John Cuthber

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!

I'm concerned about "freedom of choice" among people who have been told " You will go to hell if you don't". Incidentally, in the long term these girls will grow up and - notwithstanding the abuse, they will get pregnant. If they stay in the UK (or the West in general) they will almost certainly end up in hospital having their children. And, at that point, it will be clear to the midwife/ doctor that they were mutilated as children. In my opinion, it's reasonable to prosecute the parents, even at that late stage.

Actually, there are a shed full of problems with this "It's not a matter of whether or not they are atheist when identifying themselves. What the degree is indicating is how much they identify as an atheist. As in how important is it to you that you are atheist?" For a start, what answer could I give to the question " how important is it to you that you are atheist?" Is 37% a valid answer? But it's still not actually important because the discrimination they suffer is due to being (known to be) an atheist so it doesn't matter if the answer is 1% or 100% or whatever. It wouldn't matter to those doing the discriminating.

Also, most meat is pretty similar to other meat in terms of protein structure.

It's from this side comment "As a final note on chaotropic salts, guanidinium-HCI has the undesirable property of forming an insoluble precipitate (guanidinium dodecyl sulfate) in the ." here http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4Yp2p-PqDHwC&pg=PA313&lpg=PA313&dq=%22precipitate+guanidinium%22&source=bl&ots=cTift7vo8S&sig=uP4r0rT76h2N0DBAEscLWHA5-L8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TBh-UtGlI8bA7AbjkoCoBA&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22precipitate%20guanidinium%22&f=false

It's a fake, but it's very carefully done. One of the comments on you tube translates as "This documentary on the microwave oven is a scientific fraud. It was designed to show that experiments performed in a specialized laboratory, with the scientific support of a physician in a white coat, are not absolutely guarantee a reliable and serious scientific message. Stay alert. Do not believe everything you are told on the internet"

The first one says "Survey found that 41% of self-identified atheists reported experiencing discrimination in the last 5 years due to their lack of religious identification. " Identifying yourself as an atheists isn't complicated. Do you believe there's a God any more than you believe that, for example, there are unicorns? Nope, then you're an atheist. So this "First study doesn't present data on how strongly the subjects identify with atheism. Without knowing how strongly they feel about and believe themselves to be atheist, how can anyone know whether they are or if it's something that they still are deciding for themselves. " is nonsense. The figures don't really matter very much. If one person is discriminated against because of their atheism then there is a problem. "Despite the arguments I've been putting in this thread, I don't believe atheists to be religious, merely that the definition we use to describe religion would make atheism included" So you say you are using the wrong definition?