John Cuthber

Anyone who writes "For starters, to split a water molecule, you need a perfect circuit and around 241800 joules of electricity to split one dihydrogen monoxide molecule," clearly doesn't know what they are talking about. That number is wrong by something like a million million million fold (maybe more, I lost track of the zeroes.).

Action followed by reaction over reaction is, I believe, a law of physics politics.

Nobody said you did, I said you were in the same position as some, hypothetical individual, who had said it. Specifically, you were in the position of someone who was ignoring the real world. Did you genuinely misinterpret what I said,or was that another strawman? At least you answered the question this time.

Unless the aliens don't happen to use DNA, in which case the aliens will be immune. Your pet dog doesn't suffer from the same viruses you do; why assume an alien would?

At least one purpose of a government is to help the people support other people. So it doesn't make sense to me to ask which should do more. If, for example, the government pays money to stop people who cant't find jobs starving, they are doing that with money given to them by the people to do that sort of thing. The government can't support the people unless the people support the government.

One of the facts that makes your point of view nonsense is that it's at odds with reality. As I have said on many occasions, my existence proves that you are wrong. My most recent explanation was to ask you "Do you not understand that you are in the same position as someone saying "There can't be mammals that live underwater; how could they breathe or give birth and suckle their young?" Well the answer is that I don't know and I don't care; dolphins do it, so it's possible." And, as I might have predicted, you ignored the question (I have highlighted for you the fact that it's a question by making the punctuation really big).

"If you are here with morals and no religion." Get with the programme Tar, there's no "if" about it. I dont need to explain "how" because I can simply point out that I am here. Do you not understand that you are in the same position as someone saying "There can't be mammals that live underwater; how could they breathe or give birth and suckle their young?" Well the answer is that I don't know and I don't care; dolphins do it, so it's possible.

diffraction grating.

If the aliens were clever they could just tip a few points in favor of the political right wing and let most of the human race destroy itself. It takes time to cross interstellar space; we can assume these aliens are patient. On the other hand, we are aware that it makes sense to send robot probes to, for example, mars and venus, because we don't want to send people on a suicide mission. Might the aliens feel the same way? So, what we would meet first would not be an invading army, but a drone. A bloke with a good pair of boots could destroy any of the probes we sent outside Earth's gravitational domain. How frightened do we need to be here? isn't it plausible that, for every Earth like planet with "people" on it, there are dozens with nothing more aggressive than pondweed? How dumb would the aliens be to pitch a fight so far from home?

I'd like to click the "up arrow" on that quite a lot of times. It would be less annoying it that were the only cartload of tripe coming at us from some quarters. Here's a few "coincidences" http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/11/01/only-tea-party-members-believe-climate-change-is-not-happening-new-pew-poll-finds/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/republican-tax-cuts Now, I accept that some people would say that's "partisan", but my belief is that it's simply an observation. The Right wing (They call them Tories in the UK, but the ideas are the same) are planning to trash the world so that they can maintain their privileged lifestyle. Someone will probably complain that my assertion is off topic. I disagree. I think the right wing are the essential reason why the OP says "Not knowing anything about Environmental Science; makes it difficult to jump into the controversy, and understand the informal current 2014 scientific consensus!" Nope, your lack of understanding of the subject doesn't make it difficult to jump into the discussion. What makes it difficult is outright dishonesty by the right wing which parallels that by the tobacco industry.

MO3 is quite volatile at 1100C

"I think it's fair to give the planet life, for it gives us life;" Nobody else here seems to think that. Do you know why? Here's a clue, we tend to look for evidence. "A sky fairy and wisdom are different" YEp, one of them can be clearly shown to exist.

"Well I am pretty sure my s..thead dog knows very well that the reason I am pissed at him is because he pissed in my house. I heard on the radio today that dog behaviourists know that a dog does not feel guilt, and the ears folded against the head and the "guilty" eyes are a reaction to your tirade, and they do not feel any guilt about peeing on Moma's white lace curtains." More red herring. "Add to this "problem" with your line of thinking, the fact that 9 billion people on this Earth all have the dog's sense of morals," More straw manning. "They did not just POP into your head." somewhere between a straw man and a refusal to see the evidence. (They didn't Pop up there, evolution built them long before there was any idea of God. So they really are there without me learning them but, by dissembling about their source, you pretend they don't exist.) Just stop it. Face the fact that I'm here with morals and no religion.

The other issue that gets glossed over is that they didn't exhibit free fall. "The observed descent time of the upper 18 stories of the north face of WTC 7 (the floors clearly visible in the video evidence) was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time." This whole thread is like a discussion of how Stalin was assassinated in 1943.

I'm sort of looking forward to the discussion of heat capacities.

"How could a society without a common set of beliefs hang together at all?" Ask a bee. "The general scheme of a story is to set the stage, develop the characters, introduce conflict, build to a climax, and have the conflict resolved by "doing the right thing", and live happily ever after." Do you realise that that text is about as relevant as a knitting pattern? "P.S. I am not B.S.ing anybody. I actually believe what I say makes a lot of sense." What, even the red herrings I have pointed out? Even the lack of an answer to the point about a society needing to exist before it can form a religion? "If I am wrong, show me where and how it doesn't work." As I (and others) have said plenty of times, you keep putting the cart before the horse. We know that other apes have a sense of morals. It's fair to assume that our ancestors did too. And so they had those before they developed any sort of religion. So, at that point, they plainly had morals, but no religion. And, above all, you keep trying to pretend that I don't exist. How is that not BS?

Unfortunately, the sodium hydroxide dissolves the alumina by reacting with it. You won't get alumina back when it cools. It's an interesting idea but I wonder if it isn't easier to make artificial ruby the way they "usually" do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verneuil_process

One of the things science needs to do is define terms precisely. Otherwise it's impossible to work out what people are talking about. Also as a scientist I already gave you a scientific answer; "There is evidence that wisdom exists." you ignored it. Why? Do you just want someone to say you are right, or are you actually trying to find an answer to the question?

"I know that it can be done in a platinum crucible" Not really. The melting point of alumina is higher than that of platinum. Dissolving it in a molten flux might work. Perhaps sodium hydroxide in a nickel crucible would work, but it's horribly corrosive stuff to work with. What are you trying to do?

You need to learn the difference between abstract nouns and adjectives. Then we can talk about logic. However, it won't stop the answer to the question being no.

the quality of having experience, knowledge, and good judgement; the quality of being wise. . 1 (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. 2.(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity. So, that's a "no".

"Is Wisdom God?" Not according to any conventional definitions of the words that I have heard. What do you mean by "wisdom" and "God"? Once you have definitions you can see if they coincide ort significantly overlap; if they do then, by those definitions, wisdom is God, but I think you will still run into a problem There is evidence that wisdom exists.

Is this sort of dross "How can a snowflake form into a beautiful crystal when it does not know beauty." really the best you can do? "How could the herd stay together for the right reasons, before they knew it was right to stay together??" Herds of cattle have rules, According to you, they learned them in church. "If fitness is what you call morals then you can have it without being human..." But nobody did. Please stop posting red herrings like that. They fool nobody and waste time. How could a society without morals hang together long enough to create a religion? Stop trying to bullshit us and either answer it or accept that you are wrong.

Was stage 1 the bit where the internal structure failed? If so that would explain why there's roughly free fall in stage 2. Of course, it also suggests that no explosives or anything like that were required. And it's consistent with what the report cited very early in this thread says 'NIST NCSTAR 1A, WTC Investigation' said The observed descent time of the upper 18 stories of the north face of WTC 7 (the floors clearly visible in the video evidence) was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time. A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face found three stages: (1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors, (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s, and (3) a decreasing acceleration as the north face encountered resistance from the structure below. Why do you focus on those 2 seconds or so, and ignore the 1st 2 seconds?

As far as I'm aware, all LEDs are dimmable.