John Cuthber

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.

The heat capacities are a red herring too.

Tar, rather than talking about redundancies where you work, or your abilities as a psychic, why not address the real issue. How could a society without morals hang together long enough to create a religion? Stop wasting time with off-topic red herrings like "But how are you going to get them all to follow the Golden Rule." Incidentally, most social animals have non-verbal communication skills that benefit the group- sometimes at the expense of the individual. They have , in that lose sense, morals. Yet they have no religion: horses do not ponder the creation of the universe or the likelihood of an afterlife. So your example argues against your point,rather than for it. 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.

Yes and no. If you used anhydrous HF then you would (possibly) get UF6 (I rather suspect you would get a fluoro-uranyl fluorosilicate of some sort) In aqueous solution you would get a different mess. Frankly, if you know that little about chemistry I'd advise against working with uranium hydrofluoric acid: it's rather toxic.

The heat has to go somewhere. In principle it's possible to make that "somewhere" the rest of the room or something so it doesn't do any harm. http://www.edmundoptics.com/optics/optical-filters/shortpass-edge-filters/heat-absorbing-glass/2403 But a better solution would be to replace the halogen lamps with LED ones. Putting a 20 dollar filter in front of each lamp is probably more expensive than replacing them

"Obviously John Cuthber has been able to logically define clear moral standards based on just one thought from the Bible "do onto others as you would have them do onto you." Good job. Perhaps you can straighten out the Ukraine and North Korea based on such a scheme. Perhaps not." Nice soundbite, but poor logic. If all the people in North Korea (including the loony in charge) actually followed the idea that one should "do onto others as you would have them do onto you." do you not think that would essentially solve their problems? Incidentally that school plaque says the honour code came from the school founders, rather than their religion. It seems a sensible enough code. Anyway, I'm still not religious and I still have morals.

Uranium glass contains typically 1% or so of uranium (presumably as a silicate). The rest is glass (hence the name). So, at best the acid might leach uranium from the surface of the powdered glass, but most of it would be stuck inside the grains of glass. You won't get that out unless you dissolve the glass somehow. That's why Enthalpy said "Last time I had HCl in glass it didn't dissolve it." Frankly, if you know that little about chemistry I'd advise against working with uranium: it's rather toxic.

"The glass I just grind up into powder, than wash it in HCL to dissolve the uranium oxide." What uranium oxide?