John Cuthber

Let's start by checking that we agree what happens The piston bounces back and to until the fluid's viscosity bring it to a halt (or asymptotically near to a halt). In doing so, the gas is warmed up. With a more massive piston, this will happen more slowly As far as I can see, that's mechanical energy degrading to heat. The entropy change will be positive, and it's a non- reversible system. The reverse is never seen to happen.

I'm just amused that the next thread in line after this is called "regrowth of lost organs and limbs"

"alternate trousers are not commutative"

So, you think technicians are necessarily distinct from theoretical thinkers? Still looks like an insult if you ask me. The difference between metaphysics and physics seems to be what century you live in. The recent discovery of the Higgs' Boson indicates that the question "What is mass" is currently in transit from metaphysics to physics. When you say "If a theory is not testable in physics then it does not belong in physics." you ignore the reality that physics changes and what is testable changes too.

And yet we know the answer to one of those questions to 3 significant figures. The distinction between metaphysics and physics isn't as solid as you might like to think. Two hundred years ago "what is love?" would have been a metaphysical question but now it is within the remits of endocrinology, psychology and evolutionary biology. Galton, the guy who looked for bumps on people's heads to try to get a grip on what was happening in the mind was mistaken in his beliefs. However he was the first (or at least one of the first and the first who got famous) to seriously consider studying the mind. Prior to that, it was metaphysical and considered to be in the realm of religion. Now it's science. Now, perhaps you can explain why you decided to insult all the lab technicians?

Why would there be a single answer? That's silly. It's like saying what's your mother's name, what's your father's name? Is there a single answer to the above questions? Anyway the origin of this discussion was someone saying "Science is the search for the answers to scientific questions. If this is the only kind of question you want answered then you will make an excellent lab technician." And the questions you have asked are subject to scientific inquiry. (there's a difference between "science knows the answer" and "science studies this sort of thing"). Thus far, I can't see why they think that philosophers should make especially good lab technicians. If anything, the cliche lab tech is someone who doesn't ask any questions, but does what they are told to do. Setting aside the fact that it's an insulting and inaccurate cliche, surely it's a description more suited to those who are prepared to follow the teachings of a 2000 year old book without questioning it?

When the ladies have finished laughing, they may wish to consider this "The first modern brassiere was patented by the German Christine Hardt in 1889" Also, re. Moontanman's comment that "Also alligators are harmless unless you let get them a lot closer than this photographer was.." Alligators are also potentially harmful if they get closer to you: they have legs.

I see the problem here. You think that such questions are not within the realm of science because you don't know what science does. For example, we know that the observable universe is a sphere with a radius of about 4.6 billion light years. We also know that it is impossible to know what is outside that - neither religion nor science can tell you. It's useful to remember that, so far religion and science are equivalent- neither can answer the question. However science can do provide a better answer than religion. Through science , we know that it does not matter if the Universe is infinite or not. For example, imagine that I'm painting my bedroom and by some weird mechanism, if the universe is finite I should paint it blue and if the universe is infinite I should paint it green- otherwise I will suddenly drop dead. OK, I choose to paint it green. If I live then we know that the Universe is infinite, otherwise we know that it's finite. But we know that the answer is, even in principle, unknowable. So there can't be any mechanism to set up the requirements of the colour scheme. The important point is that it doesn't matter what the criteria are- it they depend on unknowable things like the size of the universe- then we know that they can't matter. If they made a difference, that difference would be a means to establish the issue (in this case the size of the universe) "Did it begin with something or nothing?" Probably not. Because whatever it began with must be sufficiently odd that we wouldn't be sure to class it as a something or a nothing. It would depend on the meaning of the words. So, for example, there's a current suggestion that the universe began as a collision between two hyperdimensional planes. Does that count as a "something" or a "nothing"? It depends on your choice of definitions of words. There's not a problem with the science there- the issue is linguistic. Pick a definition and you get an answer. The same goes for the definition of fundamental so this "Is time fundamental? Is anything fundamental?" is meaningless. It's fair to say that philosophy might get you nearer to an answer- but even it will end up tied up in definitions. What's clear is that religion won't get you anywhere with this issue. "Is there continuity after death?" The question isn't properly defined so nothing can hope to answer it. Questions like " is January in bed" which are meaningless are unhelpful. "Are we living in a dream?" Not without a very odd definition of dream. Of course dreams are subject to scientific study. And so on

Why do you think that quoting the wiki page I cited added to the thread? I was using the phrase "stun gun in a much more general sense- a device designed to give a shock (short lived- or prolonged) to someone. I accept I could have been more clear about that, but it doesn't detract from the fact that such a device 1) is perfectly possible to create and 2) could have been used. In that video at 0:40 the commentator says the "guinea pig" doesn't feel anything at all (though that's not how he spins it) A plausible explanation of the shock at 0:50 is that the table/ bed in the background is the other connection and you could obviously hide electrical gear in that - it's not examined in detail so schanning Chang with a metal detector is a red herring there. And again, a simple power supply and switch hidden in a shoe could drive the LED- you don't need a lot of current to get a visible glow- less than a milliamp will do it.

OK, give me an example of a non scientific question (and that's the second time of asking, btw)

I can close my eyes and imagine a unicorn while I'm completely alert and awake, but I'm not foolish enough to think that makes it real. I'm glad to see that you agree about the electricity and his bare feet. The obvious answer to your question would be a stun gun, but since you seem keen to insist that such a thing would be impossible because it would be spotted by a metal detector, here are two possibilities. There's the complicated one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_eel which proves that you don't need metal to get electricity (were you not aware of that: tell me again about my ignorance concerning electricity?) And, of course there's the easy one. He palms a stun gun from an assistant after he is checked by the detector. Of course, if he provides the detector it's even easier to fake- he just needs a hidden switch.

It's well enough known that ecg information etc isn't as good a determination of death as we had previously supposed so this "Yes he is definitely still alive. It's just that someone observing him with a EEG, REG, etc. would consider him dead." isn't new and it's certainly not evidence that someone who experiences something while their brain isn't working properly because it's deprived of oxygen has seen the afterlife. "Once again you missed my point. You directly expereience your keyboard right? So if you directly experience yin and yang qi, then you know it exists for the sam reason you know that your keyboard exists." And you have not noticed that I can dream about a keyboard a hundred feet long. My "experience" of it will be just as real as the experience of Qi. That's not even half way to evidence, never mind proof. And, by the way, to get electricity to flow, you need a closed loop of some sort. So, if the current flows from him through the other person, to ground and back to him he needs to have conductive footwear or none. What was that you said about my ignorance of electricity?

You are basically making my point for me when you say "Some on the fringe do count the "begats" and conclude the 6000 year story. Again, this is not mainstream and it is not taken in all religions." It isn't mainstream now, but it was. At that point the church was lying about being able to calculate the age of the universe by looking at an old book. Lots of scientific discoveries ran into trouble with religion. Since religion taught (but doesn't any more) that all the creatures on earth were for the benefit of mankind, the discovery of invisible life that man could not even see, never mind use was a problem. The churches, initially refused to accept that they existed. This was a particular problem with pathogens which struck people down with illness simply by chance rather than as divine retribution. Then there's the view of the church that the Earth was the centre of the universe. That overstayed its welcome to the detriment of many- the church finally apologized for lying about Galileo's ideas late in the 20th c. And, re this "I will remind John Cuthber that you do have a religion." Nope, Atheism is not a religion any more than bald is a hair-colour or not-collecting-stamps is a hobby.

"Uniting science and religion is not a crazy idea to me. There is a saying: "you only know the songs you hear. Is this not true? ." And the song you hear from religion is that the world is 6000 years old, microbiology doesn't exist, and evolution doesn't happen. Eventually, when the evidence from science becomes overwhelming, religion grudgingly accepts the truth. Yet it purports to have had the "revealed" truth from the start. When religion claims to have truth and knowledge, it lies.

Keep watching the video until you realise that the conjuror does explain how it's done so "He's using trickery. We just can't figure it out." just isn't a sensible response. And it turns out that when you said "you know that it exists for the same reason that you know your keyboard exists." you were flat out wrong. In addition to the differences I have already pointed out, and which you seem to be pretending are not there, there's another seriously important difference between my keyboard and Qi. My keyboard works.

What questions are not scientific?

The reason the papers are flawed and irreproducible is that there is a (low, and slightly variable) natural level of basophil degranulation which they have ignored. It's impossible or, at least, impractical to measure a small enough increase in that rate. Obviously, a statistically significantly higher level of degranulation does mean that the material is having an effect. That's why labs do the test. This is essentially the same point that I made in the 4th post in this thread and I wonder why you are still asking about it. It is not possible to distinguish between a very small effect and no effect. They can not prove that there is "no effect" so they say there's a low effect.

"I am going by what was taught by Chang..." A man whose claims have been largely debunked by a conjurer" "It's observing the spirits of dead people" OK, show me one. "the only evidence for yin is the fact that Chang demonstrates it" So, no real evidence then. "During the beginning meditation you can directly experience yin so you know that it exists for the same reason that you know your keyboard exists. The same goes for spirits." What, I can slap someone round the head with i? I can show the receipt where I paid for it? Or were you just saying something which is obviously not actually true? There are words for people who do that.

Sorry, can we just clarify something (see picture)? Also, when you say "The brain injuries suffered by soccer players are going to be getting better known in the near future.", on what basis do you make that assertion? I'm not saying it's an unrealistic idea, I'm just wondering if you can explain the asserted timing.

Having returned from the pub after a Friday "evening"* out, I can see Moontanman's point. Hic! * finished after midnight

"Supposedly during the deepest states of meditation one is able directly experience the yin aspect of reality which is where sprits reside. You can directly see what is left of people after their death and therefore know what is awaiting you after your death." By whom is this supposed, and on what basis? Who came back from after death to verify it? Is there any actual evidence for yin ? Is there any evidence for spirits existence?

A refreshingly direct reply. Just remember the old warning: one tequila two tequila three tequila floor

Your calculation is right (or, at least, it is close enough- I didn't bother to check because it doesn't matter) The whole point is that the numbers are absurd. It is perfectly clear that the "solutions" that Benveniste and his collaborators used were plain water. And yet it raised a "response". It did so because, sometimes, the mast cells just decide to degranulate (more realistically, their degranulation is provoked by something, but we don't know what). So, if they test polysorbate and the cells degranulate but they also degranulate with water, it is impossible to be sure that the polysorbate isn't having a small effect. So, they can't say "it has no effect" (much as they might wish to do). All they can ever say it that the effect is low.

I don't think I have made myself clear. When the metal plate just connects with the spiral, stop raising it. Then, the spiral will contract due to the magnetic field it produces, which will break the circuit so the coil will relax again and re connect to the plate and the cycle repeats. In essence, what's special about mercury? Why not use copper?

If it wasn't a response, why quote me?