John Cuthber

Please read the following extract of that extract "method used in biometrics by which a person purportedly can be identified" "My method is much more secure in theory." Please read the definition of theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory Please read this account of how to use a laptop as a 'scope. http://www.instructables.com/id/Use-Your-Laptop-as-Oscilloscope/

Does your gps work? If it does, that's your evidence- seen with your own eyes. Are you still going to argue against what you can see for yourself? If so, there's no point asking us for evidence because you are ignoring the evidence that you already have.

Graphite would be OK, but its resistivity is a bit high.

You seem to have missed half the question. Chlorine dissolves quite well in water, even though, like iodine, it is non-polar.

A typical glass is about 10 or 20% sodium (as the silicate. That will leach out with dilute acid at least as well as the uranium will. Did you remove it somehow? Or might your "yield" include roughly 5 times as much sodium as uranium? (And there's also Ca, Mg etc to contend with).

I wouldn't even try to get that molecule down a gc column. Too big, too polar.

It's true that gallium attacks some other metals. however, in most cases the attack is slow. In the sort of timescale that schoolwork takes place over I think the only metal that would be really susceptible would be aluminium. I think copper or stainless steel would be fine. It's not as if you will be using the electrodes in some load-bearing safety critical application afterwards so who cares if they fall apart? Also, I'm pleased to see that you thought about it and checked before getting underway. With a bit of effort, you might be able to show that solid gallium is a rather better conductor than the liquid. If Rktpro thinks you need platinum electrodes then he needs to do a bit more research. For a start, gallium attacks platinum.

Read this, then work out how come you think you have all the answers, even though you are a schoolkid while the actual physicists and scientists spot glaring holes in that paper. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Sodium chloride melts about 800C, but you don't get surprised when it dissolves in water at 20C. Why are you surprised that gold dissolves in molten tin? I don't know of any use for that mixture, but mercury is used as a solvent for gold in some processes for extracting it from the ore. The mercury is subsequently boiled off, creating an environmental screw-up.

OK. Here's one aspect that's wrong. " when any charged particle starts accelerating it's apparent charge becomes less as it approaches the speed of light that's why the quarks charge is higher the mass is less (1/3 and 2/3) you can check." Now, when it comes to science, I don't really care what people have told me. I care about the evidence. And the evidence ( from things like synchrotron radiation)shows that the paper is wrong. that's it. the idea is dead. Let it rest in peace. You have already lost the argument. The only question still open is how long it will take you to realise this.

This one isn't being disregarded because it's different. It is being disregarded because it is wrong. It makes predictions that do not agree with the experimental observations. You really need to learn more about evidence.

Me too

It's not a matter of eliminating noise. The original signal simply isn't there. If you set the filters so broad that they will recognise my voice, even when I sound like Lee Marvin, then they will also recognise Le marvin as being me. There's no discrimination left. And, when you say things like "This could be achieved by using an oscilloscope plugged into a laptop." it tells me that you don't really know what you are talking about.

Nonsense. Quite a few physicists here have pointed out that the paper is wrong.

I'm not familiar with guns, but I understand the physics well enough to know that they have a recoil. How does that compare with the thrust available from the rotors? Could any plausible aiming method cope with that?

According to wiki "An aromatic (or aryl) compound contains a set of covalently bound atoms with specific characteristics: A delocalized conjugated π system, most commonly an arrangement of alternating single and double bonds Coplanar structure, with all the contributing atoms in the same plane Contributing atoms arranged in one or more rings A number of π delocalized electrons that is even, but not a multiple of 4. That is, 4n + 2 number of π electrons, where n=0, 1, 2, 3, and so on. This is known as Hückel's Rule." and as far as I can see, that molecule breaks the 4th rule by having 8 pi electrons

I don't see it having any real use in the field of combat. What could it do that couldn't be achieved more easily with an artillery shell?

Yes there is, and your failure to notice that speaks volumes.

Indeed, the only problem with communism is that it doesn't exist. Btw, if you are going to make a spelling mistake while calling dumb, don't put it in CAPITAL LETTERS.

"Collision with train I would split to two stages: acceleration of body, and then deceleration during hitting ground. If ground is solid, not liquid, the most of damage to body will come from this stage." If, and only if, the ground is as rigid as the train. That's unlikely. Also, I'd be dead by then so it wouldn't matter. "Rather more natural one as ...launching rocket with astronauts." That's an unorthodox use of the word "natural" "if astronaut in suit would jump out of spaceship 100+ km above Moon, or other planet without atmosphere, would he be still alive prior hitting Moon/planet surface? Or he would die just because of acceleration of planet during jump..?" Right, but for the wrong reason. If the planet was made of marshmallow or something, so he fell into it and was cushioned and it took him 100 km to come to a halt, the average acceleration during his "stop" would be the same as his acceleration during the fall. He would be fine. What you are ignoring is the very large value of the acceleration that happens when you stop something suddenly It's not that he's stopping that causes the damage, it's that he does it over a small distance. That's why the train driver isn't damaged by the train starting or stopping, but someone hit by a train (and so accelerated to the speed of the train very quickly) is smeared across the engine.

Or, then again,

Re. ". I’ve come across a jr dr from Imperial who passed her exams by remembering letter associations, like: L is for low lives so LDL cholesterol is bad, H is for heroes so HDL cholesterol is good." While at Oxford I learned a mnemonic for the lanthanides: late college parties never persuade Samantha's european girls to dispense hospitality, even though you linger. Does that tell you 1) something about the quality of education in the UK or 2) that people are better at remembering mnemonics if they are a bit silly. Actually, don't bother to answer. It has little or nothing to do with the topic.

So, if I'm hit by a train and, thereby rapidly accelerated to the sped of the engine, I will be OK because I'm not slowing down, but speeding up. Or are you looking at it from the driver's point of view. He seem me coming towards him really fast, but suddenly (and messily) stop just in front of him. It really is all a matter of perspective.

Horses don't (generally) generate as much as a horsepower.

So, it won't work if I have a cold or sore throat which changes my voice and it will require me to undress a lot because my clothes might be bulky enough to mislead it. Congratulations; you just made fingerprinting everybody at the airport look like a practical suggestion.