John Cuthber

For any given (finite) size of photon, I simply have to wait till the Universe is big enough for it.

Roughly red hot.

" In many cases, such as for monochromatic light or for atoms, this quantum of action also implies that only certain energy levels are allowed, and values in-between are forbidden"" "Many" is not the same as "all". There may be an upper bound to photon energy, (and thus a lower bound to wavelength) But there's no upper bound to the wavelength. Also, there are excited states for the hydrogen atom with arbitrarily small separations between them. Photons absorbed and emitted by transitions between those states have arbitrarily long wavelengths. Give me a wavelength, and I can calculate the two states required to give a longer wavelength.(and an infinite number of possible longer wavelengths too)

What do you mean by "laser prism"? Anyway, since refraction of light needs some material to be there to refract the light: it can't happen in a vacuum.

"Any solid existing in the universe possesses melting point." No, for two reasons. Some things decompose before they melt. Melting temperatures are dependent on pressure, so they are not strictly points. Ice at the bottom of the ocean has a different melting point from ice on the surface. "Let us take another example of a Polythene bag. It is chemically a polymer of Ethylene (CH2=CH2). The Melting point of ethylene is 104.0K. But due to the polymer bonds, the melting point of polyethylene is amplified to 280K" Obviously wrong. 280 K is about 7C. Most polythene bags I have seen are warmer than that, and they are not molten. "The whole substance is uniform, the melting point of each monomer is same and hence the net melting point is same." No, polymers are mixtures of different components, that's why they usually have a rather poorly defined melting point (or, more realistically a melting range). "The melting point of each compound is different " Cellulose doesn't have a melting point, you can not melt it because it will decompose before it melts. "van der Waal's force; hydrogen bond; and covalent bond. And due to heat, vdW bond breaks first, and then H2 bond and finally covalent bond." No, the hydrogen bonds are the weakest, but there are lots of them so, if you try to heat cellulose until it melts the covalent bonds start to break before all of the hydrogen bonds are broken. That's why it decomposes. "Hypothetically, this is possible but not practically." No, not really. ​It'snot hypothetically possible either.

Your vision of utopia doesn't tally with mine. "Don't you think that is the best way to control the quality of food needy people eat? " no, a decent income is and education are the best way to do that. "They would be monitored by security cameras so folks will feel safe." I don't feel safe while being spied on. " That is a lot of transportation that would be eliminated. " No, it's a lot of transportation shifted from moving food, which is easy, to moving people to that food which is more difficult.

Word salad. It's not a theory. It has no predictive power, and it's not even properly explained.

Hang on, where did you get the idea that " people who synthesize acetone in their garage " are any significant part of chemistry? By analogy, will someone who makes their own cloud chamber at home turn physics into alchemy? Does an amateur plant breeder turn biology into "out-dated, useless, mythical ritual that has no equivalence or purpose to the science of the future"? There just isn't any link between where you start in that post, and where you end up. Alchemists were trying to do one of a few impossible things- the philosopers stone, transmutataiion of elements or whatever. Chemitsts are not trying to do impossible things (even if they are making acetone in the garage).

Or, you can just carry on using the sameseed supplies that you always have done. Also, they don't do it "so the seed must be bought again". They do it because they were told very clearly to make sure that GM crops didn't escape into the wider environment. This terminator technology does that . And now there are complaints about them doing what they were told to do. Also the idea that plants produce their own pesticides doesn't sound like Star Trek to me. It sounds like what plants have been doing for millions of years. What do you think poisonous plants are doing?

Price.

Yes, you did respond, but you didn't answer. If someone asks me the time and I say "Yellow with greenstripes- especially in the South" it's a repsonse, but it's not an answer. You said " Check out how long it took to "show" that industrial hydrogenation of vegetable oils did harm. Consider that it was flat out lethal, directly killing people that whole time, and will continue to kill ..." which isn't anything to do with GMO. Please actually ansewer the question. Please show me the scientific evidence of harm done by gmo.

I may be mistaken, but I think that many people who qualify for food stamps ave jobs- just poorly paid ones. so, when do you plan to organise the food? Will it be during the normal working day? Many people who need (office cleaners etc) it work antisocial shifts. Also re. this "There should also be an adjoining employment office, so the unemployed can get a free meal while they work at finding their next job. " makes a tacit assumption which doesn't seem to tally with thefacts. Why assume ther's a "next job"? I don't know the figures for the US but here in the UK the number of jobs available is outstripped about 5 to 1 by the number of unemployed people. At best you could find jobs for a fifth of them. Then what? What do you do with the other 80%? "There should be about an hour wait in line to discourage people who don't really need it. Or am I just delusional? " My guess is that you are uninformed, or misinformed. Again this data is for the UK, rather than the US but... Do you know that (here) less than 3% of benefit expenditure is paid to the unemployed? http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn13.pdf Getting them all jobs would hardly affect the cost of welfare. If, (in the UK) benefits were properly assessed, there would be a net increase in cost because there are about 12 billion pounds of unclaimed benefits owed to people. On theother hand, about 2 billion in fraudulent payemnts would be stopped. Net, the effct woyuld be about ten billion more bieing paid out. http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-qa-benefit-fraud-perspective/15796 If the people who showed up at the food halls had a proper opportunity to see what they(and others) were entitled to claim under the current system, the cost would increase. Of course, if, rather than worry about the 3% of benfits paid to the unemployed ( 3%of about 200 Billion so about 6 billion, most (about 99%) of which is legitimate) you looked at corporate tax avoidance (estimates vary, but about 30 Billion) you could make a real difference Are similar figures available for the US? I'd be interested to see them.

Overtone, you seem, to have missed this Not citing evidence when asked harms your argument gravely.Also the man falling from the 10th floor may have seen reports like this http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.nr0.htm so he would have every reason to worry. There is already scientific evidence for harm from falling. Where are the corresponding reports for GMO deaths? r did you not realise that you were arguing against yourself there?

What else is present in the solution? Is it in clean water or urine or blood serum or something? I strongly suspect that, in the presence of excess iron, you can measure the stuff spectrophotometrically.

This stuff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betanin does react with oxygen, but I think it's probably as slow as the rusting iron.

"Right back atcha - with the difference that you don't actually have an argument to strengthen, as far as is visible here." Nope, his argument is perfectly visible. You say "That isn't true, and my guess is the falsehood is unintentional. " re "The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of GE crops;" Please show me the scientific evidence of harm done.

As time goes on and we learn more things one of those sorts of faith looks increasingly creaky, while the other looks more and more successful. They just are not the same thing.

Yes, the whole point of a scientific theory is that it can be used to make predictions. But let me remind you that you won't get barred for being plain wrong. You won't even get barred for expressing contrary opinions. What you will get banned for, if you are not careful is one of two breaches of the rules Soap boxing- where you fail to respond to criticism of your ideas or making false allegations about other groups like this "Annnnnd, I also noticed that you did not address the fact that China and India and most other un-developed countries are not gonna do anything about their emissions...." If you are banned it won't make you a martyr to any cause, just someone who couldn't follow some simple rules.

Swansont, you missed out a qualifying adjective. Pure logic is not much use. Descartes tried it and got to I think therefore I am, but realised that, with just logic, you can't get any further. You need to add observations and assumptions to get anywhere. Those assumptions (for example, that, if something has often happened before then it's likely to happen again) are exactly the sort of things that are being challenged by some people here. I'm just pointing out that, without them, you get nowhere. "Isn't it the assumption itself (that what has always been observed will continue to be observed) that is in question (from a pure logic pov) rather than the data itself?" Yes, from a pure logic pov "(that what has always been observed will continue to be observed)" is not just in question, it's an unevinced assertion. But so is absolutely everything else. For example, from a pure logic POV there may, or may not be any philosophers to discuss this issue. So, the quoted statement is true, but gets you nowhere. From a practical, rather than strictly logical, pov, the idea that "(that what has always been observed will continue to be observed)" is very useful indeed.

It will work, at least to some extent, but it will be slow. You can check by seeing how fast the volume of a closed sample of air falls when exposed to the wool. There's also every chance that some hydrogen will be produced. This might help you find out how well the oxygen is being removed http://chem.sci.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp/v13n1/10_2d4_1.pdf What do you want the O2 free air for? If it's just a gas that is not oxygen then you might do better using yeast and sugar to make CO2

Antimatter is free. It rains down from the sky as part of the cosmic radiation to which the Earth is exposed. Harvesting it would be a challenge.

In a manner that's slightly insane, Castoreum extract has a cas number 8023-83-4 Not all materials with cas numbers are pure chemicals

There is nothing silly about asking to to provide evidence for an assertion. You claim that " logic is useful for dissecting the things people say " I am asking you to prove that your statement is correct. I am also pointing out that, to be consistent, you have to use pure logic to do so. I'm also pointing out that you will fail because you will run into the same limit that Descartes did. So saying "You claimed nobody cares about pure logic. I stated they do which is fairly obvious given that universities run courses on it," is pointless unless you can use logic to demonstrate that those universities exist. "Why don't you support your claim that nobody cares about pure logic? " I have, repeatedly, but you don't notice. Now, tell me what you can use pure logic for? (Since languages are not logical, you can't discuss them with pure logic; you have to include a whole bunch of assumptions and approximations.)

A better question would be should India and China declare war on the USA to get the USA to sign up to the internationally agreed standards which the US is ignoring? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Kyoto_Protocol Did you not realise you had that completely backwards? You just insulted two of the most populous nations on earth through apparently staggering ignorance. Are you trolling?

How soluble is agar? Could you dissolve the packet into 100 ml and then split that into, for example, 10 lots of 10 ml. Since they are portions of a liquid, they should be pretty much identical to one another. Then each time you need some more agar, take a portion and make it up to 100 ml. You would probably need to freeze the stock solution and that will mess up the gel, but redissolving it into boiling water should reconstitute it. You would need to autoclave it to be sure it's sterile, but presumably, you would be doing that anyway.