John Cuthber

You asked two questions. "you would believe that those that pray like that look down upon people who do not pray?" and "A bias perhaps?" This is a discussion forum. I answered them. In reply to "Is that some scripture?" yes- sorry, I thought that was obvious. "do you take biblical words at face value as truth?" No, I think they are often farcically wrong, but I realise that some other people do believe them. I'd imagine that group of people include those who would "look down upon people who do not pray"- not least because their scripture (I cited some bits) tells them to. Re. "My statement to Phi was just that. It was to him." Assuming your system is set up in the same way as mine, if you look at the top of the page there's an icon of an envelope. That's the system for sending an individual a message. The rest of the page is a discussion forum. People may choose to comment on stuff posted here. I'm curious; what message did you think I could have been preaching?

There seems to be a difference of opinions about what we can take as read here. So, for example, you have not cited evidence for the claim that "The onus is on you at a science site to support your assertions.". I guess you think that's self-evident. Science wouldn't get very far if we had to cite evidence for absolutely every statement we made. So, there's a matter of judgement about what we accept as already well known and understood rather than stuff we need to explain. In particular, there's a difference between information that is well known and documented and other assertions that are in some way "in doubt". If I say that the moon is about a light second away you can believe me, or, if you like, you can check. I don't need to cite evidence for that. However, if I say "the moon is made of cheese" then I'd have to justify that assertion since it's intrinsically unlikely and not common knowledge. We seem to differ on whether or not I need to cite evidence for the assertion that there are other psychoactive materials in cannabis. Well, perhaps it's because I'm a pharmaceutical chemist, but, to me, that seems obvious. I'd also expect that, in a thread about dope, people would either know enough about the subject to know that it's true or, if they don't know, I'd expect them to check for themselves. In the same way, you have talked of THC, without citing evidence that it is psychoactive. Nobody called you on that, because it's well known to be true but if what you are doing is "not questioning the truth of John's assertion, only his lack of reference."then you might want to get a mirror. Incidentally, in the context of the thread the point about driving while stoned is irrelevant. Drinking beer is legal (in the jurisdictions of most of the people posting here). Drinking and driving is not legal (with the same proviso) So, no matter how badly smoking dope screws up your driving (and I accept that the extent is probably "not as much as people think") that has no direct relevance to whether or not it should be banned. We can ban toking and driving in the same way we ban drinking and driving. So the paper you have cited doesn't actually add much to the question of whether or not to legalise MJ use per se. Now, what was that you said about sidetracking? BTW, would anyone like to interrupt this pointless exchange by actually discussing the topic? Have I, as a legally responsible adult, got the right to make my own decisions about whether or not I use cannabis? Is there a valid comparison with alcohol? Is it reasonable to distinguish between the UK and the US on the basis that (very broadly) in the UK if I get ill from MJ the government picks up the bill for treatment, while in the US (again, in very broad terms) the smoker's insurance pays for it? Is the cost (political and cash) of policing a policy that is widely discredited worth the benfit from the avoidance of cannabis related problems? and so on.

The simple answer is that there are gaps. But (because there are so many photons) the gaps are very small and they don't last long, so you don't notice them.

That's not a bias; that's just reading what they say they believe. ". If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works." "Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us." "You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly." Or were you asking about their bias?

OK, they said "Subjects (24) were treated on separate occasions with THC 100, 200 and 300 g/kg, and placebo.". In fact, the subjects were treated with cannabis rather than THC. They measured THC in the dope, but they didn't control for other psychoactive materials present. There's also the question of how much of that THC was degraded by pyrolysis. "First I see no supportive evidence on other psychoactive material in cannabis" Did you look? Arete has pointed out a few for you. "while it is true that the study only measured THC levels in the marijuana, the drivers were not given just THC." Exactly my point. They were given other (unspecified) materials. So, it's not a great study- there are uncontrolled variables.

"So please explain how a rising sea level will produce a lower pressure at the depth of the methane ice?" Red herring. Nobody said it would, what they say is that the temperature rises- you know- shrinking ice caps etc... "Given that the temperature of the deep ocean is virtually impossible to change" That's the second red herring because they are not talking about the deep ocean. Here's a map of where the hydrates are known to be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gas_hydrates_1996.svg it shows deposits near the coasts- there's two reasons for that.Near the coast is the easy place to look but also the methane is produced by decomposition of organic matter washed from the land. so, no, basic physics hasn't changed. Nor has your behaviour. You still misrepresent stuff in order to try to support your viewpoint. So rather than "Or is it that you want to soak up all the catastrophist propaganda so much that your understanding of such basic science has taken a holiday?", perhaps a better question is; has your denialist point of view blinded you to the point where you don't listen to what's said and use bad science to defend a strawman attack.

Both and at roughly a hundred times the speed of sound. This is a non-starter as a means to move things around with precision. You seem to have missed a very fundamental point here. The smaller a photon is, the more punch it packs. Photons roughly the size of atoms are Xray photons. Radio frequency photons are typically in the range from the size of your hand to the size of the town you live in.

Because you didn't just ask that. You also said " so that I can test this device in that software for all possible permutations and combinations to get a positive result before start building a actual prototype." It's not unreasonable for us to point out that no software will let you design such a prototype. I wish I knew of such software (perhaps others will- it's really not my field). With such software you might convince yourself of the truth- that you are on a wild goose chase- and stop wasting your time.

If you had done that rather than saying "I suspect you are misreading that line and that you didn't read the study. Those amounts you quote reflect the ratio of THC to the gross weed weight. What were you carrying when you posted" the thread would have been a lot less sidetracked. And, if you had got the quote correctly from the original document in the first place there wouldn't have been an issue to discuss. Don't blame me for pointing out your factual errors on a science web site. BTW, you might want to look up the meaning of "hyperbole".

Well, it could just be a lousy illustration, but they seem to be showing a mixture of hydrogen CO and oxygen coming out of the converter. The clear implication is that the converter is very hot- that's what solar concentrators do. The problem is that a hot mixture of CO, H2 and O2 will, of course, catch fire. I'm not buying shares in this idea any time soon.

Inventors can't break physical laws. That's the point of recognising those laws. They tell you what is impossible. We don't need to use software to test your idea. It has been shown to be mathematically impossible (the maths I cited earlier). Don't waste your time trying to build a prototype; it will never work.

Will you stop saying "a single photon way smaller than an atom"? Any photons you are going to use are a lot bigger than an atom. There are "smaller" photons, but they carry so much energy they would ionise the atoma and they carry so much momentum they would knock it out of place. Do you understand that? Also, if (though it's impossible, I will ignore that for the minute) you managed to make a hole just one atom wide through something, perhaps a metal foil, and you shone light through it, you would not get a beam of light one atom wide coming out of the other side. Do you understand that? Each photon would reach the end of the tunnel and shoot off in some pretty much random direction by diffraction. The beam would not be thin and parallel. It would be essentially a "point source". Do you understand that?

No we are not. We are saying (because it's true) that a single photon of that energy would ionise that atom (possibly, multiply ionise it) and would knock it out of place. And you really need to look up how diffraction works.

"At least I tried to answer "how to make NaOH at home". Your answer was "go to shop and buy".." And so did you- it was one of the few things you said that was correct. "Really easier is to buy it" "In post #3 I just described "home version" of Chloralkali process in easy to understand words" A version that wouldn't work. "Rethink once again what was initial quantity of salt and water. 59-60 g of NaCl and 18 g of H2O" It doesn't matter who thinks about it, nor how often. The stuff still won't dissolve. "2 Cl- on positive electrode are joining together and neutral gaseous Cl2" Still ignoring the oxygen then? Do you realise that, as the reaction goes on there's less Cl- so there's less Cl2 production? Eventually, you end up making oxygen. "So we will have: NaCl, NaCl, HCl, HClO." Will you please stop pretending that you will end up with acids like HCl in the presence of NaOH? And the problem of reaction of Cl2 and NaOH still remains whatever shape the electrodes are- because they still have to be in the solution. You need something to keep them separate. That kind of seems to be totally and utterly missing from your so called ""home version" of Chloralkali process" So, when it comes down to it you gave a method that (without a whole lot of details, which you missed out) won't actually work. Anyway, buying the stuff is the simple method and adding slaked lime to washing soda solution may well be the most practical home chemistry version.

"Do you believe prayer should be allowed before a meeting of government officials?" If they like, but they shouldn't be paid for their time while they do so. "In fact, I encourage prayer if it results in a positive outcome for that person doing it." It's a government meeting. I want them to get the right answer, and there's no reason to suppose that prayer helps that. I'm not paying for "a positive outcome for that person doing it."

Among a whole lot of wrongness If you are using a high voltage, you are just wasting power. The excess heat will contribute to shifting the product from hypochlorite to chlorate and so on, but I think it's fair to say that the killer brain fart is where you say "Right. But whole point of this setup is to produce Chlorine gas." Do you want someone to read the title of the thread for you? Another remarkable bit of evidence of a lack of clear thinking is where you say "If gaseous Cl2 dissolved in solution (which is undesired), there will be also HCl present." Well, if the system generates any NaOH (and I accept it will produce a bit of the stuff with a lot of impurities) then the concentration of HCl is going to damn all isn't it? I realise you didn't mention copper. What you said was "some electrodes that don't react with neither HCl nor NaOH" Need I remind you that copper doesn't react with HCl or NaOH? So, while you didn't mention it by name, it should work according to your woefully inept procedure. Most amateur scientists probably did the "two copper wires a battery and a jar of salt water" experiment as a kid. Most of us remember that the wires corroded. Would you like to try again?

Ho Hum. For a start, the salt won't dissolve in that little water. Then there's the problem of oxygen- rather than chlorine being produced at the anode. Add to that the fact that, once there's any NaOH present, it will tend to react with chlorine to produce things like NaClO and NaClO3. Oh, while I'm at it, a copper wire won't react with NaOH or with HCl, but it won't serve as an anode in that cell because it would be oxidised by chlorine. So, in summary, mainly wrong.

Djinj, Please highlight the error in this brilliant piece of mathematics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem#Example_2:_Conservation_of_center_of_momentum or stfu

Or a good watch http://leapsecond.com/pages/atomic-bill/

There's also the issue of the momentum they carry, it would be like trying to build a detailed model from clay by shooting artillery rockets at it.

And that energy corresponds to a temperature of hundreds of millions of degrees. So you would heat the material instantly to a zillion times its boiling point. Not good for trying to build structures.

Have you considered using some of the videos on youtube and such? This sort of thing

"are you, and others, saying your only talking about the packets of photons" No. Individual photons are bigger than atoms (in any sense in which you can define the size of a photon). "...purposely ignoring about trying to shoot out just a 1-width line of photons?" We are intentionally ignoring something which can not exist, other than to tell you it's impossible (because of the laws of diffraction) because it can't exist. Incidentally, I'm a spectroscopist. That means my job is to understand the interaction between photons and atoms. As far as I can tell, you are a school kid, which means your job is to learn.

You have edited it. it is still wrong. perhaps, rather than editing it again, you might like to answer the questions and points I raised.

"All over the internet is that photons are, smaller than an atom" http://xkcd.com/285/ They don't "come out of an electron"They come from moving an electron. Do you understand that I can take a pen with a nib 1mm across and draw a wave with a wavelength of 10 cm?