John Cuthber

Perhaps you would like to explain this "Anyway, you have a word-virus, therefore I'm more intelligent than you, purely because I'm above the word. " Are you medically qualified to make such a diagnosis? Also this seems odd "Life after death is more probably existent than it is non-existent, because the universe is too complex for you to figure out. " Do you mean that, if I were to be clever enough to understand the universe then life after death would suddenly become less likely? Because that's what you have written. Perhaps you should stop,

What do you mean by "a polarized magnet "?

Denial, in ordinary English usage, is asserting that a statement or allegation is not true. What assertion did he deny? Anyway, I read the rest of your post and it doesn't say much. It is word salad. It's just a mixture of baseless assertions and bad metaphors (you may not have realised this, but sleep isn't the same as death)

The point I was making was that no "physician" was likely to have checked. It's likely that Joseph would have known, but he might have kept quite for two reasons- first (and most obvious) he was the reason. Secondly- perhaps he loved her and was prepared to forgive her "indiscretion" even, or perhaps especially, in a society that would have killed her for it.

Yes, the current level for example.

I remember that the story included Mary, her sister, Joseph, God, some Angels and Shepherds etc, but as far as I recall, no physicians. There were some "wise men" but they got there a bit late to comment on the issue. As far as I can tell, the "evidence" of Mary's virginity s that she said so, I suspect that not all such assertions are honest and accurate.

There is not enough information to answer the question. Why do you think there is?

There are at least two reasons why this line of debate isn't going anywhere. Firstly, there is no real evidence for miracles. Secondly, if there were a God who created the universe then He created the laws of physics and would presumably be in a position to suspend them as and when He wanted so there's no reason to think that a God-given miracle should follow those laws.

"That's when gangrene is a problem because a major trauma, like having parts of your body pinned under something heavy for hours or getting shot in war, causes a massive quantity of your body tissue to lose its supply of oxygen and that is indeed a problem for the oxygen-deprived tissue - it is called ischemia -" or not, but Yeah, we know. Get back to me when you get to the bit where you realise that t it spreads to healthy tissue. Don't forget that this "It's not the case that if you inject a strictly anaerobic bacteria into healthy tissue that the ..." isn't relevant. You plan to introduce them to a tumour. Had you forgotten that that was the point?

"Jesus being a special type of XX male" i.e. a girl. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x98cE4QCrlk "Turning water into wine is perfectly allowed within the known laws of physics." probably sort of true, but the gamma radiation from the transformations would have fried everybody present.

RBwinn,the number starts with 9. What is is?

To be fair, most of what I cited was also wiki. The difference is I understood it.

The GPS satellites orbit the earth at an altitude of about 20,200 km They orbit the earth twice each sidereal day. A sidereal day is about 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4.0916 seconds. That gives you the data for a figure for the orbital speed (measured from an earth based frame of reference) They have atomic clocks in them, I believe they are Cs beam clocks so for the sake of discussion we can assume they are. It's a simplification but lets say that they use the local Cs frequency and divide it down so they tick exactly once a second (local time). On earth they would be set to count the Cs frequency and they use that to generate the 1 second tick of the clock 1 second = 9,192, 631,770 oscillations of the Cs clock. The ones on the satellites are set to count a different number of oscillations to get a "second" because they system wants that "second" to synchronise with clocks here on Earth (it's not vital- but it makes the maths a lot easier.) On earth (before launch) those clocks are set to run 38 microseconds per day slow. They "count" to 9,192,631,774 oscillations for each second. If someone used your system to set the clock up before it was launched, how many oscillations of the Cs radiation, here on earth, would the set it to count for each second? (Please show the working as well as the number)

Only one of us is claiming to be a "great scientist" and it isn't me. So, once again, show me the numbers.

OK, lets have a look at the OP "Because i2=-1, we can write a/i as a/-11/2. a is also sq.root(a2), or a2/2, so it is also a2/2/-11/2. Since a1/2/b1/2=(a/b)1/2, we can write this as (a2/-1)1/2, which is also equal to -a2/2. -a2/2 =a2/2i, or just ai." I'm just going to put it on a few lines and add notes to make it clearer Because i2=-1, we can write a/i as a/-11/2. OK, fair enough a is also sq.root(a2), or a2/2, There's where it gets ambiguous a isn't the only possible answer to that, it could be -a so it is also a2/2/-11/2. So -a is also = a2/2/-11/2. Since a1/2/b1/2=(a/b)1/2, we can write this as (a2/-1)1/2, The same problem again. You chose just one of the two possible values. Lets put in some numbers a1/2/b1/2=(a/b)1/2 Say a=64 and b =16 a/b is 4 unequivocally. But 64 1/2 is just as much+8 as it is -8 Similarly b1/2 is 4 or -4 depending on which choice you take and (a/b) 1/2 is +2 or -2 So, the two sides of this a1/2/b1/2=(a/b)1/2 can both be +2 or -2 And if one of them is (arbitrarily chosen to be) +2 while the other is (also arbitrarily chosen to be)-2 then they are clearly not the same. So you can not, in general, say that a1/2/b1/2=(a/b)1/2 At that point, your "proof" goes out of the window. So this last bit "which is also equal to -a2/2. -a2/2 =a2/2i, or just ai." also doesn't hold. Like I said at the outset, you took square roots without due care and attention.

Exactly which part of "show me the numbers" did you not understand?

If this was a scientific journal the OP wouldn't have got passed being laughed at by the editor, and possibly a few reviewers who the editor felt like cheering up. (at least, that's my opinion, but a friend of mine is an editor of a bioscience journal if you would like me to check the validity of the statement).

Use them and show us the numbers. Show us these "better answers" Incidentally, it may surprise you to realise that scientists have to work too. I'm typing this just before 7 a.m. before I go and catch a bus to work. If you find time to reply I will get to see it it in about eleven and a half hours when I get back home.

" My own theory is that light is energy that..." Fine. Use that theory (Strictly, it's a hypothesis, but... whatever) to calculate the expected outcomes of the experiments I have cited. Let us know if your theory gives better predictions than GR. Or stop wasting everyone's time.

" My difference in times is slightly slower than the Lorentz difference in times at that speed, but not enough to be considered consequential. How much "The scientists who built the system knew from experiment the rate of the clocks compared to rates of clocks on earth." How exactly, do you think they sent clocks into space or do you think they calculated the values? The point is that it doesn't matter. If they sent clocks into space and those gave the results predicted by GR then they demonstrated that GR gives the right answer. On the other hand, if the calculated the rate and then launched the clocks they validated GR anyway. This All I know is the incorrect information scientists give out. " simply doesn't make sense. " It does not matter what the rates of the clocks are, slow or fast. The Galilean transformation equations can describe those rates perfectly using them once for each rate of time. " ​Please show your working, rather than (as you have kept doing t) claiming it without any evidence.throughout this thread. Show me the numbers. Show me the numbers that work better than GR for this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment Show me the numbers that work better than GR for all of these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity Show me why your method gives the right answer and GR doesn't. Or stop wasting everyone's time.

""The use of logical fallacies to prove a point is prohibited." " What point was anyone seeking to prove? This "Ah dropbox, that well known repository for peer-reviewed papers." for example is a valid (albeit ironic) comment on peer review at drop box. It's offered as an unevinced assertion, but no as proof of anything. "For work that doesn't even meet the standards of vixra. (Wait, vixra has standards now?) " is similar. They may well have little scientific value, but they are still valid comment.

So what? The people who built them knew. They had to build them specially to count at the "wrong " rate so they would stay in step with clocks based on the Earth. And they could do that because GR works. If the engineers who built the GPS had followed your ideas would they have built the clocks to run at the same rate as they do on Earth? If they had done so the system would fail.

It is a logical fallacy to say "Because the Sun rose every morning for the last zillion years, it will rise tomorrow". But it's still a pretty good bet. It is also the same logical fallacy to say that, because the mass of an electron was (whatever) yesterday, it will have that value today. Experience permits us to judge what predictions can be made on past experience, and to what level of certainty.

Why do you think there's enough information when three people have pointed out that there isn't? If you are sure there's enough information, why not just answer the question? That would prove the point.

Just like C perfringens which causes gas gangrene. http://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/C._perfringens You really ought to stop assuming that your ideas are right. So, now that we have disposed of that idea (hopefully, once and for all). We can have another look at the other ideas you have put forward. "The sort of bio-agents and drugs I need for my approach are real enough." Then they are already the cure for cancer and your whole thread is redundant. And you seem to have missed this point: If your magic regimen of intensive care saves the patient- it will save the cancer too.