John Cuthber

"I was trying to assert that prurient images stimulate dopamine centers of the brain and create a negative feedback loop that makes the matter worse" Why say "worse" if you? are " not trying to stress on the moral implications of this". "What i am trying to say is that this is a "neurotransmitter illness"" What illness? Your prejudices seem to be getting in the way here.

"I think dark matter doesn't create resistance to moving object" How would you know? Also, I think that one of the few things we do know about dark matter is that it attracts things, so you are wrong.

There's no shortage of naughty pictures- and there never was. Now, here, once again, is the question you are not answering. Why are you labouring under the delusion that it is an obsession, and that it needs "treating"?

Putin and his Iranian counterpart have already learned English. How impressed would they be that another president had also learned a "foreign" language? Speaking a second language is the norm for most educated people in the world. The only people who are likely to think it exceptional are those who speak English, and they may not see it as a good thing.

It's the physics of the stuff we can't see directly, but we know ids present because of the effect its gravity has on other things which we can see. From that we can deduce, for example, where it is (hence the map I cited earlier). I can't see any way that your simple formula could explain that very complicated map. So I think your formula is wrong. If I'm mistaken please provide an explanation of the motions of the stars that works as well as dark matter, but which is based on your equation. I realise that may take you some time.

Plainly nonsense as most children never see a psychologist.

From other people. As far as I can tell, it's more realistic to say that morality creates government, rather than the other way round.

Unless you answer the questions, you are preaching.

Why are you labouring under the delusion that it is an obsession, and that it needs "treating"? Should this be in the "religion" section of the forum?

May I add a few other quick suggestions? Cut some shapes out of cooking foil and pin them to some card + leave it out in the sun. The foil will be more opaque than any paint, but it can't "soak in" so any effect would have to be due to the sun bleaching (or staining) the card. The usual problem with flash illumination is not the colour or nature of the light, but the position of the source, right next to the camera lens. It means that any specular reflection messes up the image (red-eye is an extreme example).

Except on Fridays, when we are up all night to get lucky.

Notwithstanding the paucity of information given in the OP Here's a link to a map of the presumed distribution of dark matter http://sci.esa.int/planck/51604-all-sky-map-of-dark-matter-distribution-in-the-universe/ and it's far more complicated than anything which could be explained by that simple equation. So the data from which the map was compiled agrees with something complicated, but it won't agree with anything with as few terms as that equation. To me that says that the equation is less right than the dark matter explanation. Either that, or the terms in that eqn are horribly complicated 4 dimensional tensors or some such.

The word "complicated" would describe it in most cases.

It would be a nuisance but I could measure out a 300 miligram dose of aspirin for you even if I only had scales that measure to the nearest gram. or even the nearest 10 grams. But you still need to work on the clarity of your questions. You also need to understand that putting ideas like the soul into a scientific discussion is, at best, a waste of time. "I guess the real question is, why did science evolve in this fashion in our current world today???" Well, here's the simple answer. http://xkcd.com/54/

;-) To be fair it does say "killed 100% of sample breast cancer cells without toxic side effects on normal cells. " Thought I will believe this is significant when I see it used in mainstream medicine.

A good place to start is; don't watch fox news. http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2011/knowless/

What you try to do is a better experiment. Redesign the experiment so that you are not using a steep part of the graph (easier said than done but it is, for example, the reason why the litre is defined as the volume of water at the temperature of maximum density. Because it's a local maximum (near 4C) small changes won't matter. As for what I'd do in a test: I'd follow the instructions I had got in the class or the textbook. They test shouldn't include this sort of thing if you were not told about it in the books.

"Did I miss something!. didn't somebody ought to have told us ALL ." No, you didn't miss the announcement(s). That's why you know about it.

This sort of thing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schotten%E2%80%93Baumann_reaction

The simple answer is that one can stick your hand "in" a hologram and I have done it. I put the "in" in quotes because, of course, the hologram is actually the piece of glass or whatever on which the image is recorded. But you can put your hand where the image appears to be. You don't feel anything special.

If you talk about "Inner shell electrons" you have "painted them purple" in that you have said that they are distinguishable from other electrons. They are not.

Good point, I had assumed an even number of digits. Function, Say n=4 10^n = 10000 10^n -1 = 9999 (10^n-1)/9 =1111 It's just another way of expressing a string of 1s in terms of the number of 1s.

The periodic table was as much a discovery as an invention. Cloning has next to nothing to do with chemistry. The soul has even less. The problem with trying to involve a "soul" in science is that there is no reason to believe that a soul exists. The clear answer to the question " Would chemistry still exist, if their were no " man made" measuring devices?" is yes. "Can a scientist " without these devices" still perform science methods as normal routine?" Matter of definition. Am I allowed to make the devices? If so then I can still do science. If not then the scope is a bit limited, but I could, for example, still make soap.

It might be easier to work in binary where they are all of the form 2^n -1 The base 10 repunits are of the form (10^n -1) /9

It is good.