John Cuthber

" 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?

The idiot also said "The growing gulf between rich and poor is inevitable because millions of people are too stupid to get on in life,." Damn! I wish I had been clever enough to be born into a millionaire aristocratic family like Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson's. How foolish of me not to arrange that. Obviously my fault, as I wasn't paying attention at the time.

If you think the sun only rises 60% of the time then you have not been paying attention. Or was that just an attempt to divert attention away from how successful science is and what a poor showing religion has when it comes to actually achieving things? If it was the latter then I think you failed quite spectacularly. Most of us still know what evidence is and that it is the distinction between science and religion.. Also, you seem to be deliberately missing the point that it is backed by experimental evidence (in a way that religious faith is not).

Perhaps I need someone to shine a searchlight on this problem for me.

You need to learn that induction, while not absolutely reliable, is the basis on which most human progress has been made. Comparing it to the made up fantasy world that is religion doesn't make you look good. You also need to realise that I do understand its flaws, that why I said " and things that are repeatable tend to be repeatable" rather than "and things that are repeatable are repeatable" Your assertion of my ignorance flies in the face of the facts.

It's as if the NSA have heard people saying things like "David Cameron is a wanker" and they are taking it literally.

Odd as it may seem I was trying to solve a similar problem at work a while ago. I was trying to predict the melting points of mixtures of 2 materials, given very little starting data. What I had was the melting points of the 2 materials and their cryoscopic constants. Here is the world's worst diagram Anyway, I had the gradients at the two extremes of the range and I had the values at those ends too. I ended up fitting a cubic equation to the data because a quadratic wouldn't fit. I was then able to estimate the melting points of the mixtures in between. the point is that I couldn't get a quadratic to work- there was "too much" data. So, I suspect that the answer to the question is no. I can draw a parabola through a point with a given gradient at that point and which passes through a second point, but I have run out of variables to decide what the gradient will be at that second point. I think you would need to use cubics, rather than parabolae.

I can't speak for iNow, but my faith that the sun will come up tomorrow is based on evidence (it has come up every morning before, and things that are repeatable tend to be repeatable) If I was asleep at the time, my mind (and it's habits) wouldn't be affecting the break of dawn, but it would still happen. That's half the difference between scientific and religious belief- the importance of evidence. The other difference is that science wants to change, but religion wants to stay the same. Only one of those two strategies can lead to improvement.

Just a thought: after 3 pages discussing "Does Gravity Slow Light Moving Vertically?" is the speed of light (in vacuo) still exactly 299,792,458 metres per second?

"Of course there is reason to believe that the universe can create dream states, or dream." Really? What reason is that? (aside from the obvious answer: I dream. I am part of the universe, so the universe dreams.)

On a related note, what is the most recent "law" in science? Is this a contender? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_law or this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law If you can find the recently defined "laws", perhaps you can see what made them laws rather than theories or whatever.

What's your second guess? http://www.motherearthnews.com/green-transportation/acetylene-engine-zmaz80mazraw.aspx#axzz2lr8tpn23 http://jjmie.hu.edu.jo/files/v3n2/6.pdf I wouldn't choose to do it, the stuff's dangerous as hell, but it can be done.

Whether 31000 years is too long depends on your point of view, but I think most people would say so. Are you immortal?

They don't have a position in the atom. If they did, you would be specifying them, and you can't. All the electrons are in a superposition of all the states. Having said all that, who cares? They haven't actually done any chemistry.

Oops! I got the difficult bit right, then failed to convert a million million seconds into years correctly. It's about 31000 years. (I don't think the factor of 2.687 is going to change the economics much.

If you had a beam current of a microamp (which would be pretty good going, it would produce, under ideal conditions, about 10 billion atoms per second. that's something like a million million seconds per litre. That's something like 31 years. It would be cheaper and more efficient (though still impractical) to get a big closed container and fill it with uranium ore and catch the helium that comes out of that.

"just like in Isaac Asimov's book, " In particular, like that book, this is made up stuff.

I think you also made that mistake here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/79261-proof-abi-abi/?p=771975

that might be important to gravitational lensing, but what about the other evidence for dark matter?