this bizarre thread but the psychologist is the measuring instrument and a human. Psychology often has humans measuring human interaction with humans paid for by other humans. So (as pointed out elsewhere) barfbag is simply wrong to say "A human can not be used as a measurement device using The Scientific Method." Perhaps I should start a thread about whether Harry potter can aid a belief in Unicorns or whether Narnia can aid a belief in Atlantis.

Well, if (and it's a big "if") you are right the problem is the men. They will screw anything so the women will end up pregnant and unmarried. That is, you claim, the root of these abortions. So why do you keep blaming the women?

My word! surely only some weird crank religion would suggest that. Which one is it?

"For the same money they could buy at detail price solar panels enough for 2 million apartments and make them independent from power stations" until sunset.