John Cuthber

Want a bet? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida,_2000

I don't see it as a very good theory. In neutral or alkaline conditions as found in most of the body, nitrates are very poor oxidising agents. Potassium nitrate melts at about 340C and decomposes at about 400. So there's no way for it to release oxygen in a stomach unless that stomach is already on fire. Moonshine is unlikely to be as high as 98 % because simple distillation won't get above 96% It's expensive in energy terms to get that far. Not many people drink straight alcohol because it simply isn't very nice- it burns your mouth and throat. Even winos would add water. Together with the price, it would be a poor decision to waste money removing water then add it back. But the point is moot. Sure, alcohol is a fuel, but nobody ever disputed the presence of a fuel in the body- fat burns quite well. As you point out, its difficult to get enough oxygen to a fire inside the body, but, again, the point is moot. There's plenty of oxygen in the air outside the body. Sorry, but as I see it, that's not a theory at all because it doesn't work.

All the "unexplained" crashes are, of course, produced by unicorns. What we have is evidence that cybercrime is possible. What we don't have is any evidence that it happened in this case. Unicorn induced failure might have been a poor example, but the point remains that while cybercrime is one possibility, there are plenty of others which are equally plausible. A discussion of cyber attack would be premature until we have evidence that can rule it in or out.

I need to prepare some napthenic acids" Why?

What I'm saying is that we have no actual evidence so the unicorn guess is as good as the cyber attack guess. Both are baseless.

As far as I can tell, an attack by flying (radar transparent) unicorns hasn't been eliminated. But I don't plan to speculate on what colour they were or how they orchestrated the attack. In fact, until someone comes up with some convincing reason to think otherwise, I'm going to assume that the crash was due to a combination of cock ups.

Interesting, you don't understand that the temperature of the sun is important to its ability to warm the Earth, "(though with some irrelevancies, such as the Earth not being as hot as the Sun)" yet you tacitly ask if effects other than CO2 concentration could warm the Earth. "It would just stay at the same temperature.always?" The other reason that the temperature difference matters is that the sun is hot enough to emit light- which can easily pass through our atmosphere, but the Earth isn't. It is warm enough to emit IR which is absorbed by the CO2. The other problem, as has been pointed out, is that all alsatians are dogs, but not all dogs are alsatians.

Your inability to find stuff is not the site's problem. I clicked on your name, then on the button marked "posts" and found this http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/79136-comparison-of-atomic-theories-to-hydrogen-balmer-data/ So your bizarre speculation about priests or that the ""hard core" QM physicists, are afraid" seems a bit empty of reason. Now that I have given you a signpost to your post, perhaps you would like to answer the point I made there about units. Incidentally, the fact that your units don't make sense might be the real reason for this "I feel my theories are dismissed by everyone, which I find very strange."

Not strictly true. There is nothing in principle to stop you building a tall ladder and climbing it into space. If you want to travel ballistically, you need to reach escape velocity.

Indeed. Perhaps I should repeat a few facts I posted earlier. We know there's more CO2. We know that it's down to us- partly because we can, in effect, carbon date it; but largely because we know how much carbon we burn because we know how much tax we paid on it. We know that CO2 absorbs IR We know that the earth is not as hot as the sun. Because of those, we know that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas. We know that the measurements show that the earth is warming.

Not really. It's what the overwhelming professional and scientific opinion is. Global warming is down to us.

Yes it is. And I can still watch it move sideways.

Apparently, less than 100% since that's what creativitysixes claims to use.

Good question.

A spotlight might be more practical

Why should you not die rather than them? Why do you think your life is more important than theirs? Could it be that when you said "I also do not regard one life as more valuable for simply being a different species." you hadn't thought it through and actually you do consider some species subordinate.

Sorry to disappoint but "solid confirmation of out-of-body consciousness" requires a record from 9 years ago.

Let me know if you plan to actually answer my point which was "I also do not regard one life as more valuable for simply being a different species." So, you don't kill plants for food then?" N.B. I didn't ask about beating dogs.

It will be interesting iff the poster concerned actually answers. I'm not holding my breath.

I'm still waiting for an answer to my earlier question. To whom does that seem impractical? Because people do it a lot.

"A zygote has an existence only in the context of its mother. It is encapsulated from the exterior by its mother's body. Its "data exchange" with the macro-environment is thus null. That is what i am implying." No http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilisation "A corpse (at least one that is buried) decomposes to simpler substances. From complex molecules the transition is towards simpler aggregates. This is what i am trying to say." And those simpler materials spread out leading to a greater degree of disorder i.e. higher entropy. "A fridge "alive". Well yes, if there is a paradigm shift in the context of what you define as "living". The definition of living in 2250 may not be that which we readily accept today...." It's not my definition that calls a fridge alive, it's yours. You are the one who asked about this definition. "Is energy exchange the physical basis of life?" And now you should realise that the answer to the question is clearly no. because, if that were the basis of life then a fridge would be alive.

If I look at the moon I see it cross the sky from left to right. That's sideways by simple observation. According to Newton's 1st law it should carry on in a straight line, but gravity pulls it towards us. That competition between trying to past us and trying to go towards us is what keeps it in orbit. And do you really think that people have got the planet's masses wrong for the last 400 years or so? Seriously? Do you think we can make use of gravity in launching space probes without knowing which way it goes? Are you basicly, barking mad?

because the rocket goes up and the moon goes sideways. Was that a serious question?

Thanks for that. It's entirely possible that the military did see it, but they recognised it as a lost civilian jet so they didn't do anything about it. Odd, but possible. A spot of googling suggests the the plane's track was over two areas that aren't very wealthy so it's possible the authorities just didn't care much.

"On top there is material with refraction index 0.0 like vacuum" Try 1.0.