John Cuthber

"Mightn't they have "islands of stability"," Yes "which could give them the properties of "dark matter"?" No

"what physical/chemical properties would they be expected to have?" Very short lifetimes.

I think this "he and his friend who witnessed it refused a polygraph test" pretty much closes the debate.

"Would you be open to the idea that if the true variables and relationships are found as searched for after the abandonment of statics, this would make an better and even safer world by providing better quality control tools?" Not reliably. For example, it might take a very long time to do so and, in that time, a lot of planes might crash. In the mean time, stats does quite a good job. Als, I'm not sure that ara is very well defined in pure maths. "Further, statics have encouraged many studies, inflated by media to mislead people who wish for scientific literacy, such as studies which claims "public speaking is the number 1 fear"..." Nope, stats is a tool like any other. You can use it to inform people and help them understand things, or you can use it to lie with (strictly- you have to misuse it). What you are talking about there is bad journalism, not statistics.

"Can peopIe SpontaneousIy Combust?" Probably not: too much water.

I'm not sure it matters much which non-existent things get mentioned where.

Well, this "We start life as a zygote with finite mass but no energy exchange with our environment" is wrong. Was there any point reading further?

It's not April yet.

"But a spirit burner is just messy (I think it's a yellow sooty flame, right?)" No. That's about the only point in its favour.

Speaking of claims, remember these? "My model quickly and elegantly solves all the questions like: DM DE gravity magnetism"? Prove it.

1 Iron forms a number of oxides, the one you will get by heating it in air until it melts (Fe3O4 and/ or Fe2O3) will melt at about 1500 C The melting point isn't strongly affected by particle size so it doesn't matter if it's nanoparticulate or not. 2 it doesn't. As pointed out, you need a reducing agent and a lack of air. You can do this below the melting point of iron. In fact, you can do it in solution in water, but not easily. 3 in general, they won't reduce to the metal. If the flame is hot enough, they will melt and become roughly spherical at about 1500C It would help if you explained why you are asking. Also, science uses C or K not F.

OK, prove it. Solve them.

Using just the elements isn't going to work. Carbon is far to unreactive and nitrogen isn't much better. But you can grow organisms on just "simple" compounds. For example, you can grow algae on a diet of water, minerals, CO2, and sunlight.

Kristalris, You don't seem to have understood the situation here. The requirement for evidence from you to support your point is not a debating position, or an optional extra. There is no negotiation to do here. You must supply the evidence. Incidentally, you are no Einstein: he produced testable numerical predictions.

"You copy all of Steve Redgrave the early one and the later one." You can't: he changed.

"When I row I copy Steven Redgrave, and I compare my rowing to his in the sense that I try at my best to emulate that. That is something different than actually thinking my rowing is in anyway up to par with his." OK, but the first time Sir Steve got in a boat, he wasn't a good rower. It would be a bad idea to emulate his style from back then. Why emulate a 16 year old version of Einstein, when you can try to copy the older, wiser one? "Anyway: you lot prove - YOUR! - probandum." Proof of truth in science isn't usually an option. Asking us to do it shows that you still don't understand how science works. On the other hand, we have already put forward evidence in support of it. You have not done so. The ball is in your court.

Through what mechanism? Without a plausible means, the idea is unreasonable. However there's a well documented alternative explanation of why people might believe that it's true even if it isn't.

So there's no difference between breaking the bonds between atoms and breaking the bonds in a molecule (in most cases- notably those cases under consideration such as glass) Atomic and molecular forces are the same thing.

OK, it's fair to say that we are mainly empty space- the gaps between the electrons and the nuclei. So you can argue that we are composed of "matter" and "space". If you squashed us, you would eliminate the space and I guess that's what he means by "pure matter". However,we can play with just protons (like the LHC) or just electrons (like those in an old TV tube). And those would count as "pure matter" When they fire protons at eachother, they repel. So, the repulsive effect due to their charge exceeds the gravitational attraction due to their mass. Gravity is still a lot weaker than the electromagnetic force.

Do you realise that a crystal is a molecule?

Lots of atoms bonded together make a molecule, so what's the difference?

This might help explain it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_reconstruction

"the subshell’s radial pdf (which is really just a scaled diffraction pattern)" Nope, wrong units. A diffraction pattern typically has units of reciprocal distance, but an distribution in space has units of distance (or proportional to distance). Ouch! that's a lot of pages of wrong.

Let me know when there's a shortage of contenders for this http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/

Paper on GM affect effect on the environment