John Cuthber

No, it's two sets of thirds vertical and horizontal. But I think you are right about "I suggest that a good starting rule, especially now in the age of digital photography, is to take a lot of photographs"

So a lot of people got their feelings hurt.

I'd probably be pleased if a band turned up at my wedding without me having to pay. But that's not the point. What actual harm did they do to these "millions of people"?

A look at some of the worlds most expensive paintings suggests the rule isn't obeyed very often https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=most+expensive+portrait&espv=2&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=B0dCU9sXwcOEB8mDgdAM&ved=0CE0Q7Ak&biw=1280&bih=899#q=most+expensive+paintings&tbm=isch&imgdii=_

I'm not certain of the merit of working towards transhumanism, when we have not yet sorted out humanism yet. Most of the people in the world live in very poor conditions and it seems to me that we should help them before we try to create some sort of elite "transhuman" group.

No. Do you know how big a quadrillion is? Also, unlike computer power accelerator beam time hasn't got much cheaper because there's no mass-market.

I'm sorry, but you don't seem to be making any sense.However. perhaps you will find this informative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_lines the wavelengths of light emitted by the sun have been well documented for centuries.

That's not the way it goes. You are making the extraordinary claim that something breaches the laws of thermodynamics. So it's your job to provide the evidence.

It's real. There are a fair few sites which deal with the subject. Here's another http://www.mindchallenger.com/inductionheater/

"if the second law is only a huge probability, then it matters alot if life brached it, but life can anyway" No it can't. If you think otherwise, please cite evidence. But, before you do so, check what "isolate system" means.

OK, I thought the other side of the problem was obvious. Why no reaction to the "real" plant? Well, there are a few obvious possibilities. The reaction to poison ivy and the lacquer tree is due to this stuff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urushiol It's not stable in air, so it's entirely possible that, by the time the leaves were used, the effect had been destroyed by air. Also, the material is in the sap of the leaves, rather than on the surface- simply brushing against them might not release any of the urushiol. Perhaps more importantly, the effect is an allergic reaction. The first time someone is exposed to this stuff, nothing much happens. It's the second (and subsequent) exposures where there's an effect. If these kids were aware of the properties of this stuff they probably had the sense to avoid it. If they did so, then the first exposure to the chemical would be during the tests. So you wouldn't expect a reaction to the "real" leaves or the"fake" ones. There's also the interesting question of whether -even in the 50s- the results of such a plainly unethical experiment would have been published. And you seem to have missed this question, so I'm repeating it for you Incidentally, when you said "Here is the link to the famous Japanese Poison ivy study. It is considered by many proof the mind can cause injury." Who are the "many" you are talking about- or did you just mean that you think it's "proof" of that?

It's possible. it's also possible that the pixies did it. But why not just accept the obvious answer,(when it was first posted) rather than pretending it hadn't been answered? Have a look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor The point remains that the Japanese study is not evidence for the brain directly influencing the skin as was claimed. Incidentally, when you said "Here is the link to the famous Japanese Poison ivy study. It is considered by many proof the mind can cause injury." Who are the "many" you are talking about- or did you just mean that you think it's "proof" of that?

It could do all sorts of complicated things, or the kids scratched the arm that they expected to be itchy and that caused the effect. Can you rule out that obvious explanation?

You seem to have missed the important part of what I wrote. Here it is again. "So, in order to explain that Japanese study, we need a means by which the brains of these children could affect the physical condition of the skin. OK, that's called scratching."

Yes I did. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82516-dreams-causing-real-injuries/?p=799821

"Water is referred to as the “universal solvent”" Not often, and only by those using rather sloppy English. "Rocks dont dissolve in water because..." Yes they do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weathering#Hydrolysis_on_silicates_and_carbonates just not very well. Incidentally, many rocks will dissolve in molten rock.

They do, and it has been detected if this report is correct http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/04/05/china-ship-detects-pulse-signal-in-search-for-missing-malysia-airlines/ Still no evidence (yet) of a cyber attack or unicorns being involved.

Should this be in the homework help section?

"Most scientists accept the nocebo as a fact." Yes, OK it is. It has established mechanisms. They involve systems where the brain has a direct link to the outcome. For example, the brain has neural paths to the lungs and can influence bronchoconstriction there. So asthma can be modulated by placebos and nocebos. "When you look at the studies of the nocebo effect (aside from simple pain studies), it would appear as if the brain is telekinetically affecting the physical body." No, it's not "telekinesis" it's straightforward nerve transmission. "Most doctors agree that stigmata can be best explained by the mind causing those injuries or that the person injured themselves via a physical method." Yes. There are two possible causes there and, for some reason, you have lumped them together. They putative causes are "the mind causing those injuries" and "the person injured themselves via a physical method." Doubtless most doctors think one of those is responsible for the injuries. But do you not see that the vast majority of doctors would think it's more likely to be the second reason (for which there's a simple credible mechanism), rather than the first (for which no mechanism exists)? "previously healthy man who died from asthmatic attacks when his mother "cursed" him for going against her wishes." so, a man got asthma and unfortunately, died. Shit happens. So what? A few anecdotes don't prove anything.

"Hmm I wonder what would happen if you put the enzymes that make nitrate in the body and then dropped them into a concentrated solution of their substrate" For a start, they would need quite a lot of substrates- but that;'s not the point. The most likely thing is that you would denature the proteins and they wouldn't work. "Would the nitrate concentration build up to be enough to have a dangerously strong oxidizing potential?" Well, if by some fluke they did, the nitrate would destroy whatever was nearby- probably starting with the enzyme. Who cares? Even if you swallowed a saturated solution of KNO3 it doesn't produce oxygen until you have evaporated off the water and heated the stuff to nearly red hot. It's still not a theory.

"I now have CGI software, within one day I self taught myself CGI software," That's nice. You can presumably use it to make a video of Elvis riding a unicorn. But that doesn't make Elvis less dead or unicorns less imaginary. "I have a strange learning style , that s all I can say." Whatever your learning style, it would be a good idea to apply that style to learning some science.

"I know compression is not considered a force, but if you were standing in a central point and been forced from all vectors, you would be crushed," By what? What would supply the force that crushed you? At best, you seem to be putting forward a circular argument here.

"I always considered mass to be formed by compression." why? (and you might want to tidy up the formatting of that last post)

OK, so the brain has direct links to the heart (via the vagus nerve IIRC) and so it's clear how it can affect heart rate. Pain is only experienced in the brain. For example, heroin is a more effective pain killer than morphine because ti does a better job of reaching the brain. So, the brain, as the origin of the perception of pain, is able to block that perception. So, in order to explain that Japanese study, we need a means by which the brains of these children could affect the physical condition of the skin. OK, that's called scratching. Is there any evidence which actually stands up to scrutiny?

It is a rule, but it is often broken.