John Cuthber

Is there a translation problem here? spirit glass http://www.johnlewis.com/home-garden/glassware/spirit-liqueur-glasses/c800008047 Spirit level http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_level Anyway, Ethanol doesn't absorb visible light. You could measure it by infra red absorption spectroscopy (or, in principle, by short wave UV but that's not going to be easy). You could also measure it by NMR By far the easiest way to get a reasonable estimate of an alcohol concentration is to measure the density. What equipment do you have access to?

There's no way that iron smelted " from bog iron ore in a clay furnace, exactly like iron was made several thousand years ago" is anything like pure iron. Different concentrations of impurities in different parts of the metal could mean that some parts are protected from rusting in much the same way that anodic protection or galvanising work. It's also possible that chromium adventitiously present is reducing the tendency to rust. it's interesting though. Do you know anyone who could get it analysed for you?

5 pages of debate ranging onto topics like whether God has a backbone? I am an atheist. I am not religious.* Therefore not all atheists are religious. At least some people are both- notably Buddhists- so some atheists are religious. Since not all atheists are religious, atheism is not a religion. End of debate, surely? * for all non- F***witted definitions of religious. so, for example from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/religious 1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity. No 2. Of, concerned with, or teaching religion: a religious text. No 3. Extremely scrupulous or conscientious: religious devotion to duty. No 1. of, relating to, or concerned with religion No 2. a. pious; devout; godly No b. (as collective noun; preceded by the) the religious 3. appropriate to or in accordance with the principles of a religion No 4. scrupulous, exact, or conscientious No 5. (Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms) Christianity of or relating to a way of life dedicated to religion by the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, and defined by a monastic rule No 1. of or pertaining to religion: a religious holiday. No 2. imbued with religion; pious; devout. No 3. scrupulously faithful; conscientious: with religious care.No 4. pertaining to or connected with a monastic or religious order. No 5. appropriate to religion or to sacred rites or observances. No n. 6. a member of a religious order; a monk, friar, or nun. No Essentially, if you show me a definition of "religious" which includes me, I will show you why it makes no sense. OK?

It's complicated. Small quantities of alcohol are probably not significantly harmful: they may even be beneficial. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to find it hard to stop after "small quantities" and when it comes down to it, the stuff is toxic. Drink more, and you suffer a greater risk of damage.

There is obviously no such thing as "the one energy which we are all constituents of"

Sorry, when did we arrive at the consensus that car crashes are not dangerous enough? Did I miss something? Also things like this "Because thorium is so dense it has the potential to produce tremendous amounts of heat. The company has been experimenting with small bits of thorium, creating a laser that heats water, " are plainly nonsense

Specifically, it's like trying to pull teeth from a daffodil. True, but the guy is talking utter nonsense/

If you had a big enough cloud of gas it would tend to sink towards the middle of the cloud. It would also tend to diffuse away. Which tendency won would depend on the size of the cloud and its temperature.

Sorry, I must have missed something, Where did the number 17 in the OP come from?

It's unusual that anyone takes the trouble to pipe water to a tap without cleaning it up but it's possible. However given that the person asking the question has access to a computer, I'm betting that they are not stuck in the middle of nowhere. On the other hand, access to a computer and the web exposes people to all sorts of hogwash about "dangerous" impurities in the water. "Water safe to drink!" isn't going to sell as much advertising as "Water not safe to drink!"

"Has anyone ever had an idea so novel that it was incapable of being described in pre-existing words?" Clearly yes- language was such an idea, a bit like the baby learning to talk. The first word couldn't be described in words. When Someone invented the light bulb they didn't call it that. They thought of a hot filament in an evacuated jar. But the point is that they almost certainly visualised the idea rather than putting the words together and realising that those words described something which would work. There are other reasons to accept that people don't think in a language, or, at least, not always. Together with the fact that there are lots of translators in the world, the OP's idea is, as far as I can see, dead in the water.

No. Or, at least, very probably no.

When I said "Run away really quickly ?" I was referring to Doppler shifting the blue light to make it red. I did say "really quickly "

There's a flaw in this whole thread- the idea that we (only) think in a language. As babies we all decided to learn to talk, but we had no language in which to think that. If we thought in language, no illustrations would be needed in books or on-line- text would do just fine. Also, how could someone come up with a new idea? They wouldn't have a word for it. So it wouldn't exist in their language so they couldn't think it.

"The nature of light does not depend on who divides it," But the way it is divided depends on who divides it and how they choose to do so. ". I offer an interpretation that works," No it doesn't. Some of the things it gets wrong have been pointed out earlier in this thread: the stuff about octaves for example.

" So can any other mortal man with a prism. " Other cultures divide the rainbow differently. "The actual distance between pure tones is equal and is 15 degrees of the circumference of a circle" The angles depend on the nature of the prism. You are wrong in essentially every way. Why carry on? Why not try to counter our points?

"Try neutralising some of the product and then see what it does to the egg white." I did that too, it doesn't work as well, slightly acidic works better." What does that tell you? The guanidinium ion will be present as that ion in acid, neutral or slightly alkaline solution so if it's doing the denaturing, the pH shouldn't matter. Are there shops that cater for home gardeners where you are? That's where I get ammonium sulphate from.

Run away really quickly ? Fluorescence? Why do you want to know?

Why is it that some people, who would normally understand the basic idea that biodiversity is a good thing, forget it when they consider humans? Incidentally, Arnknd, there's a very good chance that your genome contains "faults" that some would want to see selected out. How happy would you be with that?

You do things like add and divide or sin(x) with numbers. Operators act on functions, rather than on numbers.

It's possible that some denaturing of the protein is due to the acid rather tan guanidinium. . A lot of the recipes for meringue include vinegar or cream of tartar as a weak acid to coagulate the proteins. Try neutralising some of the product and then see what it does to the egg white. If you ad an excess of calcium carbonate to a solution of the material then filter off the calcium carbonate and sulphate you should get a fairly nearly neutral solution. If you boil it down that will drive off any ammonium carbonate and you should get a solution with any guanidinium salts and a little calcium sulphate. (Barium carbonate would be better but calcium carbonate is much easier to get.) "I have already evidence that part of X+ is ammonium, I need to know if there are appreciable amounts of guanadinium as well, which is why a guanidine specific test is important." A titration would tell you not just that it is present, but how much. You should also do a similar egg-white experiment wit ammonium sulphate (It's cheaply available as a fertiliser)

Congratulations, you have proved that the stuff either contains guanidinium or ammonium sulphate, both of which will precipitate proteins. http://web.mnstate.edu/provost/AmmoniumSulfateProtocol.pdf But I didn't think that was a matter of contention. You have shown that egg white proteins are soluble in 20% sulphuric acid. Again, that's probably not news. What you need is something a bit more definitive. Do you have a pH meter? A plot of pH vs amount of added sodium hydroxide would give a pretty clear indication of the presence of Sulphuric acid, bisulphate, and ammonium ions. Even if you don't know the exact concentration of the hydroxide, the ratios of the amounts would be informative.

To say something is "obvious" leads to the question "obvious to whom?" It's clear to me that the oscilloscope "demo" was a trick (switching the slope detection on the scope.) But it looks convincing if you don't know that there's a switch on the'scope that does that. "Of course the comment is ludicrous as science doesn't depend on trusting a man in a white coat" That's not the point though, is it? The point is not what science actually does, but what people think science does. The comment isn't aimed at warning people who are scientists- it's aimed at people who get taken advantage of by people feigning science. And you are simply mistaken to say "It isn't a vaguely convincing lie. " It would convince many people- perhaps most.

If they don't give the promotion to anyone they don't go to church with then the extent to which I identify myself as an atheist doesn't matter does it? That's what discrimination means

Or you could just put a beaker of ice in the oven while the camera isn't looking and then move the camera and take the ice out again. Magic!