John Cuthber

Show that this statement is false "There are no philosophers" Because I want you to realise that you can't. And I'm wondering if you are trolling, because you repeatedly miss a point that was first made in the 17th century, even when it is pointed out repeatedly.

Snap! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2397903/Businessman-sold-useless-5-fake-bomb-detectors-10-000-jailed-seven-years-fraud.html

Yes, and it has nothing to do with omnipotence. Electrons are not able to choose to do anything. "Belief in God gives peace and hope to countless people, as evidence in the death bed scenarios of people of faith." Faulty logic since many people who are theists still are terrified of death. Not all atheists are scared to die. So, religion may offer some help to some. But I'm still glad you made it through the experience.

Depending on one's opinion of the validity of the conservation of energy, this thread should be in the "speculations" section,or the bin. A gravity shield is a sufficient requirement for one simple form of perpetual motion device. http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/gravshld.htm If Noether is correct (and mathematical theorems tend to be) the claim is impossible and can be dismissed without further consideration. In the mindbendingly unlikely even that they actually have such a device, the consequences for humanity would be so enormous that, frankly, nobody is going to care if I'm wrong: even I will join in the celebrations.

From that wiki page, with the point emphasised. "The average 70 kg adult human body contains approximately 3 x 1027 atoms and contains at least detectable traces of 60 chemical elements." The fact is that, if you look hard enough all the elements with the possible exception of the short lived radioactive ones can be found in the body (including the inert gases). It's just a matter of doing good enough analytical chemistry to detect them I accept that many of them serve no purpose and are just "along for the ride" and some are toxic. However you need to realise that people have evolved to put up with traces of all the elements (and a wholelot of toxic compounds too) so there' is littl merit in trying to remove, for example, the last part per trillion of arsenic. Not only that, the job is pretty much futile. What do you plan to feed these microbes with? If, fore example, you plan to feed them ammonium phosphate (commonly used as a nutrient) I have bad news for you. Given enough time and trouble, I can probably find measurable quantities of things like arsenic in that stuff. So, your idea is essentially flawed. it's pointless (you can improve a lot of human lives much more successfully for less money and effort) and it's technically doomed because your microbes will always have traces of toxic materials in them, just like normal food does.

Ho hum, For the n+1th time (which is the sort of thing that makes me think you are trolling) "No I don't. Understanding logic is useful for dissecting the things people say and working out which bits logically follow on from somethng and which bits are assumptions." You are making the assumption that those people exist. You have no logical grounds to do so. In order to show that logic can be used to dissect what people say, you need to prove that 1 people exist 2 they say things Otherwise you might as well say that logic is very useful in helping unicorns cook leprechauns. It is impossible to decide whether unicorns cook leprechauns. until you have shown that both exist. You have yet to show the existence of people or what they say So, from a strictly logical point of view as I have said a number of times now, you can't get far with logic. Somewhere along the line you have to trust observation too. Please actually try to understand this. Just denying it doesn't help you here. Show that this statement is false "There are no philosophers"

Where?

Exactly where did BJ say that? There were some meaningless political weasel words about " a way to bring them back under a different guise" but actions speak a lot louder than words. Boris and his party have been trashing the education system relentlessly. If you want to improve the education of those from impoverished backgrounds, you don't do it by making things worse for them.

Is there anyone here who can't do this?

I think there's a fairly well established pattern for what religion does with things it doesn't like. First it tries t deny it, then when the evidence is overwhelming, it accepts it and pretends that it was never a problem in the first place. Have a look at what happened to religion with the discovery of the microscope, the moons of Jupiter and evolution as examples.

Indeed, but not any relevant ones. What evidence do you have for only 61 elements in the body? There is one link I could find to the wiki page about tungsten and a couple of things about silica. Please cite some actual evidence rather than just posting a link to your own page In effect you have just told me "it is true because I have written it down somewhere else" and that's frankly an insult to my intelligence.

Because, if you can't then you are not using logic. You are relying on fallible perception. You and I may both believe in the existence of these philosophers, but we have, as you keep pointing out, no logical reason to do so. You have to start by proving that they exist. Good luck with that. Or, you could accept that I was right when I said that the pure logic POV is pointless. Or, I guess you might be trolling.

"I find pure logic fascinating AND useful. So do a lot of philosophers" Citation needed. And, in the circumstances you will need to prove that they are not just figments of my imagination. It's really not my opinion with which you are arguing, it's Descares'. Did you not realise that?

OK, no problem. By pure logic, you can't prove that I'm here (or that anyone or anything else is, but you keep doing things like posting. So you plainly don't care about the pure logic POV. You can't prove that anyone else exists so there's no way to prove that they might have a different outlook. So, As far as pure logic is concerned I have shown that the only person I could cite- you- doesn't follow the pure logic POV. I did say it was a useless POV, didn't I.

Nobody cares about the pure logic POV because all it tells you is that you don't really know anything (ask Descartes). That's no use to anyone (except those seeking to pretend that religion is as well founded as science). The assumption that what has happened tends to continue to happen is indeed an assumption. It is however an assumption based on evidence. It is self- referential to say "(that which has always been observed will continue to be observed)" but that's not a problem, because it's generally true. There are still two systems here, one is based on evidence (and includes, implicitly and often explicitly) the assumption that evidence works. There the other system which, by now, is largely based on deceipt, and contradictory assertions, is called religion.

I don't know. But it might be safer to put a slip of paper in there, and write notes on that.

Given the number of bacteria in your gut (i.e. more than the number of cells in your body) I think it's fair to say that we already derive quite a lot of our nutrition from micro-organisms. What I'm less sure about is the practicality of deriving much of out food from them directly. I'd also like to see the evidence for this "Most people have 61 types of elements in our organs and blood. We only need 28. "

At best, the connection between brain structure and intelligence is rather weak http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/10/12/woman.brain/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2280287/Girl-rare-form-epilepsy-half-BRAIN-removed--improved-condition.html

" In retrospect, our sub-conscious minds analyse the limitless possibilities that exist beyond our state of "rational" thinking. " How? Is there any actual evidence for that, or did you just make it up? "There are times in which these two forms of thought converge, something that is commonly expressed as deja vu." Other explanations are available. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9j%C3%A0_vu "It's my belief that only further study into this form of energy can we truely begin to fathom the true nature of our own existence." Before anyone is going to spend time studying it, you need to show some evidence that it exists.

TBH, that's more useful than I thought this thread would be.

And I am referring you back to it. The problem with looking at individual orbitals isn't that you can't resolve the position to that accuracy. It's that the position of the electron does not exist to that accuracy. You are seeking to say exactly where the electrons are, and that is forbidden by Heisenberg's principle. Your own evidence, once it's correctly interpreted, shows you are wrong. I don't need to follow the deleted link to see that your ideas don't make sense. Of course, since you are plainly wrong, the question is whether this thread should be in speculations or the trashcan. It certainly does not belong on the regular forum threads.

More guidance than you are ever likely to need. http://www.chem.qmul.ac.uk/iupac/

In very rough terms, at 500C the thing will be red hot, the pressure will have trebbled and the steel will have lost something like 20% of its strength.* The aluminium will also have weakened considerably, but it might not have been working so near it's limits in the first place. Based on this http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1345&context=engpapers

It's a difficult question. You can calculate the pressure at any given temperature quite easily, but the steel will weaken a lot as it gets hotter. That second factor is difficult to guess. What you need is an expert in failure analysis.

"Are you able to blur your vision whenever you like and for as long as you want, to switch from sharp to blur in a second at your own command?" Yes, I take my glasses off. ​I can also voluntarily defocus my eyes,. Why bother?