John Cuthber

​I am definitely not one of the "green ink brigade" . http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/green-ink_brigade (Should I have put that in comic sans?)

The thing that "results" in more abortions is men. And it is absurd to lose sight of that and blame the women.

A fast runner can reach about 10 metres per second so a millisecond is roughly the time it would take them to cover the length of the last word here.

As far as I'm aware, all bicycles are solar powered.

Thanks for pointing out yet more examples of their barbarity- for example the disparity between men and women. (This may be news to you, but the promulgation of sexually transmitted diseases generally requires both sexes to be involved. On a related note it takes two to tango so this "Do I see the killing of millions of unborn children as evidence of improvement over a system that gave married women an immediate reason to be true to their husbands and unmarried women a real reason to avoid sex before marriage?" is insanely sexist) You seem to overlook the fact that, had a woman felt that her life was no longer worth living (because of the religiously enshrined attitudes of the shits around her) she could always kill herself without enlisting the help of a mob. Ought the choice be hers? Oh, no, I forgot- the church condemns suicide too. And, on a related matter, they don't support euthanasia so, if it thought that this was in some sense a "mercy killing" it would be forbidden, rather than compulsory (Though the church is no stranger to that sort of hypocrisy) And, in reply to your question " Do we not use a similar argument today to justify abortion?" No, we don't. It's possibly a factor in some people's decision, but the simple reason for the legality of abortion is that we recognise the woman's right to choose.

There doesn't seem to be any mention there or telepathy.

This won't trouble the Right wing- they don't listen to research.

I don't have the copyright on this, but I thought some of you might find it interesting. For the record, I don't think her majesty actually sounds like that.

"You claim humans have been used as measurement tools using the scientific method? I was in a context discussing the nature of god/telepathy energies, but I'd be interested in ANY comparable instance." Pretty much the whole of psychology uses humans. And here are some quotes from the JREF's FAQ site "Has anyone ever gotten past the preliminary test? No. Some people use this fact as a reason not to apply – and yet the protocol is never altered once the applicant agrees to it. In fact, we ask the applicant to design the test." and "Protocols must be “mutually agreed upon,” what does that mean? Neither the Foundation nor the claimant can force a testing procedure without the approval of the other side. The testing procedure is a negotiation, and no one can put their foot down. If at any time it a deadlock is reached, the application process will be terminated, and neither side will be blamed or considered at fault." "Okay. So what Quantum Mechanics problems rely on probabilities? I'm curious." Absolutely all of it. The wave functions it calculates are the probability distributions of things. So, if you see an image like the blobby things here http://www.uiowa.edu/~c004132/ATOMIC_ORBITALS.html they are contours of probability- the electron has a given (typically 95%- it depends how they are drawn) probability of being within that envelope.

"it could be possible to create a device that emits radio waves of a dolphins warning for a dangerous animal." As far as I'm aware, dolphins can't detect radio waves. Also radio waves don't travel under water.

The two opening posts of this thread may win the all time prize for "least comprehensible dialogue on SFN".

For a start, re. "A human can not be used as a measurement device using The Scientific Method." Oh yes it can. And, for a finish, if you (or anyone else) can demonstrate real telepathy, (as you put it, "if a telepathy experiment were arranged that defeated the odds that would be ample proof ?") they can win a million dollars here. http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html The basis of that prize is beating odds of a million to one and he is a skeptic so it's plainly not true to say " Skeptics will not accept odds as proof." And the whole nature of quantum mechanics is statistical so it's also plainly not true to say "A Hypothesis cannot say "It should work some of the time"." It seems to me that you should find out something about the subject before you post any more errors about it.

Well, most of us have ditched barbaric ideas like stoning adulterers to death and trial by ordeal. Do you see that as an improvement? Do you realise that it happened through the abandonment of the idea that religion gives the right answers (i.e that religion has authority)?

Since that seems to have been "I must admit I do feel sorry for those who lack experience in PSI fields because they must only believe what they read in Nature Magazine." as a response to my observation "But the difference is that I don't dream up some guess and then assume it's right and act as if other people should believe my guess just because I believe it." would you like to expand on that with actual evidence rather than "loud assertion"? "It is funny that Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung were considered founding fathers of this psychology" And they are both essentially discredited (you can add Burt to the list too if you like) because they couldn't actually do what I said that modern psychology can do- demonstrate reproducible results

Just out of idle curiosity, is it Islam, Judaism or Christianity that you are writing off as a fantasy, or are you equally oblivious to the fact that all three are (whether you like it or not) based on their beliefs of some bronze age savages? Seriously, are you going to justify your position with some semblance of evidence? I asked a simple question. So, where's the ad hom attack in saying that (at least in the case of the origins of the worlds major religions) religion was started by bronze age savages? are you going to answer it?

What working do I need to show? If the piston keeps bouncing back and to forever it keeps returning to exactly the same state that it started in. Since that state is identical to the initial state, the change in entropy (and everything else) is zero. "Can you state exactly which law and how?" Yes, I can and I have. For any closed isolated system delta S is always positive. Since the universe is, or can be treated as closed and isolated, (as discussed at unnecessary length) it will eventually "run down". "If you include the surroundings (rest of the universe) in the 'system', then there is room for only one system in all the universe" Well then, don't. Only include those things that are coupled to it. Then you can make lots of systems (as long as you isolate them suitably) That doesn't stop you 1) considering other systems or 2) considering the Universe as a whole as a system.

A coiled spring has energy even when it's not moving. So does a battery or a dam full or water.

It's true that there are religions without God(s). And it's also true that there are bank statements without God(s). But that doesn't make my bank statement a religion. And, like that bank statement, atheism doesn't have God(s) and it's not a religion. Whoever wrote the Bible (OK, I know it's not the only example but...) thought that, for example, killing people for their sexuality was an appropriate way to behave. That's savagery. They wrote it about 2000 BC and that's pretty much slap in the middle of the bronze age. So, where's the ad hom attack in saying that (at least in the case of the origins of the worlds major religions) religion was started by bronze age savages? "If someone wants to argue against religion they should pick a religious idea and reduce it to absurdity, and then keep going until they've all been so reduced." I presume you are aware of lists of such absurdities.

If you look for amino acid sequences you might find them and you can work out the atoms from that http://www.pnas.org/content/82/2/617.full.pdf though I can't see what use this will be for you.

A person 1000 years ago could, in principle, have shown that you can transmit a signal across the room using bits of metal and static electricity. (He wouldn't have known it was radio but then again, nor did Hertz when he noticed the phenomenon) The burden of proof would be easy for him. He could show someone how to do the "experiment" and they could repeat it. Now, today we have psychologists (among others) whose research depends entirely on statistically valid differences in outcome from the outcome that would be predicted in the absence of some effect. Those differences are real and can be shown to be repeatable. The point is that, while any given observation might not be repeatable, the pattern of observations is repeatable when analysed statistically. So, If I ask a psychologist to explain some effect they may not have a definitive explanation. But they can prove that the effect is real. You can not do that for the effects you assert. The burden of proof has not been "shifted onto" you. You took it on as soon as you made a claim. You can believe it as you wish, but don't expect to be taken seriously unless you can support it. You say "I think there are good reasons to want to know if death is the end or a beginning." and you are right You say "But I am curious that way." and I agree with you- I am curious about that too. But the difference is that I don't dream up some guess and then assume it's right and act as if other people should believe my guess just because I believe it.

I apologise for being unable to read your mind. You didn't specify a non-viscous fluid. Anyway, as the viscosity tends to zero the time taken for the system to come to rest tends to infinity. As the piston bounces back and to in that case, it repeatedly ends up where it started from and, so the system is reversible. It's physically impossible and it's not quite the same as the system you specified before- because it's a special case- but it is reversible, Where you say "Of course if you take the view that the whole of the universe is 'the system' then there is only one system in the universe, which is the same for every problem." You have missed the point. The universe is one clearly isolated system and the laws of thermodynamics tell us that it will suffer an "entropy death" in the long run. That does not mean that we can not specify other isolated systems. It's not "the system" it's just "a system"

My guess would be that she is delusional, rather than dishonest; but it is just a guess.

I'm not opposed to the idea of having a religion and I'm not opposed to the idea of having a sister. It's just that I don't have one, so it's silly to say that I do (unless, by "sister" you mean what everyone else calls a brother).

Racism was commonplace, and wrong, before anyone invented genetics. It's straightforward distrust of those who are different, and as such , it's irrational. It seems to me that any discussion of the "science" behind it is redundant, and perhaps dangerous as it might be interpreted as suggesting that there is some sort of scientific support for racism.

It was probably true when engine oils were just petroleum fractions. But now, with viscosity control additives etc. I wouldn't expect it to work properly. It would not surprise me to vind that the viscosity of the mixture was not even somewhere between the viscosities of the two starting materials. I'd do it in an emergency, but I'd flush the mixed oil and replace it as soon as I could.