John Cuthber

Well, it's difficult to answer the question without knowing the details but something like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spray_tower#Gas_collection If the gas is chlorine then adding something like ferrous sulphate will react with it and remove it- the ferric chloride/ sulphate produced isn't very hazardous and it can be neutralised with limestone or some other cheap alkali to make it even less of a problem. The other issue is what sort of scale are you talking about? Is this a few kilograms or a few tonnes or what? And I'm still puzzled by any reaction that gives off a little chlorine from resin making (or quite a lot of things). What are the "obvious characters."? There are plenty of strong smelling, toxic, corrosive gases.

Tim, The increasing CO2 is, of itself, a philosophical problem. It is impolite of us to contaminate the world in this way. However, whether you like it or not, that CO2 contributes to global warming which does cause real problems.

OK, Calcium oxide looks great in the text book as a way to trap Cl2, but in the real world it's more likely to react with CO2 and water. I find the idea of a resin production process that generates Cl2 somewhat unlikely. Could it be that the problem is hydrogen chloride? And I think Marshalscienceguy has overlooked the difficulty of putting a gas in a bag.

The data on which reports like this http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_projects/2005/action1/docs/action1_2005_a2_15_en.pdf into the excess deaths are based are essentially body counts. What you are saying is, in effect, it's their own fault they died because they should have taken their jumpers off. Apart from being unscientific, that's a crass slur against a group of people who are no longer in any position to protest. Such an assertion is, among other things, a breach of the forum rules.

"No the beards and hair color do not matttter not even the body, we're talkin about the face shapes" Again, trivially proven wrong. Men like me have square jaws. Men don't find that trait attractive. And, of course, most of us are attracted to film stars. Most of us do not look like film stars. So, most of us are attracted to people we don't look like. As for "y r u all gay" Two things. You are the one who thinks people who look like you (i.e. men) are attractive. Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.

If that was true then men like me who have beards would be attracted to women with beards. That's silly. Why do you not think things through before you post them?

Where do you get the ice?

"when it rotates around in the short radius it should slow down." But it does not slow down. So you are wrong.

Do you realise that the thing you refuse to watch is a clip from a comedy show? So it's clear that you don't want to learn. You haven't answered the question about God "What is this 'god' thing you are talking about?" Do you remember reading the site rules when you first signed up?

It may be possible to destroy it as it is made. What is the process you are using?

I am still waiting for you to explain why you still believe in this idea after it has been shown to be wrong. Your idea predicts that the rotation of the earth should slow down and speed up regularly over the course of the year. But the measurements show that it doesn't. So why don't you accept that it is wrong? Also, you have not explained how the geostationary satellites work. Come to think of it, GPS wouldn't work properly either.

They are, in fact, unable to define our world, but they are not the only ones lacking that ability.

"Did/Do we create ourselves/universe, Do we live within one of these collisions Or a future collision from next stage collider?" No The amount of stuff in one of those collisions is a tiny fraction of a gram. Whereas the universe in which we live is rather bigger. Estimates of the mass of the universe vary but your idea is wrong by something like 60 orders of magnitude.

Sunshaker, it is no longer the tail end of the eighteenth century, so Faraday's example is not exactly relevant any more. It's possible to come up with valid theories that don't involve maths. The last Big One was evolution. However, in science we expect that any new theory that is proposed should be able to make testable predictions. It's not impossible to do that without maths, but in most of science it's very difficult. There are, I think, two reasons why people ask to see the maths here. Providing the maths to back up an idea shows that you have thought it through and understand it yourself.. Also it's unambiguous; not only does it make clear what you mean, it makes it clear what should follow logically from a theory. That in turn makes it easy for people to test the theory. So, this assertion "Something else that makes something likely to be pseudoscience is if it's in the field of physics and has no maths." is broadly true. BTW, Swansont, yes he did publish stuff without a mathematical basis. He wrote about religion and mysticism. But nobody remembers that because (in part) it turned out not to be real science- it was pseudoscience. (N.B. that last point was sneaked in to stop this post being entirely off-topic. If anyone wants to discuss the importance of maths in science and the construction of scientific theories , perhaps they would like to start a thread on that subject)

Don't you think you should have checked what epigenetic meant before posting a thread about it? Perhaps you would like to clarify what your original question was. What are you seeking evidence for?

As a legal technicality, you can get prosecuted for stealing rubbish (at least in the UK). On the other hand, the OP has said he's offering the stuff for nothing. There is no question of anyone stealing anything. The question is not "Can people take stuff offered here for free?"- they clearly can. The question is "Do people wish to take the stuff that's on offer here". But since the OP loses roughly 1 rep point for every 3 posts he makes and those posts include stuff like "i dont follow i only lead period. so no teachers will teach me anything useful anyway so does anybody know how many megatons the bigbang was" I can see why people might not bother to collect.

If you say you are giving them away then it's not stealing.

Look it up.

If these imaginary dense-packed particles are not infinitely stiff there can still me movement. Since no such conditions exist, what difference can it make? You seem to be writing science fiction and then trying to use it to describe the real universe.

"What is the solid evidence for random (meaning not epigenetic) causes for successful gene mutation?" The evolution of epigenetics. It's successful, and it logically predates epigenetics.

My first thought is that if the tank loses something like 20 litres of N2O every 12 hours you had better keep it outside.

With your "imaginary tractor beam" you can do whatever you like- in your imagination. But it has nothing to do with science.

It depends on the compound.

Homosexuallity has been documented in many animal species. Homophobia has only been recorded in one species. Which one do you think is "unnatural"? Also, I guess you might not be working in your first language here, but if you could answer without making up words like "Iv", "ov" and "statio", it would probably make it easier for us to understand. Google's browser, Chrome, has a built in spell checking routine which you may find helpful.