John Cuthber

Perhaps I have not made myself clear here. I am talking about sending the beam to the satellite. I'm not talking about the beam that comes back to the people watching television or whatever. They send that signal from a dish. If that dish is not pointing at the satellite then the signal will not reach it. The reason they use geostationary satellites is that they are always in the same "place" in the sky. But if,as you claim, the earth speeds up and slows down then the dish will not point at the satellite any more. It will miss by about a hundred miles. Once I have told you that the beam will miss by a hundred miles, what calculation do you need to do to understand that the beam will miss by a hundred miles? People would notice if the beam missed the satellite by a hundred miles because the system wouldn't work. It works, so the beam must continue to point at the satellite. But you say that the dish should move faster on some days than others. If it did that they would need to realign the dish. They don't. So, you are wrong. And you still don't seem to have answered the questions about the people who measure the Earth's rotation. Why don't they see this effect you claim? Do you understand that if the facts don't agree with your ideas then you should change your ideas? Reality does not make mistakes.

For the record, a turbomolecular pump is not the same as a rotary vane pump. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbomolecular_pump http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_vane_pump However I suggest that the OP talks to the people who design and sell pumps. They have lots of experience with that sort of question.

And the point I made was that the direction of the dish is such that it misses the satellite by a hundred miles. Seriously, do you think it matters if you specify the angle by which it misses or the distance by which it misses? The problem you have is to explain why that effect has never been noticed. Can you do that?

What do you have so far?

There are essentially two types of bonds that hold hair together- the amide bonds between the amino acids and the disulphide bonds that cross link between the chains of amino acids. Thioglycolate destroys the disulphide bonds and hydroxides attack the amide bonds. Together they will dissolve all the things that give hair its structure. Incidentally, I'd be worried if anyone was using much hydroxide anywhere near my skin, it's very corrosive.

Not all cells need oxygen. Some find it toxic.

"Yes they do all have side effect but if a drug has side effects of something as serious suicide or depression should we allow it to be prescribed to teenagers and children?" Still yes. You seem to have forgotten that the people who do the prescription are well aware of the balance between side effects and benefits. You wouldn't prescribe such a medication for a cold, but you might do so for an inoperable cancer. All drugs include death as a potential side effect, so your view would seem to exclude prescription of any drug- on the basis that it might kill the patient. You are not looking at the other side of the equation and by doing so you are not seeing the whole picture.

IIRC one of them is defined by the definition of the amp. The other is experimentally measured (Or, it was until they redefined time in terms of the speed of light.). However, that's still a reasonable explanation. The speed of waves traveling along a spring depends on the tension and the mass per unit length of the string. In a vaguely similar way, the speed of em waves travelling through a medium depends on ε and μ. I don't need to explain why the string has a particular tension and lineal density to say why the wave velocity is the value it is. I can just say it's sqrt (t.(m/l))

It works for me . Here's the abstract: searching for it might get you to a copy of the paper Abstract: This paper will begin with a short review of the Alcubierre warp drive metric and describes how the phenomenon might work based on the original paper. The canonical form of the metric was developed and published in [6] which provided key insight into the field potential and boost for the field which remedied a critical paradox in the original Alcubierre concept of operations. A modified concept of operations based on the canonical form of the metric that remedies the paradox is presented and discussed. The idea of a warp drive in higher dimensional space-time (manifold) will then be briefly considered by comparing the null-like geodesics of the Alcubierre metric to the Chung-Freese metric to illustrate the mathematical role of hyperspace coordinates. The net effect of using a warp drive “technology” coupled with conventional propulsion systems on an exploration mission will be discussed using the nomenclature of early mission planning. Finally, an overview of the warp field interferometer test bed being implemented in the Advanced Propulsion Physics Laboratory: Eagleworks (APPL:E) at the Johnson Space Center will be detailed. While warp field mechanics has not had a “Chicago Pile” moment, the tools necessary to detect a modest instance of the phenomenon are near at hand.

"Should drugs which cause people to become suicidal be allowed to be prescribed to teen or Children?" Yes.

Do you really not understand that those are the same thing? If I point the dish in the wrong direction by some angle, it will miss the satellite by some distance. You can calculate one from the other.

I'd be hard pressed to detect a change in length of say 1% by just looking. Any change smaller than that and I'd almost certainly miss it. According to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction I would need to get an object to about 42 million metres per second to get the length to change by 1%. The fastest that any macroscopic (i.e. visible) object has ever been accelerated to is rather less than that. 16,000 metres per second (and the projectile was tiny) http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys2020/phys2020_fa07/LectureNotes/nagle_phys2020_fa07_lecture26.pdf So, the simple answer is no, length contraction can't be seen with the naked eye. On the other hand, nor can a virus, but that doesn't stop me getting colds.

He might be a chef in a chili restaurant, rather than a chemist.

Perhaps we should set up a topic in the religion section of this site for people to read before they post anything. It could include things like " God isn't omniscient (or omnipotent) because it's logically impossible. Does He know the question to which he doesn't know that answer? If He knows it then he knows he doesn't know everything. On the other hand, if he doesn't know it then he doesn't know everything. Similarly, can H set himself a task He can't accomplish? If he can't set it, He's not omnipotent. If he can't' achieve it then He's not omnipotent. That would get round the problem of people who base their "argument" on grounds that are known to be logically impossible.

sugar or salt.

Why do you think I'm just messing about? Is it so that you can write of criticism of your assertions as "just a joke"?

Might it be better to pray for the absence of bullies? If you get rid of one potential group of victims they will find someone else to bully anyway. So it seems that the problem is those who disrespect others, rather than those who are not respected.

In many jurisdictions, death is defined as the lack of brain activity so, according to the OP you don't die until 7 minutes after you die. That's clearly nonsense. Ophiolite has also pointed out that it makes no sense.

The idea of a commune between me and God makes as much sense as one between me and an earthworm. Re. "You would not be communicating with another being, you'd be rediscovering yourself." That's dangerously close to talking to yourself. I am amused by you saying "this is the kind of prayer that Mohammed endorses when he says 'A hours' contemplation is worth a years' worship'." without apparently spotting the irony. I think the best commentary I have seen on prayer is from Emo Philips "When I was a little boy, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised, the Lord, in his wisdom, doesn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me."

No they can't. No it isn't. It's still wrong, even if you use really big letters. Just for teh record, green ink also doesn't work, and nor do tin foil hats.

Ophiolite, Yes, there are drifts that need to be accounted for, but Yahya is predicting a significant regular pattern, that should stand out in the data quite clearly. OK,the satellite is about 35,786 kilometres away Think about pointing a dish at the satellite. your figure of 0.9986 implies that the "error" (the difference from exactly 1) is about 0.14% So the error in pointing the dish will be about 0.14% of the circumference of the orbit. That circumference is about 112000 km and 0.14% of that is 157 km. So the beam will miss the satellite by about 160km. Now, I know that the beam divergence will help a bit but that's still a detectable effect. People who do that sort of thing would notice. Why do you think they have not done so? Also, these people measure the rotation of the earth. It's their job, and they are very good at it. http://lupus.gsfc.nasa.gov/ Would you like to explain why they are getting it wrong (or perhaps you think they are lying)? So, you now need to explain how geostationary satellites work, even though the signal would miss them by a hundred miles, and you also need to explain how come NASA keep getting the wrong answer.

The sun moves across the sky (from our point of view) It moves quicker at some times than at others because we are nearer to it at some times than at others. If you try to measure our speed by reference to the (moving) sun, you get complicated answers which depend on the month. Now you seem to have missed this bit, which is a pity because it's important. If the angular velocity of the earth changes, how do geostationary satellites work? There are other issues, but until you answer that question you don't have a "theory" so I suggest you offer a nice clear explanation in your next post.

Interesting. Are we talking about the same idea here? "communion kəˈmjuːnjən/Submit noun 1. the sharing or exchanging of intimate thoughts and feelings, especially on a mental or spiritual level." Because I don't think I could be expected to comprehend the intimate ideas of any God and I wouldn't expect Him to need me to kneel and put my hands together before he was well aware of any intimate thoughts and feeling I have.

No it does not mean that the angular velocity of the earth changes. It means that the sun is moving relative to us, but we knew that anyway. Incidentally, if the angular velocity of the earth changes, how do geostationary satellites work? There are other issues, but until you answer that question you don't have a "theory" so I suggest you offer a nice clear explanation in your next post.

Fresh, you seem to have missed my earlier question in all the excitement. How are you ruling out coincidence as an explanation? http://en.wikipedia....rgo_propter_hoc