John Cuthber

No. Why do you continue to ignore the widely available data. The wavelength of visible light (which is as good a measure of the "size" of the photon as any other measure) covers the range from roughly 400 nm (violet) to about 700 nm (red). The size of atoms (as I pointed out earlier) is about 150 pm So that's about 3000 times smaller. Stop ignoring reality.

How many times do we need to tell you? A photon is not smaller than an atom. It's about a thousand times bigger.

"Well obviously the photons shooting out will have to be around exactly the size of an atom or way smaller to" That may be "obvious", but it's wrong. If you are talking about visible light then, compared to an atom, it is huge and clumsy. The fact that you don't seem to like this will not change reality. "It'ss trruue we could have an atomic thing shoot out a line of photons as big or smaller than an atom" Nope, it is not true, and I guess that's why someone felt it warranted negative rep. ".you guys ar'nt explaining why that wont work" Yes we are. The photons are too big. It's like moving an ant about by putting it in a matchbox. You can move the box with as much precision as you like, but you still can't specify the position of the ant better than saying "it's in that box somewhere".

LOL Strictly speaking, the size of a photon is rather poorly defined. Since we are talking about lasers and optical tweezers the wavelength of the photons is of the order of 500 nm The radius of typical atom is about 130 pm http://en.wikipedia....nts_(data_page)

Why not just buy it? Anyway, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_hydroxide#Production

No. The photons are vastly bigger than the atoms (about 1000 fold). It would be like trying to move grains of rice with a bulldozer. (Actually, rather more difficult due to quantum effects which don't trouble rice grains or bulldozers)

Advance, You seem to be missing the point about resolution here. If I asked you to put a nail in a piece of wood, exactly ten centimetres from the top and ten centimetres from the left hand edge, you could probably get the pin in the right place to within a mm or so. But you couldn't do much better than that for two reasons. You can only see things about a tenth of a mm or so across so if you were using a ruler calibrated to , for example, 0.01mm. you wouldn't be able to see the lines on it. You could get round that problem using a magnifying glass. More importantly, the nail is bigger than 1 mm and so you can't really define it's position to within 1 mm. The optical tweezers are simply "too big" for the resolution you want. And, as Swansont has pointed out, asking the question again won't get a different answer.

If your animation suggests that you can get trust from an isolated system it is wrong because it breaches the law of conservation of momentum. You are the one "challenging basic theory of physics without any supporting evidence"

Is there real evidence of the existence of a "hot Calorie"?

Yes. it bend slightly towards me due to gravitational lensing. But that's not the point. But imagine that the same ray of light travels a zillion miles and then goes through someone else's spaceship. Whatever is true of your ship is also true of his so his "best" frame of reference is just as good as yours.

What aldehyde are you trying to remove, and what are you removing it from?

What I read was this "Subjects (24) were treated on separate occasions with THC 100, 200 and 300 g/kg, and placebo." It was wrong when I read it after getting back from the pub last night,and it's still wrong now. If they think the only psychoactive material in cannabis is THC then they are not well enough informed to be doing experiments like that. If their weed is about 2% then to get 21 kilos of THC needs a little over a tonne. That's quite a joint. I rather suspect that the "µ" symbol for micro has failed to copy somewhere along the line. A gram or so of weed per subject seems rather more likely than a tonne.

"Alright, if the one-time pad's key is supposed to have truly random letters that all have an equal chance of occuring, then won't that mean the key will most likely have an equal combination of all of the letters in the alphabet?" The key is just as likely to be "AAAAAAAAAA" as "SFHIURGMOLO"

The important thing which it is, is wrong. Momentum is conserved.

"Subjects (24) were treated on separate occasions with THC 100, 200 and 300 g/kg, and placebo." No, they were not. For me ( about 70kg) 300g/kg would be 21 kilos or 46 pounds weight of THC and, since cannabis contains something like 10% THC, that would require about a quarter of a tonne of dope. I strongly suspect that carrying 3 times my bodyweight of MJ would adversely affect my driving.

"Introduce an expert into the group as an observer...albeit only for a short time...and he can transfer the knowledge required to tie the laces to the unskilled pair." So, he is a teacher. But teaching is a different task and needs different skills. I think many of us will have met people who can do their job, but are bad at explaining it to others.

" I only want to make ball at initial position and stationary with respect to space craft. space craft and ball could have some velocity with respect to earths reference frame." That's easy. Put the ball in a cupboard on the space ship and then launch it in the usual way. However, it has nothing to do with the original post which is still impossible.

I can slowly draw back the string on a bow with just a couple of fingers and store up a lot of energy. If I use that bow to shoot you with you will be OK, because I only used a couple of fingers- and I could hardly hurt you with them. Or have you now realised that if you store something slowly and the release it quickly you can have an altogether different effect? So, unless you think it only took 300 years to create all the coal and oil, your "logic" is flawed.

There is no numerical measure of skill that you can do arithmetic with.

"I would not say say my device will breach conservation of momentum " Yes you did. "line integral of a closed path to be zero for just wiggle back and to.stays in original position. but friction does do some work in closed path so there must be equal and opposite reaction of that work resulting in thrust of space craft in any direction." That thrust- with nothing to push against, is a breach of the conservation of momentum. So either explain why the laws of physics don't apply or accept that you are wrong. You need to provide an answer of the form "My idea can break the conservation of momentum because..." or something like that.

I think you are right and 44C is a mistake.

I thought someone had.

Doh! Anyway, how far did you get before you got stuck?

In any case, 11 years isn't "climate", it's "weather". The variability of things like temperature or rainfall from one year to the next is going to swamp any trend over a time period as short as that.

No. Because a vacuum doesn't do anything in a vacuum. Gravity works without air; a vacuum doesn't.